Posted on 04/30/2024 8:03:47 AM PDT by linMcHlp
“Part of how I think we’re going to turn the corner on the unacceptable level of roadway deaths that we just lived with for my entire lifetime is through these kinds of technologies,” said Buttigieg, who is 42.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
Now your car will refuse to go if a mob wants to kill you.
Another reason to just buy and restore older vehicles.
Yes! BRAKING NEWS
My 2018 Subaru has it. I can’t remember it ever false alarming on me. It saved me from a minor wreck once though.
It’s already a standard feature on most new cars, especially with cruise control. What they want is something else entirely, the ability to stop your car remotely. They want to control everyone. We’ve all seen drivers going what we believed to be exceedingly fast and that image is what they are playing into here. That guy going 100 MPH and weaving lanes etc. But if traffic is flowing fine at 75-80 mph I don’t have a problem with drivers keeping pace. Slower drivers should move the right - that used to common courtesy. The lane changes around slower cars are more dangerous than the speed on an open road or in flowing traffic.
And here again the government is getting in the way of technology- they are not helping. FSD - Full Self Drive is here now and it’s very good. It will get a lot better in not a long time. Cars will communicate with each other and make their intentions known. “I need to move right to exit” “I need to merge left to catch the interstate” “I’m going to pass you on the left” etc and the traffic will adjust to accommodate every car’s needs well in advance. They will break on their own already if they have to but really they will have great situational awareness and traffic jams will diminish as will risks. Putting automatic braking may sound like a public good but it’s really a very ignorant understanding of what is developing.
Braking for safety is a good feature to help a distracted driver or to react faster in cases of emergency. Braking because the sign says 55 and you’re going 60 is a bad idea and will just make traffic worse.
“The rest of us peasants will have to walk or ride bicycles.”
You might be missing the most wished one by the government...take the bus.
wy69
“The rest of us peasants will have to walk or ride bicycles.”
You might be missing the most wished one by the government...take the bus.
wy69
"US to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years and set performance standards"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
To begin with, braking vehicles on icy roads can lead to major problems.
Also, I understand that at least some of the automated features of Elon Musk's EVs were known to cause some potentially serious problems.
I also understand that Apple shelved development of smart cars because current technology is not safe enough enough, correction welcome.
Also, federal government Democrats and RINOs stealing and abusing state powers to try to win votes to stay in power is also a major problem.
More specifically, Justice Joseph Story had volunteered a few example lists of things that, although intimately (Story's word) related to commerce, were not be be regarded as part of Congress's Commerce Clause powers. One of the main things that Story emphasized was manufactures, manufactured goods, Congress having no power to tell manufactures how to build their products.
"The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures [all emphases added]? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments." —Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2:§§ 1073--91
"The power to regulate manufactures is no more confided to congress [emphasis added], than the power to interfere with the systems of education, the poor laws, or the road laws of the states." —Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2, 1833.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
So misguided Buttigieg probably doesn't have the technology, certainly not the constitutional authority, to say what he said about automatic emergency braking.
No, because the car behind you will have auto braking.
And the car behind him.
Chiropractors will be rich because of all the whiplash.
“Pumping the brakes is actually the wrong method for anti-lock brakes. It’s good for non-anti-lock braking systems. But it can actually prevent the anti-locks from working properly and cause a longer stopping distance.”
And is exactly why I disabled all of my cars antilock brakes.
I know how to drive and don’t need the nanny-state telling me what to do.
**************
Well the USA is going to have to fine a way
to stop the illegals crossing the border or we
will be run over worse than now. But then
country has been under newcomers ever
since Columbus sailed in 1492.
“That said, AEB is one of the great advances in automotive safety, on the same scale as seat belts and then airbags”
I agree with that, and also with your opinion that it shouldn’t be a government mandate. Seems like most drivers would want it.
A friend’s Rivian automatically slows down to avoid a collision. You can tell it to follow a car at a specified distance from it.
My wife and son both have CRV’s. My wife’s is about a 2018 too. My son’s is a 2022.
My son’s has the Eco drive that shuts the engine OFF when you come to a stop. It then restarts it when you press the gas pedal to go again. Presumably to save fuel. However, it seems to me that it would cause excessive wear on the starter system.
On my wife’s older version you can turn this off and it stays OFF. In the newer version you have to turn it off EVERY TIME you start the car.
I'd say it's based on more than that. It's based on wisdom and life experience.
I work in a professional field that requires me to deal with things like motor vehicle safety on a regular basis. In fact, whenever an agency within the USDOT issues a regulation like this one, I am often asked by my clients for advice on how they should respond during the public comment period for all Federal regulations.
I can tell you right now that "full self drive" is not anywhere close to implementation. If anything, the auto industry and government regulators are going backwards and taking a good, hard look at just how feasible it is.
Automated braking tied to cruise control systems is a perfect example of an idiotic application of technology. It's just too sensitive and incorporates too large a margin of safety to be effective. Go out on a highway and set your cruise control at 70 mph. It works fine until you approach another vehicle, at which point it automatically slows the car down. The problem is that it leaves too much distance between you and the car in front of you. So another car comes along and merges (SAFELY) into your lane in front of you. The automatic braking system immediately slows you down even further to get you back to the large buffer distance it has built in. Another car comes along and merges into your lane -- etc., etc.
The newest car I own has this stupid automatic braking system. I disabled it every time I used the cruise control. The best thing that ever happened is that the radar detectors went bad, so the system stopped working anyway.
This is the type of "partial automation" that is a non-starter in the automotive world. A vehicle and a highway system can be either fully automated, or not automated at all except in very limited circumstances (cruise control and automated parallel parking, perhaps). Otherwise, the automotive world has to deal with an inherent flaw that makes automation completely impractical: Drivers either trust it too much, or they don't trust it at all.
See Post #6. If your "great advance in automotive safety" results in a 0.9% reduction in auto fatalities, then it sounds like you've been working with automotive technology that is comparable to COVID shots at best.
The problem is that it leaves too much distance between you and the car in front of you.
And you mention the radar detectors going bad. How easy/cheap is that going to be to fix?
Requiring this in new cars just drives up the price. More stupidity from the first Transportation Secretary whose name everyone seems to know.
AEB isn’t free obviously. But I believe auto insurers have been offering discounts for a while based on the data (it’s been out there a decade or more). So I would favor getting it if for no other reason than as a cost-savings, and I’m the sort who usually wants an absolute minimum of features (less stuff to go wrong and fix later).
As a rule I don’t trust government officials, but this would be a case where I think he’s relying on overly conservative estimates. I don’t have a link handy, but that sounds substantially too low. I expect auto insurance rates (and savings offered to those with AEB) will tell the real story.
Never go full retard.
And ever more complex equipment standards are just a way for Democrats to feel good about themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.