8 ms·

Cars are pretty safe, but I'm always a little shocked that we don't have governors built into cars with sane limits. How is it even possible to do 100mph and wh

Cars are pretty safe, but I'm always a little shocked that we don't have governors built into cars with sane limits. How is it even possible to do 100mph and why should that speed be allowed? Cars should top off at 75. Not to mention, why are cars dumb machines? If someone is going crazy fast in an area where there is no safe way to decelerate, then the car should not allow that speed to be reached. Freeway speeds should not be allowed when you're not on the freeway. The self-driving car isn't the solution here. Its too sci-fi, too out there, and no one can make it work with snow and rain right now. We middle a practical middle-ware nanny and we need one quick. We need a new Ralph Nader focused on intelligent safety systems and advocating for them to be law. We'll never stop drunks, but we might be able to stop drunks from performing fatal strikes. Its great that they caught the drunk, but that doesn't bring Mike back to life. Personally, I dont think we're getting to these self-driving cars without these kinds of baby steps. Best to start advocating them now, which will give us public support when fully automated cars are truly here.

sean-duffy 12y ago
You've answered your own question. Cars are dumb machines because we don't yet have the technology to judge what is "crazy fast" and make decision about where it should be allowed. Other than the obvious reasons of racing and car enthusiasts, there are legitimate reasons for a car to do 100mph. Often in emergency situations, you need to speed up rather than slow down to prevent an accident. If we start placing limits on people's cars, there will almost certainly be accidents caused by that, because the last thing you want in a situation where you need to react quickly is the car not doing what you want it to.
- VLM 12y ago
  WRT "Cars are dumb machines" I find it fascinating in this discussion that its assumed we can trivially deploy an AI smart enough to out drive a human, but nobody wants to talk about humans being so dumb they get drunk then go driving after decades of incessant propaganda and punishment. I don't think a species that can't stop drunks from driving stands a chance at creating an AI that can outdrive humans.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Stopping drunks from driving is a political/social problem, not a technical problem. IIDs have been around for a long time, but mandating their installation on every sold car is political suicide in most places (though it seems some countries like Sweden are considering it).
Chevalier 12y ago
Cars are very UNSAFE, for the record. [1] Self-driving cars will be better... but autonomous cars are SUCH an intellectually lazy progression from the status quo that I hope they won't happen. Rather than autonomous cars, we should be focusing on Taleb's antifragile solutions like walking and biking. This means the design of dense housing and walkable streets, and the removal of two-ton bullets that massacre children every day. I grew up in Los Angeles, so I'm aware of how alien the concept is of a walkable city to Californians. It wasn't until I moved to the East Coast and Europe that I realized other people don't need to drive ten miles to see friends or pick up dinner. If HN types don't recognize and question these car-dependent assumptions, there's no chance the rest of the country will. Nor would most Americans want to address the question. To accurately price vehicle traffic for real infrastructure costs (much less negative externalities or pigovian taxes) would absolutely devastate the value of car-dependent real estate... which is most of the country. I guess we'll just continue letting children and geniuses be killed. At best, self-driving cars will continue this horrible urban planning and somewhat lower the body count. It's a goddamn shame. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...
- rinon 12y ago
  Completely agree on your suggestions for urban areas. However, not everyone wants dense housing... Suburbs exist because people do not want to be that close to each other. Some people want to own their own yards/property/houses, have open space, and are willing to trade driving significantly more (with its associated dangers) for these features. People are going to create the kind of environment they want to live in, and we should figure out ways to make that environment better/safer, rather than dictating that everyone must live in (well-planned) urban environments.
  - Chevalier 12y ago
    Of course there's a place for suburbs, and I'm not opposed to the idea of less dense housing. Such housing can exist in the context of walkable neighborhoods with public transit, though. I think there's quite a bit of merit to firm city limits that prevent sprawl and car dependence. That said... if someone wants to live in exurbia, he should pay an appropriate amount to access amenities downtown. It's absurd that someone can pay $1500/month for a studio downtown, but only a few feet from his front door, anyone can drive a similarly-sized vehicle at hazardous speeds for free. Driving is essentially free in the US, despite enormous costs in terms of infrastructure and public space. That needs to change. If car-dependent exurbs must continue to exist, then we should at least make those exurbs responsible for their own costs rather than forcing urban residents to have their neighborhoods destroyed and then pay for the privilege.
cthalupa 12y ago
>Cars are pretty safe, but I'm always a little shocked that we don't have governors built into cars with sane limits. How is it even possible to do 100mph and why should that speed be allowed? Cars should top off at 75. Why is it even possible? Because a car that can't do 100mph is going to have terrible performance 0-75 There's long stretches of highways in rural areas with speed limits higher than 75 >Not to mention, why are cars dumb machines? If someone is going crazy fast in an area where there is no safe way to decelerate, then the car should not allow that speed to be reached. There are sometimes legitimate reasons to be going quickly. I have, at times, needed to have bursts of speed into the 90s to safely get around a drunk driver going 70. You're now asking for cars to behave unpredictably based on their determination of the road conditions. And you set the limiter to 75. Now someone is driving 75 in a 25. Most highway deaths are rural[1] and involve a single car - they veer off of narrow lanes into a ditch or trees, or hit a large animal. The difference in reaction time needed to avoid said animals or other obstructions is not that different from 75mph to 90mph - low visibility is the underlying problem there, not speed. The idea that we're suddenly safer on roads if we limit speeds is also not necessarily true. In 2013, German autobahns accounted for 31% of the countries traffic, yet only 13% of the deaths. They had a rate of 1.9 deaths per billion kilometers travelled, while urban roads had 4.7, and rural roads 6.6. I don't think there's really evidence to support the idea that limiting our cars to lower speeds will be beneficial. [1] http://www.npr.org/2009/11/29/120716625/the-deadliest-roads-are-rural http://www.npr.org/2009/11/29/120716625/the-deadliest-roads-...
- bottled_poe 12y ago
  >There are sometimes legitimate reasons to be going quickly. I have, at times, needed to have bursts of speed into the 90s to safely get around a drunk driver going 70. Not convinced by this one. Surely reducing the kinetic energy in this scenario is the safest course of action?
  - kabdib 12y ago
    As a motorcyclist, I have used bursts of speed to get out of sticky situations. The car that crashed into the guard rail behind me would have taken me out if I had slowed down. It's easy to second-guess.
grubles 12y ago
This probably isn't quite what you're looking for but, Ford MyKey exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyKey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyKey.
gohrt 12y ago
Luxury cars and some other cars have these collision avoidance features.

sean-duffy 12y ago

You've answered your own question. Cars are dumb machines because we don't yet have the technology to judge what is "crazy fast" and make decision about where it should be allowed. Other than the obvious reasons of racing and car enthusiasts, there are legitimate reasons for a car to do 100mph. Often in emergency situations, you need to speed up rather than slow down to prevent an accident. If we start placing limits on people's cars, there will almost certainly be accidents caused by that, because the last thing you want in a situation where you need to react quickly is the car not doing what you want it to.

VLM 12y ago
WRT "Cars are dumb machines" I find it fascinating in this discussion that its assumed we can trivially deploy an AI smart enough to out drive a human, but nobody wants to talk about humans being so dumb they get drunk then go driving after decades of incessant propaganda and punishment. I don't think a species that can't stop drunks from driving stands a chance at creating an AI that can outdrive humans.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Stopping drunks from driving is a political/social problem, not a technical problem. IIDs have been around for a long time, but mandating their installation on every sold car is political suicide in most places (though it seems some countries like Sweden are considering it).

Chevalier 12y ago

Cars are very UNSAFE, for the record. [1] Self-driving cars will be better... but autonomous cars are SUCH an intellectually lazy progression from the status quo that I hope they won't happen. Rather than autonomous cars, we should be focusing on Taleb's antifragile solutions like walking and biking. This means the design of dense housing and walkable streets, and the removal of two-ton bullets that massacre children every day. I grew up in Los Angeles, so I'm aware of how alien the concept is of a walkable city to Californians. It wasn't until I moved to the East Coast and Europe that I realized other people don't need to drive ten miles to see friends or pick up dinner. If HN types don't recognize and question these car-dependent assumptions, there's no chance the rest of the country will. Nor would most Americans want to address the question. To accurately price vehicle traffic for real infrastructure costs (much less negative externalities or pigovian taxes) would absolutely devastate the value of car-dependent real estate... which is most of the country. I guess we'll just continue letting children and geniuses be killed. At best, self-driving cars will continue this horrible urban planning and somewhat lower the body count. It's a goddamn shame. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...

rinon 12y ago
Completely agree on your suggestions for urban areas. However, not everyone wants dense housing... Suburbs exist because people do not want to be that close to each other. Some people want to own their own yards/property/houses, have open space, and are willing to trade driving significantly more (with its associated dangers) for these features. People are going to create the kind of environment they want to live in, and we should figure out ways to make that environment better/safer, rather than dictating that everyone must live in (well-planned) urban environments.
- Chevalier 12y ago
  Of course there's a place for suburbs, and I'm not opposed to the idea of less dense housing. Such housing can exist in the context of walkable neighborhoods with public transit, though. I think there's quite a bit of merit to firm city limits that prevent sprawl and car dependence. That said... if someone wants to live in exurbia, he should pay an appropriate amount to access amenities downtown. It's absurd that someone can pay $1500/month for a studio downtown, but only a few feet from his front door, anyone can drive a similarly-sized vehicle at hazardous speeds for free. Driving is essentially free in the US, despite enormous costs in terms of infrastructure and public space. That needs to change. If car-dependent exurbs must continue to exist, then we should at least make those exurbs responsible for their own costs rather than forcing urban residents to have their neighborhoods destroyed and then pay for the privilege.

cthalupa 12y ago

>Cars are pretty safe, but I'm always a little shocked that we don't have governors built into cars with sane limits. How is it even possible to do 100mph and why should that speed be allowed? Cars should top off at 75. Why is it even possible? Because a car that can't do 100mph is going to have terrible performance 0-75 There's long stretches of highways in rural areas with speed limits higher than 75 >Not to mention, why are cars dumb machines? If someone is going crazy fast in an area where there is no safe way to decelerate, then the car should not allow that speed to be reached. There are sometimes legitimate reasons to be going quickly. I have, at times, needed to have bursts of speed into the 90s to safely get around a drunk driver going 70. You're now asking for cars to behave unpredictably based on their determination of the road conditions. And you set the limiter to 75. Now someone is driving 75 in a 25. Most highway deaths are rural[1] and involve a single car - they veer off of narrow lanes into a ditch or trees, or hit a large animal. The difference in reaction time needed to avoid said animals or other obstructions is not that different from 75mph to 90mph - low visibility is the underlying problem there, not speed. The idea that we're suddenly safer on roads if we limit speeds is also not necessarily true. In 2013, German autobahns accounted for 31% of the countries traffic, yet only 13% of the deaths. They had a rate of 1.9 deaths per billion kilometers travelled, while urban roads had 4.7, and rural roads 6.6. I don't think there's really evidence to support the idea that limiting our cars to lower speeds will be beneficial. [1] http://www.npr.org/2009/11/29/120716625/the-deadliest-roads-are-rural http://www.npr.org/2009/11/29/120716625/the-deadliest-roads-...

bottled_poe 12y ago
>There are sometimes legitimate reasons to be going quickly. I have, at times, needed to have bursts of speed into the 90s to safely get around a drunk driver going 70. Not convinced by this one. Surely reducing the kinetic energy in this scenario is the safest course of action?
- kabdib 12y ago
  As a motorcyclist, I have used bursts of speed to get out of sticky situations. The car that crashed into the guard rail behind me would have taken me out if I had slowed down. It's easy to second-guess.

grubles 12y ago

This probably isn't quite what you're looking for but, Ford MyKey exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyKey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyKey.

gohrt 12y ago

Luxury cars and some other cars have these collision avoidance features.