I realise this is a nitpick, but:
> consumers are not willing to buy cars without radar, or washing machines without advanced sensors
What?
Am I that out of touch?
> consumers are not willing to buy cars without radar, or washing machines without advanced sensors
What?
Am I that out of touch?
You don't want a car with radar, but do want one with blind spot detection, cross traffic alerts, back up camera, traction control, ABS, collision prevention.
You don't want a washing machine with advanced sensors, but do want one with auto shut off, door locks, automatic tumble, balancing.
I do wonder whether those features train people to not be able to check a blind spot by turning their head, or just being more generally aware of their surroundings on a highway.
When I don't have to pay as much attention to my speed, distance to the car in front, etc I get to spend more time predicting what my fellow motorists are about to do in ways I know my car isn't able to easily compensate for.
What are you basing your predictions on if you don't even know the distance to the one in front of you?
It's really obvious which of the commenters in this thread haven't used a car with ADAS (like you). I don't mean that offensively. All the people here saying that ADAS makes driving safer aren't delusional idiots. As the HN rule says, perhaps we should accept others' opinions in good faith rather than shitting on tech we've never used.
To be fair, the weather's a bit wild here. But now I don't mind having traction control so much.
Which is a good idea because if such a safety feature remains optional, many people won't opt for it. Making them mandatory saves lives. But it also means that if you want your car to be sold in the EU, you must integrate these features, which means you need more chips.
> "Making them mandatory saves lives."
Alternatively: making them mandatory raises the price of new cars and pushes more consumers to buy used older cars, which are generally less safe for a variety of reasons & often worse for the environment.
Economics is always about tradeoffs. Not saying this one isn't worth it, but you're not getting a free lunch here.
source: have not bought a new car despite being in the market for one since 2020 because prices make it a bad decision. Have added an additional 20k miles to existing car.
Note that the price of the non-optional features is lower than if it were an optional feature thanks to economics of scale. So making them mandatory reduces the costs of the features.
Of course the car makers are strongly involved. Things where there is no potential to reduce price don't get mandated unless they are already cheap.
The current new car problems mean some people will be keeping old cars running a bit longer than normal, but all those cars are headed for scrap eventually. Eventually everyone will be jumping to newer cars.
On the other hand, making them mandatory makes cars more expensive, which means (especially during a shortage) that some can't afford them at all while the rest are forced to do without other things to compensate; either way it reduces their qualify of life. But of course the government knows better than those actually affected by these laws where the ideal balance lies between safety and QoL.
Not making them mandatory means they remain expensive extras, more expensive than if required on all cars. That means second hand cars with these features will be significantly more expensive than those without. Which means that some can never afford these features, while others have to do without other things to compensate. Either way, quality of life is reduced - and more than in your scenario, because the features do not benefit from economy of scale as much when they're optional.
If they were rare they might be more expensive, but otherwise it's the same system and will cost about the same amount to incorporate into a vehicle. Making it mandatory doesn't make it any cheaper. (Usually the opposite, in fact. From the POV of those manufacturing the safety systems, there's nothing quite like having the government mandate that people buy your product.)
Economy of scale is not guaranteed, or even really all that common once you get past early research and development or one-off custom products and into the realm of mass production. In general commodities become more expensive in response to higher demand, not less. If these systems are something most people actually want and consider worthwhile then they'll already have the benefit of any economy of scale which may apply without the mandate.
Mandatory safety features, on the other hand, are a direct example of a negative externality: Those wanting the safety features to be mandatory get what they want while other people bear the cost.
> That doesn't mean we paralyze ourselves with inaction or always prioritize marginal improvements to safety (even others' safety) over all other concerns.
Frankly I don't care if a (private) road owner wants to require specific safety equipment on the vehicles allowed on their roads. Their property, their rules. Other potential users of the roads can then decide whether they're willing to accept the residual risk. But that argument depends heavily on those who are being excluded (for lack of required safety equipment or low risk tolerance) not being forced to pay for those roads' construction and upkeep. It doesn't work for a government mandating systems to be installed on all vehicles, or for tax-funded roads.
You’re asserting strongly that the changes are marginal. And sure, the efficacy of the mechanism should be considered. But the point remains.
Your individualism is irrelevant.
That is, a touchscreen infotainment system in a car inevitably sucks, and takes away a bit of the "luxury" that a "luxury car" has.
At 19 years old he definitely is into retrotechnology, particularly when it comes to cars. He wants a boat car from the 1970s so he can get away from all the junk in modern cars.
Hope he enjoys getting single-digit miles per gallon, and you'll have to decide how you feel about him driving around in a car without modern junk like "airbags".
But where will he find the leaded gasoline to run it???
Of all the problems cars of that generation have the one that bugs me the most is poor rustproofing. You see people driving classic cars all the time in dry places like California and New Mexico but in Upstate NY road salt will eat a car like that alive if you drive it in the winter.
So if we got a boat we'd need a garage to keep it in and another car to be a driver in the winter.
The difference to modern cars is night and day: The Corolla rusts to death in five years, as in you can stick your whole arm through the holes in the wheel well if the structural integrity of the chassis doesn't fail first. Whereas most cars produced after 1990 will last about two decades without owner rustproofing.
You obviously can't dictate that all redox reactions will halt, but the manufacturers have absolutely done something that makes their cars rust slower.
The "end-user rustproofing" we do here generally consists of spraying some super-heavy, super-sticky oil-based coating onto the metal so it doesn't get wet. But this obviously complicates other maintenance.
The thing is I don't think manufacturer's like adding products like that as it messes with the fuel economy results. It's actually quite heavy, despite being just a "coating"
IIRC most manufacturers, at least in Europe, at some point started zinc galvanization, this prevents most rust from forming:
In any case, most of what I find is in German. Like here it states that premium manufacturers started using zinc galvanization in the 80s: https://www.seat.de/service-zubehoer/technik-lexikon/k/karos....
It also says it protects from rust despite abrasion.
Note that I live in an area where we salt the roads in winter. If you live in a dry desert old cars last a lot longer, and you might actually need to worry about your valves.
Also known as Land Yacht when they are also a luxury sedan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_yacht_(automobile)
Real-world examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Mark_series
I want "dumb" devices that just do what their main goals are.
I have a "dumb" fridge, a "dumb" washing machine and even a "dumb" TV that is basically a big screen with some HDMI connectors.
Is is ok if in 2022 we don't actually want those smart devices ?
A dumb washing machine that doesn't sense the amount of clothes to pick the right amount of water: What is it, 1972 still?
That said, I'd still drive an old beater. It's just that when I shell out for a new thing, it's because I want the new features.
I want airbags, anti-lock brakes, adaptive suspension, intermittent wipers, and a back-up camera. I don't need the rest. I even fear some of the rest. (Remote hackability is not a feature!)
Same but even more for a washing machine. I don't need advanced sensors. I don't need my washing machine to hang out on the internet. It's not a celebrity with its own blog, it's just there to wash my clothes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnStar
I always wanted to make a spoof of the GM ads that promoted OnStar for "safety". That is, a white collar criminal is heading for the hydrofoil with suitcases crammed with cash and the FBI calls up OnStar to track the vehicle and turn off the ignition.
https://hothardware.com/news/bidens-infrastructure-bill-mand...
The law to make cameras mandatory was named after: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rear-view-cameras-la...
I don't know if the solution is fewer sensors or more sensors, but the way it fills the bowl feels like watching an episode of Monk. And not the ones where his OCD is cute, the ones where it ends up costing him dearly.
200 mm is frisbee size.
We probably are out of touch. There is a reason so much marketing is about listing all of the features a product has, it works.