Republicans Complain That Cars Have Become Too Safe, Say It Must Be Reversed
https://futurism.com/future-society/republicans-car-regulation-safetyOpen linkView original on lemmy.zip664
Comments214https://futurism.com/future-society/republicans-car-regulation-safetyOpen linkView original on lemmy.zip
Furthering that they are indeed not the "Pro-Life" party but instead the "Pro-Birth" party.
Agree but starting to even wonder about that. I've never seen them do anything that benefits births let alone even celebrate it. Seems to be "Pro-Misery especially at others expense".
That's where the "the cruelty is the point" expression comes from
"Forced-birth" party
"Brood-mares for more mine yearners" party
Remember, their cars are the gaint Yukons with a convoy of body guards aren't safe enough. But your car. It could literally be a gascan strapped to tricycle for all they care.
Time to mandate every car's steering column has a 1.5ft razor sharp spike sticking out of it.
Takata did nothing wrong.
This is kinda misleading, the complaint is that cars are too expensive. They're not saying cars should be less safe, just that the extra safety isn't worth the financial cost.
(Still not a good position to take in my opinion)
That's par for the course for Republicans. Are things too expensive? Let them be shittier so they are cheaper.
And the act all surprised when they just get shittiee, but not cheaper.
Then it becomes shittier but the price stays the same while the manufacturer pockets the difference.
and then they buy tacky, gaudy expensive things.
Yeah, and the thing is I'd be a lot more receptive to that argument if they were willing to support funding the sort of road and transit infrastructure that actually make cars less dangerous.
Its not misleading. They could cut costs in multiple areas, but specifically chose safety.
I'd have to argue that cars are less safe when there is a giant tablet bolted to the dash and every setting is buried in menus.
I think we're finally past the peak of tablet-ification of car dashboards. A lot of manufacturers have finally realized people hate it and newer models are putting all crucial functions on buttons and only putting infotainment stuff on the tablet.
See Tesla front end crash stats.
Swipe..swipe...submenu, press...swipe...crash.
Yeah. Right wing positions are wrong enough without the constant, panicky extremification of them that goes on. It’s not really persuasive to anyone when we distort these positions and then crow about how bad they are. It’s all just part of the outrage-engagement complex that is rapidly rotting all our brains.
You're assuming what they're saying is true. Many other countries have those same safety features without their cars costing nearly as much
it's not misleading, it's pointing out the GOPs actual position, which is to reduce costs that the manufacturer can't avoid to save them money. If safety regs are gutted, manufacturers get to keep the prices the same, but make more money. If instead more regulations are put in that necessitate reducing costs in other areas it will just cost the manufacturers money.
Have they considered moving to a place with better public transportation?
Safety is basically self-certified in the US. What evidence is there that the extra cost is related to safety?
I understand that Republicans are often prohibited by their own belief systems to look at the profit margins of the things they occasionally pretend to want to make affordable, but in the US that's exactly where a lot of the problem lies.
You can argue with the evidence if you want to but it is offered right there, at the top of the article.
The amount of lives saved isn't what I was interested in. I was interested in the purportedly added cost. US car safety regulations are toothless compared to the EU. That's partially why our roads are filled with monster truck sized pedestrian flatteners.
I see - so you’re arguing with the Republican premise that safety features add cost. It seems obvious that more features will add some cost, but how much is the question. The number of lives saved is also pretty important to understanding that cost, I would add.
Naturally the GOP are trying to deflect general economic outrage at Democrats and “nanny state” regulators any way they can.
Yeah I question it especially because they tend to state shit like this sans evidence, and people just believe them because they are the "small government, fiscal responsibility" themed party.
You're actually right though that lives saved would be part of the economic calculation if they were doing it, which they are not.
Clearly not the onion. My right wing father (not Republican because we are not American and he's technically a monarquist) complains that cars are too expensive due to the mandatory security features. Features that he has on his fully equipped Porsche because he wants to be safe, obviously.
as someone from the country where porsche is native and where it owns their own political party.. owning a porsche is one of the clearest signs one can send that they are a massive asshole lol
That's true in other countries too. Or a bmw.
bmw is like every fourth car here. you can joke they come without turn signals but its just a run of the mill car brand for all kinds of people
only a certain kind of personality gets a porsche
That tracks in America too, but a better example here is pickup trucks.
There a similar effect with Mercedes in the US: they mainly export their high-end cars here, not their economy cars. Therefore Americans associate the entire brand with rich assholes. It’s true enough within the US, but may not hold outside it.
This is the only excuse for the massive inflation of new car prices vs. rate of wage increases over the decades. I will give auto engineers props for this accomplishment; cars are so much safer now than 30 years ago.
Dont sleep on either "many new cars are electric" or "cars last a fuckton longer".
Per-capira "total cost of ownership" for a car from purchase to retirement hasnt increased nearly as much as first-sale price would suggest. (Though the "financing cost" of the one-or-more transactions is a separate matter.)
Never buy new. Let someone else deal with the frequent hassle of getting all the problems fixed "under warranty" while the lemons get sent to salvage. Give me the vehicles that survive. Case in point, I bought my first car for $500, drove it for 24 years, and the biggest age-related expense was rebuilding the front end for $600. I sold the car in 2011 for $1000. I bought my current SUV in 2009 and the biggest mechanical failures have been replacing the power steering pump and the 4WD short axles.
I had a friend who insisted he needed to spend all his money buying new cars. He tried to tell me how much money he was saving because the dealership was fixing all the problems for free. I pointed out that he had barely even driven his new car because it was spending more time at the dealership every week or two and he was constantly wasting his own time taking it back for yet another problem.
Good advice, though not really germane to the topic.
Somebody has to buy the new cars for there to be used cars for you to buy, and the price you offer has to be more valuable to them than the car they're selling.
FWIW, A good argument for buying new isn't "look what the dealer's fixing", but rather "I don't want hidden surprises". Private party sales can very much be caveat emptor, and even getting a dealership to stand by their claims can be unprofitable.
That's what rich people are for -- to suffer for the benefit of the working class.
For the high end. Sure.
And poor, financially illiterate people buy up the low end.
But who buys the middle?
Imo that the sweet spot for leases. People who want modern safety/reliability/warranty, and resigned themselves to the fact that they'll always have a car payment if they prioritize these things.
What year was that? I don't believe a $500 car would last 24 more years. These days you can't even buy a 24 year old car for $500
It was a '74 Pontiac LeMansthat I bought in 1987. And sorry, I did forget about one thing... I had to replace the transmission a couple times, but back then you could get them from a junkyard for cheap, and it only took a couple hours to replace. Probably would have lasted a lot longer if I'd taken the time to rebuild the clutches though. Of course it's not like you can drive any vehicle forever, there was the maintenance as things like bushings and alternators wore out. For this discussion though I don't count things that you have to do on any vehicle with 300k miles on it. Everything wears out eventually, and yeah even the motor was starting to smoke by that time.
Yeah kinda burying the lede on this. Cars built in the 70s had a much more simple, serviceable construction.
By the time you let it go, it was also probably grandfathered in to emissions requirements because it's a classic car.
Anything from the 90s- 2010 will not hold up like that one did.
My secondhand 1999 Crown Victoria went 284000 miles over 19 years. I had to put some work into it, but when I traded the car in, everything still worked, minus the trunk lock (super glued by frat boys) and the driver door handle (snapped off in my hand, twice, replaced with channel locks clamped onto the remaining nub).
I mean, my SUV is a 2004 and seems to be holding up pretty well. I give it full synthetic oil and take it off-road occasionally, so it gets a wide range of treatment. Maybe I'm just not as bothered as other people are by the occasional bit of maintenance. I just replaced the thermostat this Fall, which was certainly a lot harder than on the old car because this one is buried down along the side of the engine, but it was still a pretty simple job.
The cheapest car I ever owned was listed on Craigslist for $1,000 but I managed to talk it down because it had a broken fuel gauge, only lasted me about a year. It was a 1993 Dodge Dakota, so we're in OBD1 era here. I'm currently driving a late 90s Honda with almost 300,000 miles, it burns oil but it's still drives fine. I'm going to drive it until it dies and then hopefully I'll have enough money to buy something on Craigslist. In my experience $500 would only buy you a mechanic's special. I first got my driver's license in the 2010s and I live on the west coast, if that makes any difference
Electric cars are still kinda expensive because they are new, and not yet the majority. But wow they are going to be so much cheaper in the long run. Fewer parts and easier maintenance. It’s surprising how much longer something lasts when it doesn’t need to contain numerous miniature explosions per second.
Everything is a special model these days which makes the price higher. You don't see mid range, average cars anymore.
Don't forget CAFE abuse. It incentivizes the boom of CUVs and SUVs we have now, and makes it challenging to have a good coupe/sedan platform. Pretty much killed the 3-door/5-door wagon, imo the superior car.
Instead of patching over the rising costs, maybe we can move to living in communities that aren't so dependent on such a costly, depreciating asset for every home?
How dare you suggest we consider living more efficiently as a society. Straight to jail.
You mean the group of people that are okay with schools being used for target practice thinks cars are too safe?! I am shocked.
Car Companies: "the regulations are so big and heavy and workers cost so much munnies. Pls let us do less QA on the vehicles mandatory to live in america."
Republicans: "CRUSH MORE CHILDREN, who would dare inconvenience these poor sweet automotive corporations?!"
Anyone paying attention: "Yall know aside from oil companies, car companies are the most ridiculously subsidized companies on earth?"
Who would have thought that the Orphan Crushing Machine was just a stock Ford F-150 this whole time?
That's not realistic. You want to grind up that soft flesh first.
Replace seat belts with piano wire and make air bags with 50x the explosive charge but replace the airbag with ball bearings.
Ford pinto
Funny thing about the Pinto....most US cars were made with that gas tank design and the Pinto had about the same number of fires from rear collision.
Yup pinto accounted for almost 2% of cars on the road and just about 2% of fatalities due to fire. Plus it has a way smaller death rate per car due to fire than the cyber truck. Sold over 3 million cars and there were 27 fire deaths. I think the cyber truck fire deaths are in the 5-10 range for roughly 20 thousand sold.
Ah yes the Tullock Spike
Exactly! Except I make Lemmy shitposts for shits and giggles and am not an "economics professor" who needs to be taken seriously and never gets invited to parties.
Millions dead? Are you crazy? 3 months of my 2 point auto safety plan and everyone will drive very very carefully all the time! I'm SAVING LIVES!
Reads as rather blantant satire to me. Perhaps you're the weird one weirdy.
Natural selection has been removed. Now republicans are trying to reintroduce it.
They'll (mainly) be the ones affected. I say let it happen.
Then again, I don't like most people.
The article is saying that one of the main things they are trying to axe is Automatic Emergency Braking requirements, and it links to a page with this video. The people in the biggest vehicles will be mostly fine I think, it's everyone else that's in trouble here.
Jesus fuck! What the fuck is it with these fuckers!?!? really? Cars are too safe!??! WTF?
I am guessing they want to deregulate the safety laws so that they can take the money that they spend on it and stick it into their pockets and still keep the price of cars the same!
American safety standards have led to an insane game of cat an mouse wherein I need my car to be bigger to keep me safe. But my bigger car is more dangerous to you. So you need a bigger car to protect yourself from my dangerously large car. But now I need a bigger car to protect me from your giant car.
And 30 years later everyone is driving around a 60 thousand dollar crumple zone so tall it can't see pedestrians over the hood and needs a 6 liter engine just to move.
Same for child seats. Planning on having 3 kids under 10? Better plan on a truck or van with a 3rd row, because somehow, you can't fit seats 3 small children in the back seat of a family sedan or crossover.
Is it really the safety standards? I thought it was a combination of all the stupid "truck" exceptions and our equally stupid culture where the iamverybadasses choose their 3-ton grocery and kindergarten shuttles out of fear because they want to "win" any collisions.
There's no one thing. I'm sure everyone is trying to game regulations.
But, I'd wager a Honda Civic is not getting a truck exceptions. Yet a 2025 Honda Civic is 20% wider and 25% longer than a 1978. The weight has gone from 800 kilos to over 1400.
Crumple zones need space to crumple into. Side curtain airbags require bulkier pillars. Impact beams need space making bodies wider. Instead of a sheet metal box on a chassis we have a frame reinforcing the entire cabin. We need room for crushable hood braces and plastic engine shrouds for when we hit pedestrians. It's all good stuff, but you have to buy an inch or two for this, an inch or two for that...
Eventually a 2025 Honda Civic is both longer and wider than a 1990 Toyota Hilux pickup.
Ah, yeah it's affected everything across the board. But with the US context and you talking about giant vehicles, $60K vehicles, and 3 rows, I thought we were focused on the larger end of the population as a whole.
I bet the crash safety design of the current honda civic was definitely influenced by the truck regulations and that whole market driving the large end even larger.
Funny enough, I am eagerly awaiting the official announcement of the 2026 MX-5 of all cars.
pretty sure a lot of that is due to american's needs to pack a bunch of stuff into their car. we prioritize cabin space. European cars meet the same safety standards and yet aren't nearly as large.
Not as large but still growing.
This
I agree with you that this has happened, but it is far from the only reason that vehicles have increased in price. Now almost every vehicle comes with power windows, power locks, power mirrors, at least one if not multiple built in tv screens, wireless locks and keyless ignitions. Not to mention alot of manufacturers building in computer hardware/software to track user information and installing propietary parts/hardware/software designed to keep your local mechanic from doing repair work and forcing you to use dealership mechanics at 3-4 times the cost.
All of it is being done because it makes more money. Mark my words, if they repeal safety regulations, it will definitely reduce the safety of our vehicles, but it will have little to no effect impact on prices. I would wager my left nut that auto manufacturers are chomping at the bit to get this deregulation put through so they can reduce their cost of vehicles by increasing the danger of the consumer, but wont reduce the prices by a fraction of what they are "saving," then will proceed to have record profits while using lobbyists to pay off our crooked politicians.
I noticed the current admin has contempt for anything that benefits the common man, and is looking for financial excuses to remove any "subsidy" type of regulation that could be protecting people from dying for the crime of being poor and/or having weak genes
Yay capitalism, right?
"On a long enough time line, everyone's survival rate drops to zero."
The really sad thing is your bigger car isn't even really safer for you. It's just cheaper for the manufacturers (since they can classify it as a truck which has less strict safety and efficiency regulations) and a danger to others.
Cars can never be too safe. What I want is a car with no computers or telemetry whatsoever. I want a car that is private with how I use it. Like what they were pre 2000s. Just a hunk of metal to go from point A to point B.
As long as you don't get a touring bike, most motorcycles don't track you.
cars like that already exist. you can't afford them.
Besides kit cars or deliberately older designed cars like a Morgan Stanley, what modern cars have no driver tracking? The only one I'm aware of is the Slate EV.
I have a 2012 Nissan Leaf in Australia. It uses the 2G network for all telemetry. Australia just turned off the 3G network.
I think its pretty safe to say the telemetry does not work anymore.
Agreed, but a 13 year old Nissan leaf is rather old at this point (which is a good thing!), and is affordable. The person I was responding to implied that there are current production cars without tracking, but they are just unaffordable to most, which I found confusing, as I struggle to come up with a modern current production vehicle that doesn't track the user regardless of it being basic affordable transportation or a Ferrari.
Those cars were absolutely more dangerous than the ones on the road now.
True self-driving cars would be the epitome of safety, because humans are the most common reason for failure in most systems.
Edit: people seem to think I'm endorsing the use of a telescreen.. I mean infotainment system, in cars. That's not what's happening. Safety technology in cars and spyware in cars are two separate discussions. It's a fact that vehicles today are safer than they were 20 years ago due in part to advancements in safety technology.
And a fully autonomous vehicle would need all of the sensors and processing to be local, so there's really no need for the Internet to be involved at all.
I'd 100% trust a purpose built system that can do millions of sensor reading and calculations a second with a full 360° view more than I would a human who can get tired, intoxicated, distracted, or bored. The technology just isn't there yet.
Do those safety features need extensive geolocation storing data and constantly listening to me and monitoring everything I do and keeping it on record?
No? Then remove the monitoring part. I also don't care one bit for the infotainment crap.
I never said anything about extensive geolocation, storing data, or constantly listening. What are you on about? Most safety sensors aren't connected to the infotainment system.
Putting advanced safety technology in a car and putting spyware in a car are two different conversations.
OK I think we're having some miscommunication here.
When I say I want a private car and no computers, I was referring to data storage and telemetry and geolocation communication. Perhaps I was wrong to say 'no computers' since the sensors and LIDARs and automated warnings require some computers. So to be specific, I do not want computers with persistent data storage. I read about a case in Canada where the police seized a vehicle's blackbox after a car crash and they mentioned that the blackbox only stored data for 5 seconds (which is enough time to get information on a car crash) and no more, and it does not contained any stored data about the owner or driver of the car and their driving habits/location history. I can actually live with that.
We absolutely can have cars with as much privacy as the old hunks of metal of old without sacrificing the safety aspects. Of course there are tons of other privacy invading things when you are driving a car. Automated license plate readers and traffic cameras and cameras all over the place, but having the shit removed from within the car is important.
The infotainment is still shit I would get rid of. I don't want it.
The difference in safety over the last 20 years is nothing compared to the difference in safety over the 20 years before that, and again in the 20 years before that. We've pretty much plateaued as far as (occupant) safety goes. We've somewhat regressed as far as other road useres' safety goes...
They aren't even save for anyone outside the vehicle, to the point that death are increasing already. not just bikes video
I watched this, and was surprised to see this article. Like what timing on both ends.
Ah yes, it's safety that makes newer cars expensive you see. Not the wireless key-fobs, power seats, built in ipad to replace the perfectly fine knobs and buttons, autonomous driving features...
From what I've heard the lack of buttons is actually a cost saving measure, if you put in an infotainment system anyway
Thank god EU is starting to get involved in the matter.
For now it is only that cars only get a 5 star safety rating when they include buttons for a few things form 2026.
I hope there will be laws that follow after.
Yeah, good buttons are ridiculously expensive
That's a whole extra half cent per car.
You're vastly underestimating prices of car parts, even for manufacturers, even bought in bulk.
yeah i worked at a vehicle manufacturer a while ago as they were expanding into a new market with a budget model, and getting rid of all the non-critical buttons was very high priority for cost. not only do you save on materials directly, you can remodel the entire driving area which means you can redesign the safety features. less shit in the dashboard means less debris that needs to be crash-tested.
I didn’t even think about the crash testing angle that makes a lot of sense
That might be true as I haven't looked into it in detail. Though even then, if the goal is to make cars more affordable, there's lots of other features you can cut down on that has nothing to do with safety
And nobody is selling the basic no frills subcompact cars in the US anymore
What the fuck is with this title? This has zero to do with being "too safe" and everything to do with cost. Inflammatory title.
That said, I highly doubt any cost that's saved on the car makers side will be passed down to the consumer.
Obviously not. They don't want to bring prices down, they want to bring profits up. Representatives and senitors don't give a shit about your safety in a car, but do care a lot about the big three car manufacturers stock buyback options. We're less than worthless. We're annoying voters they don't need anymore, compated to a stock but back you're a nuisance.
while yes, it is an inflammatory title, it's kind of the reverse of what the republicans are doing, which is phrasing that cars are too expensive in order to gut safety regs that cost car manufacturers money rather than make them money.
My siblings in sin, American cars and street scapes are dangerous for everyone.
This is correct. They will be cheaper. The question is not how much money is spent, but it is what you get for that money.
I'm sure if we get rid of all food safety laws there will be cheaper food available as well. It will make manufacturing much easier.
Likewise, if we eliminate the EPA and the huge amount of environmental protection laws we have, manufacturing will be much cheaper and feasible to do in the USA.
Chesterton's Fence remains in effect, as ever. Fiddle with these rules at your own risk. Consequences don't care about your feelings and the universe will make sure to pay you back.
But the prices won't go down. Reductions in production costs are only reflected in sale prices when there's a market force driving the costs down. Right now, people have to own cars, and the barriers to entry into the matlrket are too high for new competitors. There's no reason for the auto manufacturers to lower prices if their costs go down. They can just pocket the difference.
They'll get rid of the safety mechanisms to make the cars cheaper... to produce.
But you and me will still pay the same prices.
Because its corporate profits they are concerned about, not personal savings.
They may be cheaper, but they won't be THAT much cheaper to make.
Maybe if American "cars" were actually car sized, they would need a lot less material to be made, and require a less powerful cheaper motor to move all that metal around.
I agree with them whole heartedly. When they remove seat belts, they need to be the first to become a pavement puddle.
I'd really recommend the 99% Invisible episode "The nut behind the wheel". Its about the evolution of car safety features and how automakers were reluctant to implement safety features, because it implied that driving was an unsafe activity.
For the passenger? Very safe.
For the pedestrians that get hit? Ha! They're literally death machines. At this point, I'm surprised we're not putting spikes on the front of the car Mad Max style to ensure the pedestrians' death.
Y'all can buy these right now.
Saw these idiotic rims on a smol penis indicator the other day.
I like to call them "Plus Sized" they get much more annoyed than calling them small pp mobiles
Dead cyclists and pedestrians less likely to sue.
These certainly do have a use on freight trucks but not your urban crawler tho. They help identify loose and rotating lugs and give you a little means to know when you're too close to a curb. Plus as you drive you can shred other people's tires.
Edit: these being the silver spikes not the ghetto push on hubcaps
Give credit where credit is due. Death race 2000 came out 4 years before mad max.
If you want cheaper cars, that's easy: drop the tariffs on Chinese cars and let them flood the market. Now you have cheap cars and your car makers are dead.
Or you can just announce that if the car average price has not dropped by N % by 202x, you will drop the tariff, and see that your local carmaker are perfectly capable of proposing cheaper vehicles.
And in parallel, given you figure people can no longer afford cars due to salary crunch by inflation, you can develop public transportation.
Oh well… except if the whole thing is just an excuse to deregulate for the benefits of your rich and powerful CEO pals and their shareholders…
I say YES!
GOLF CARTS FOR EVERYONE !!!
Cheap, light, small, no computer, natural airflow, what else?
This but without the sarcasm lol.
I'm 100% for light electric vehicles.
Golf cart is for the lol but it really checks all cases and for now all LEV are no more than fancy expensive golf carts, see Citroen Ami or la Bagnole.
Really hope to see more of those things riding the streets. Maybe in the future, cars will be banned from cities and let in the large open spaces where it belongs (where trains can't go), and those LEV will complete the offer for inner city transportation in the form of short time rentals, like scooters and bikes do currently.
I wonder if the donald has a specially designed golf cart with a gas powered engine. I can't believe that he daily drives an ev
I mean there are still just lots of gas powered golf carts around.
Republicans wake up in the morning trying to write down that idea in their dream where they hurt people and made money.
Yes Ted Cruz I totally believe that if they got rid of these Safety Systems cars would magically get cheaper. No one should doubt that for a second Ted Cruz. There's no way they'll just get rid of the safety system and then pocket the extra the proceeds. Ted Cruz would never be for that I'm sure.
If we took every conservative on the planet and put them on an island together, how long do you think it would take before the cannibalism and incest kicked in?
Lol you're assuming they aren't doing that now?
It would start before they got dropped off.
Holy moly this has literally become reddit.... fuckin hell.
Because of anti-right wing rhetoric?
Are you aware that Lemmy was originally built by people who wanted a more open and free alternative to Reddit so they could discuss Marxist-Lennism and communism and stuff? Lol
That's my understanding, at least
You are partially right. But the world does not revolve around left wing and communist beliefs unfortunately. It was purely to have an decentralized social network. Just happens that the likes of the left have much more free time and want to make every single thing about politics for some reason.
It's almost like your on a thread about right wingers wanting to deregulate safety features. I can't believe the lefties are complaining about that! How stupid I was to make a thread with "REPUBLICANS" political!
Not making it political, acting superior from a safe space... Do you honestly think republicans would become canibals on an island? Because if you do. Your world view has gotten so dettached from reality that it's scary.. thinking of other people as sub human.
Nothing you said makes sense, retype your comment and try once more. I know it's tough bud.
Yeah sorry hard to communicate to you in my secondary language well enough I'll make it a list ao it makes it easier to convey...
Anything else I need to shed light on?
I've been seeing a lot of weird culture war coverage around this, even more than usual these days. Big fan of cheap, simple, accessible technology and tools. Cars are tools. Less components and less complexity means they are cheaper to produce and maintain. Bring back the econobox, the car I'm hype for is the electric equivalent of a 94 Corolla
I've always thought an electric 94 Ranger would be pretty dope.
Heck yeah, plenty of room for batteries down low under the bed and it'd help out with the mini truck achilles's heel of poor traction unloaded. I've thought about a conversion like that a lot too, rwd only would be easy
Also, cars that are excessively safe for their occupants tend to make them deadlier to other road users.
Buy motorcycles. Problem solved.
Motorcycles now all have TFT screens and a variety of computer-controlled riding aids.
"All" of them most certainly do not. You can still go buy a brand new XR650L right now that not only does not have any electronic rider aids whatsoever, it has no electronics other than its spark ignition system. Never mind a TFT dash. It still has a mechanical speedometer, driven by a rotary cable.
Electronic features on bikes are becoming more available, for sure, but if you really want to they're dead easy to avoid.
Anyway, I was thinking of the safety aspect. If Republicans say the want cheap and less safe vehicles, motorcycles already fit the bill.
Tbh, it would be kind of nice if sensors weren’t put in easily damaged areas of cars. They’re part of why bumpers and tailgates are so much more expensive. I wonder if cars could have all the safety features using a couple little LIDAR and camera packages instead of chips on every piece of plastic.
My question is, why does the sensor cost so much? 🤔
Well you take a 30¢ sensor and put a GM part number on it and magically poof it costs $300.
Yep I've recently learned that a crushed bumper can total a car, there's thousands of dollars of electronics in there somehow, it's insane. I miss that car.
that's totaling from an insurance perspective, not from a repairability perspective. if somehow your bumper cost more than like 70% of the car's value then you had a decently old car which would have required very specific parts to fix.
Definitely Not The Onion material. Heck, you could almost convince me that this is The Onion.
The Onion ate the GOP.
Ah yes, it's definitely the regulations that are making those costs go up, not tariffs or CEO paychecks.
Won't anyone think of the shareholders?!
Cars in some ways are too coddling, giving people a false sense of safety. All these new features like lane keeping and blind spot warnings make people drive with reckless abandon.
They were driving with reckless abandon before...
Maybe the one thing I could see is people letting go of the steering to do something thanks to lane assist, but those same people were thigh-driving before, and I might trust the system more...
I drove much more conservatively since getting a car with these features.
I.e...im more likely to just go a steady speed behind someone with ACC on, whereas before I'd be passing frequently.
And in general, it makes driving in heavy traffic far less draining. Oh it'll worry about pulling up and stopping constantly for me? Yes please.
I'll agree with this, that my mild annoyance at being 2mph slower than I want to be is greatly reduced by adaptive cruise control. Which means my following distance is nicer and I'm less likely to bother to change lanes.
Biggest thing is that it doesn't begin slowing down for traffic ahead like I would like it to, and I don't trust it enough to see if it even would, but maybe that much engagement is good to make sure I don't get too complacent.
Also, mitigating the mind numbing monotony of hours on a freeway. The wheel naturally staying in the center (lane centering, not lane keeping) does a lot for keeping me feeling more well rested on a longer trip.
I don't think these politicians are thinking about this, but some of these safety features really are masking the lack of driving skill in the US.
I've seen people over rely on bad lane assist and just kinda ping pong from side to side in their lane. It's... kinda stupid.
Also, what's the deal with the side mirror light that turns on when someone is near? My car has a small convex mirror attached to the standard one and I can see my blind spot quite clearly.
You can see your blind spot if
Blind spot monitoring helps alert you in case you didn’t
My car has a camera on the sides that shows the lane where the speedometer/tachometer are when I turn on a signal. In addition to the mirrors, lights, audible alerts, etc. All very helpful.
I once got into a wreck, in the leftmost/passing lane on the interstate, because the asshat in front of me slammed on his brakes at the exact moment that I was checking my blind spot to move over. I'dve much appreciated being able to keep my eyes forward.
It's easy to say that it's the same thing with aviation: every time something bad happens, we have to improve the technology and introduce safety features to planes.
Yet it's surprisingly easy to forget that that's only a small part of the entire safety process. They also improve pilot training. They set new requirements for infrastructure. New rules for air traffic control.
When I look at a lot of traffic accidents, I usually don't say "wow, a new car safety feature would have saved the day" but "why were these people given a licence again?" or "what were they thinking when they designed this bit of road?"
The average Lemmy user seems to want more dead car owners.
Also, this thread has a lot of people voicing their opinions about what they want in a car. I too would prefer a much more basic auto for a cheaper price. But what do normal people actually want? They want all the bullshit. Auto makers also make great money on the bullshit, so they want to sell it to us. They also make great money when the bullshit breaks so they make more money on the back end.
I’m sure others in the thread are having a tough time embracing that they agree with Crus a little on this.
Stop shoving shot down our throats. That’s what I want to say to car companies.
ZERO computers!
I want MANUAL WINDOWS!
Manual locks.
ZERO SCREENS!!
I drive the last car mass produced with manual windows and manual locks.
It has 150k miles. Runs great.
There is zero tracking agents on it.
It’s just a car.
I was thinking about this the other day. I don’t need a car that goes over 40mph. I could get to work and get home. A literal Model T would do.
We need to look backwards for common sense.
What do you have against electric windows and locks?
When they were first introduced, they we optional and choosing them cost extra. Over the years they were integrated into all models and everyone had to suddenly pay extra. Zero choice.
To be fair, that's exactly how economies of scale and market demand works. Given the preferences of most customers, it probably costs more to make it manual than electric today.
Slate EV defaulted to manual windows and locks, so it is cheaper. But consumers demanded electric windows.
We have entire generations demanding liberty to have things their own way… while allowing corporations to make all their choices regarding computing and transportation. Resist.
Except that bloat is not what the republicans are targeting. From the article:
"However, it isn’t the infotainment bloatware, wireless key-fobs, power seats, or over-the-air subscription services they’re blasting, but safety systems that the NHTSA says have saved 860,000 lives since 1968."
As if USA republicans would ever consider taking away your mandatory infotainment system with opt-out ads, that's now what their donors are paying them for.
I think you mean their mandatory surveillance systems?
I think that you didn't read the article before chosing to back Cruz.
We all know he is a weasel. But honestly — if they open the door on making cars more simply, I’m in favor.
https://www.slate.auto/en
We'll see if anyone actually buys them.
I’m reserved. Did you reserve?
The mandatory safety features are required because the mandatory fuel economy features mean more aero dynamic cars with worse visibility. We have mandatory fuel economy on cars so dumb big ass trucks can just guzzle gas like there's no tomorrow. We can't have regular sized trucks that get decent fuel economy for some reason that has to do with chickens.
The safety requirements have gone up because the average size of the vehicles in the US has gone up. Has nothing to do with aero, and everything to do with rollover protection. Hell, even the dreaded "giant iPad" era of interior design is due to the requirement for backup cams on all cars, due to the reduced visibility, due to the increased size of structural pillars, due to higher strength to pass rollover tests due to increased weight of the vehicle duetolargertrucksandsuvsduetotheautomakerstargetingthemostprofitablevehiclesizesduetothechickentaxonimportedtrucks.
Exactly.
I don't know, the Crolloa, RAV4, and CR-V are among the most common cars have good fuel economy without sacrificing visibility.
If you want not so big trucks, there's the Maverick, Ridgeline, and Santa Cruz that can all get decent fuel economy.
None of those have nearly the visibility of their older versions. Lower slanting roofs, chunky pillars, less visibility.
All those trucks are small for modern times but not small. All modern trucks also sacrifice bed size for cab size because most people aren't using them for truck stuff anymore. They just want a truck.
Qhy are cars more expensive?
I mean last I checked they fall under the category of "everything".
I just want cars to stop spying on me, just because I sit in the passenger seat does not mean I give permission to track and sell data about me
To be fair, you really shouldn't be driving from the passenger seat
To be fair, Automatic Emergency Braking sounds like it has enormous potential for things to go wrong but I say that out of concern for safety, not expense.
I agree completely. In snowy/icy conditions, it could result in more accidents because I know my car's ABS isn't tuned for slippery roads because my braking distance is noticeably shorter when I pump the brakes any time I feel the ABS kicking in instead of just letting ABS do its thing.
Pay attention to what is in front of you and leave enough distance to be able to react calmly in time. AEB sounds like "feature to make it safer for bad drivers". Which, ok, I can get that, but personally, I'd rather see things changed such that bad drivers either get removed from the road or don't get a license in the first place.
Shareholders are the primary reason!
Republicans will design a car that rapes children to fix this
Pay them enough bribe money and they will do just that (aka: lobbyist money), no joke. 😕
They just want their goons to be able to break their victims windows out easier
Just had a bit of a realization on this one. The point of this is for them to do nothing, isn't it? Specifically blame it one something people will push back on (safety features), so they can throw up their hands and say, "we tried, but they won't let us bring down the cost of cars!"
We should jabe just gone with Nader's idea of placing an 8", hunting knife sticking out of the middle of the sterring wheel
Every day i thank the whole world i wasnt Born were these people rule.
Im very Sorry for the people that do
We can only hope the same thing doesn't spread "here" in our lifetime.
We Will make sure It doesnt spread, and mabye that It dies
Monkey's paw curls: Car goes into reverse, runs over MAGA.
Why not? A crumple zone is a crumple zone. To the extent EVs facilitate steer by wire so we don’t need a steering column is even better
A motor block is also not a good crumple zone. I’m happy not to have that in front of me.
Battery fires are much less likely than people fear, even in accidents, although obviously horribly bad when they happen. More importantly this is currently popular battery technology, not endemic to EVs. There have been announcements for newer batteries that prevent this
It's not safe to have the motor block in front. It can be shoved into the cabin and gasoline is ready to ignite on hot exhaust or sparks if the fuel line is ruptured.
Yeah, i've leaned a bit too far out the window here.
The crumple zone is to slow the car down so the occupants don't get tossed forward as hard.
It has nothing to do with the engine block. That has its own safety system to push it under the car instead of back in to the cab.
As a cyclist, I kind of agree. Apparently the introduction of seat belts caused an increase in cyclist deaths because people started driving less carefully.
I'm willing to bet that the design of modern trucks is killing more pedestrians than seat belts are. But go off.
The source of that claim seems to be a single article written in 1985, and has absolutely no data to support the claim that feeling safer so driving more dangerously is the actual cause, but states it as fact nonetheless.
Hello ghost of John Forrester!
You know, I've had a similar thought to what you've offered here. It's always been a tongue in cheek observation, but because cars are so safe, people literally take their safety for granted driving them. If cars were less safe, people might take the responsibility of driving more seriously.
Make it so, if you get in an accident, it chops a foot off. So not life ending, but certainly life altering. People drive knowing "I'll be fine," and then they look at a text, daydream, all that. If you knew, every time you got in the car, you risked losing a foot, you'd take that shit seriously.
This is called a Tullock spike, though other economists came to the conclusion that it would have an inverse to the desired effect. Where safe, law abiding drivers would have the danger car while those who don't care would find a way to bypass the mechanism and continue to drive recklessly. Thereby resulting in more injuries for the drivers you don't actually want to injure.