Once you've ignored all the warnings, Tesla autopilot puts the hazard flashers on and slowly brings the car to a halt. I tried this myself when autopilot was first enabled on my Model S, to see what would happen. I think what you're referring to is the result of a 'hack': some people work around the annoyance of having to nudge the wheel every 30s, by putting a weight (an orange or water bottle) on one side of the steering wheel to trick autopilot. If you do that, sometimes the weight fights back too much and disengages autopilot - falling back to regular cruise control (losing auto steer). I fault Tesla here only for making it too annoying to use the feature. This can (and will) be solved by using an interior camera, like GM's one already does. Privacy issues beside.
You're right, my bad, I apologize. Just tried it. Pinning this for accuracy. If you pull the wheel too little, it beeps at you and eventually turns off autosteer, if you pull it too hard it turns off autosteer because it thinks you're taking over. It takes a while to figure out just the right amount of pull so it doesn't turn off because it thinks you're not paying attention but also that it doesn't turn off because it thinks you're taking over.
I mean i figure its only a matter of time before we start seeing open source firmware for smart cars. I could see alot of people getting tired of the bullshit and just rooting and flashing custom OS onto their Tesla to avoid the bullshit ... (It would probibally have better self driving capability than stock firmware too )
I mean, if autopilot is in the state it is now then making you move a little the steering wheel every 30s is a very good way to enforce you to be on the wheel as the law says you have to be, for example, train drivers have to point to an specific place sometimes when entering an station, this is to check their attention, and is basically the same, and if a person is stupid enough to put a bottle as a weight in the steering wheel they deserve a Darwin award. I remember seeing a video of a person complaining that their turning lights wouldn't stay when turning to the right, is because that person was stupid enough to put a weight on the turning lights "selector" (I don't know the name of it in English) . When we see those laws we see them as people that do things on a rational way, but there are too many people that think they are also in that category and do dumb shit like this, there is a majority of drivers that consider themselves better than average, and that is statistically impossible, for starters because every time I go out I have to enforce the fact they have to let walkers pass and they just don't reduce speed so I just begin to walk without waiting for them to slow down first, otherwise I would be there half an hour for them to not stop for 5 seconds, as they should do by law, also,if I go on a bike, they don't left the space required by law between a car and a bike (bicycle to be clear) when they pass on the side, once a cargo truck forced me to go under it so it wouldn't crushed me against other vehicles, if I slowed down a little at that point I would have also be crushed by the truck itself, so much only option was to go under it. Most drivers are irresponsible, and doing the bare minimum of being a little considerate with other people is above average, but most people wouldn't recognize they are assholes, so, they say they are above average. At the end, measures like this will end up saving more people from themselves and from killing others in the process, but those edge cases are going to be there. But I will prefer the streets when all cars are fully self driving, there is too many assholes in the road. And yes, I know a person that was killed in a massive accident caused by a drunk driver on a truck slamming the truck against multiple people, my mother recieved him in the ICU and knew from the moment he entered that he wouldn't go out alive. A drunk driver is not a risk for one person, is a risk for multiple people, so is a tired driver, you don't need to be drunk to be a danger (by law people are required to not be on the wheel for more than 6 hours in my country)
@@mikeloeven There wont be opensource firmwares on cars. If something goes wrong who pays the bill? Insurance companies would love one more reason to not pay even if the software wasnt actually the reason. How would you prove reliably it didint?
You forgot one thing, those sensors will use "behavioral" patterns, so if you are trying to avoid the pot holes on the increasingly shitty roads, the car will decide that you are drunk.
If the roads are so bad where you are that you spend 100% of your time dodging pot holes, that is not a reason to not have this technology. It's easy to make excuses....
😒 ... Politicians' stupid ideas always have a certain level of appeal ... but in the end they always result in more problems, less freedom, less choice, less privacy, higher cost of living, more taxes, less competition, more wealth concentration, more authoritarianism, more fines and more government interference in people's lives ... !!!
Considering how often my car vibrates the steering wheel and flashes "BRAKE!" scaring the crap out of me simply because of some glitch at certain angles of going around a curve with oncoming traffic, I would have to vote a hard "no".
vibrating the steering wheel? Theres a reason why truck drivers seats vibrate, not the wheel. Shit that directly interferes with the drivers control of the vehicle. e.g. steering wheel vibrating aggressively, would have the potential to cause accidents. shitty design tbh
@@Porouskilldeathratio Exactly. I turned off the lane departure wheel shaker feature on my car after I realized that it severely interfered with my ability to feel where the grip limit is (especially important in snow).
The problem is all the car manufacturers try go cheap with the technology... Volvo will be using cameras to monitor driver gaze and provide warnings, and intervention if necessary
Sounds like the new Mercedes Benz Sprinter :D On Motorway it often thinks it's too big to fit under the bridge starting to beep and even braking when a bridge gets closer :D I crapped my pants the first time it happened to me. It was winter time and a very slippery weather :D
Imagine a world where your cars telemetry data is used to determine your insurance rates, or worse, whether or not you deserve to continue having insurance after an accident.
we have this voluntary in europe. some insurance companies fit a telemetry box on your vehicle and give you discounts / rebates if you "drive well" and charge more if you don't. It's commonly targeted at young / newer drivers - though it's not a requirement.
@@lankatr this is in America as well. Geico does it and Progressive as well. Both are voluntary but you can see this as them moving from voluntary to mandatory.
in some countries you are required to renew your drivers license with a test.... that should be the way to go, that car-sends-stuff-to-insurance - shit is just crazy
Cars may be used in cases of emergency. Are you sure we should be potentially stopping a car if I rushing my wife or child to the hospital? What if there is an evacuation order? I see lawsuits coming if this comes to pass...
@@fubbernuckin I agree - just because there are a few brickheads out there - don't assume everyone is one. Maybe it's better to just make the habitual DUI people be incapable of driving completely, either lock them up or by other means.
They would make the car manufacturers exempt like they did drug companies, set up a unique court this biased in favour of the car manufacturers ( like they do for drug companies) and it would be entirely on you to prove them in the wrong and the tax payer foots the bill not the company
"I am sorry, but you violated the law by driving at the current coordinates. Please stand by until law enforcement arrives for questioning. The doors have been locked for your security."
@@LiEnby Next step: racially motivated police brutality stats drop to 0 The car is now the one taking care of the shooting, the officers just do cleanup work
As with all government/laws with regards to technology, it'll be a great idea on paper, and in reality will have zero effect on drunk driver crashes and deaths.
@@LiEnby even with that edit, I'd say this stacks up to the average bill that gets passed as far as quality, effectiveness, and benefit to the American people.
That's because representatives don't understand that their kooky ideas are not practical in reality. th-cam.com/video/yR2lgxy-htU/w-d-xo.html What happens when their plan not only doesn't work but can't ever work‽
@Caleb Brewster ironically it was Republicans who wanted to monitor who was using which bathroom. Don't fall into the trap of believing your color is somehow different from all the other colors, they're all politicians.
@Caleb Brewster dude, I don't even disagree with you, I just wanted to point out that it isn't just the Evil Left™ pushing for this invasive crap. It was just a humorous way to point out a bit of hypocrisy coming from the right-wing. As a republican you really can't mention "bathrooms" and expect the bathroom laws not to come to people's minds. Make value judgements about individuals based on their personal beliefs, not whole groups at once based on what you *think* people in that group believe. Notice that in the second paragraph, I don't say anything about left and right. Everybody in this country has some work to do as far as judging the value of the *idea,* instead of judging the value of the person who shares the idea. A terrible person can write great policy, a good person can *easily* write invasive, nannying, controlling policy. We need to start judging the policy on its own, regardless of its provenance.
6:02 about the fan speed thing. Fans to maximum speed at -124C makes sense because it knows the sensor failed. The only thing that is 'broken' about this system is the indicator showing -124C rather than saying "the sensor is fucked". If the sensor failed, the computer has no idea what temperature it actually is, so it does the option that is safest for the hardware. Although the single point of failure is not great. I do high-reliability space stuff for my profession, and this is how I would design it.
I had this issue for about 4 years on my i5-2400. The pc thought the temperature is either -60°C or 128°C. It's pretty rational to ramp up the fan speed to the maximum. If your temperature rating doesn't make any sense, you want to keep the CPU under maximum cooling to ensure that it won't damage itself.
I'm glad I saw this reply so I didnt have to make it. I was thinking "am i crazy?" because that is how I would design it too. Sure, maybe a majority of the time it will be annoying and not the proper cooling method, but it means your computer will still work no matter what, and its also an indicator something is wrong so you can get it fixed. It's essentially a failsafe.
Even my Polaris ATV is designed this way, If you try to start it when the temperature is below -10F the overheat light comes on, the fan runs full blast and it will not start. It thinks the sensor has failed and prevents engine damage.
As someone who grew up with technology and works in that industry, I have no confidence in whatever the car companies come up with to be compliant with this.
"We suspect you may be inebriated. Please standby for an authority to authorize enablement of your vehicle" and in true fashion, concurrently have your civil assets confiscated via civil asset forfeiture.
"You had large amounts of liquid assets in your bank account. It is clear that these must be the profit of a criminal enterprise. They have been seized pending further investigation."
Just had this thought, imagine this scenario: You had some fun with your SO last night in your car at around 11 P.M. You leave the car on for A/C and kill the headlights. The car has weight sensors in the front and back seats. The car knows it is stationary and currently in parked gear. It also knows that the suspension, particularly the rear suspension, began swaying back and forth, up and down in a rhythmic manner for a given time. The car thinks someone is trying rob it or something so it activates the rearview mirror camera to "catch" the "thief". You take your car to its next scheduled service the next day. Not only could the mechanic see your SO in their birthday suit, they also get to see your performance and how long you lasted! Even without a camera, the suspension, time, and possibly location data can tell the mechanic what you were up to yesterday. Oh, and so can the manufacturer. Either you should be allowed to buy out from telemetry gathering, they should limit telemetry to engine and wheel data, or at least inform you about the data collected. And just as a fun alternate scenario, remember the weight sensors? Your SO weighs 120 lb, you weigh 140 lb. Your SO went out for "grocery shopping" in the early night. Take the car to the mechanic the next day, weight sensors detect 360 lb...
This has black mirror written all over it. Informing people is the absolute minimum but not enough, we need to stop motivating 'innovations' like this. By just not buying into them.
The car should congratulate you for 'getting lucky' and give you a creepy wink on the dashboard display. Or, connect to the bigscreen at the closest football stadium.
I've a better idea: let's sell a premium subscription service that gives you a set ammount of hours to disable your telemetry The more you pay, the more hours you can disable your telemetry for each month. Let's take it a step further: the car still secretly collects the telemetry and records audio and video 24/7 for security reasons, but you don't tell the consumer. Let's call it "Cars as a service" and market it as a business model that allows the consumer to have more "Freedom of choice"
@@Gnomezonbacon the car will simply refuse to turn on for "safety reasons", and demand that you tow it to the dealership to get the telemetry module fixed.
Spot on with the Patriot Act analogy. I wish this technology was used to benefit all of us but it's not, it only passes if it helps some billionaire somewhere. Insurance companies have been pushing to normalize computerized tracking your driving, insiders chat about it openly.
It doesn't matter if you're the most law abiding citizen even who has never even gotten a parking ticket. It can still be used against you. The question is not whether *you're* doing something wrong. It's whether you can trust the people in charge of the system not to abuse it. And if history is a guide, the answer is no. The way it usually works is they'll convince you to accept it based on a certain reason that sounds fine initially. But then after it's implemented, it gets used for a lot more than they said it would, in ways you would never have approved of if they told you it would be used like that to begin with.
As someone who enjoys and builds technology I want it as far away as possible from my vehicles. If its a motorcycle simple efi or carbs with manual brakes. For a car, manual transmissions, no cruise, manual hand brakes (none of that electronic brake crap) and no stupid and unnecessary sensors. My old fuel injected Honda ran great for 16 years without any engine lights coming on started first time all the time . My new Toyota? Its confused half the time and thinks there's an engine issue when none exists. The simpler the better. Less sensors the better and more reliable. Will never buy a car that has junk telemetry.
I will literally start riding my bike exclusively before I'll buy a car made after 2012 or so. Total pieces of crap, and not in the way your grandpa called everything new a total piece of crap. The hellscape of extraneous systems, obnoxious/distracting warning lights/tones, and screens is as much of an affront to driving as it is an assault on the senses. Mind you, I'm technically a zoomer! I'm not some old fart still hanging around, I was born into this shit and I still hate it. Bring back the *real* basic cars, the four-bangers with a cigarette lighter, seats, wheel, gearshift, and that's it! I want it to smell like cheap cigarillos and make a whining sound in first gear! The only thing I want to see in it that says "ABS" is an old fitness magazine on the floor in the back seat!
I was kind of hoping that once I get out of college I'd be able to get a good job and buy a nice new car but by the looks of things, nice new cars aren't going to be a thing very much longer.
Every time i see a new feature getting added to a car I don't see a feature, i see a point of failure. I want a car that is as basic as possible because i can't afford to be replacing all of these sensors and gadgets.
That's why I have a car with window cranks instead of motors. I wish the trunk would open with a key, but at least the driver's side door has keyed entry.
You are driving home from a flea market 80 miles away and the car determines you are impaired(drowsy) and stops your car 60 miles away from your house. Now what? You aren't allowed to idle your car due to environmental regs, so the heat turns off and you are now freezing in your car in the middle of nowhere. Thank you car.
Car determines you are impaired. You might have made a late turn or swerved ever so slightly when you looked over your shoulder to change lanes. In order for the system to work, it would need to access the data of the average driver, a database which the manufacturer would create and maintain. And when something goes wrong, it's the black box defense: "it's not us, it's the algorithm." No two drivers do things in the exact same way, just as no two people have the same gait.
The counter culture you're talking about is pretty much exactly my mindset about newer cars. It's a motorized vehicle, not a spaceship - I don't need driving assistance that can't even drive on its own. I don't want my telemetry logged, a camera inside my rear mirror, or a remote switch for my engine. I'm starting to consider buying an older car than the one I currently have, simply because then I can be sure it's under my control.
This is exactly why I love my '01 E53 X5, and why when she kicks the bucket I'm planning on buying something even older. Ol' Joe is *not* going to have the privilege of deciding when, where, and how I drive. Freedom of movement is one the key things that makes us "United", and not just the "States of America".
@@globalist1990 The only issue is, once everyone starts hopping on the used market, the government would have basically bankrupt all car manufacturers in the U.S. The government would have to fix their mistakes and bail out those companies. Thus, us small people will have something else that we need to pay for..... Man, I just want the economy to collapse already. Why wait to 2040 that was predicted in the 1970s..... IF they haven't bothered to provide an aid of ounce in over 50 years now...
@@flameshoter6 no one needs a new car every two years. Car makers are pushing new models based on fashion and emotions, new gimmicky tech as well. Digging their own grave. They can always sell EV. It’s like you’re saying we need to eat trans and saturated fats and refined sugars to protect it’s manufacturers. Lots of people are doing fine while not building cars.
@@globalist1990 I kind of understand what you mean. However, I don't think you understand what I mean. But I'm looking at it as a business perspective. I need a new used car every couple of years because something serious usually happens. For new cars every 2 years, those people are making enough money to splurge. Let them take the hit financially. I'll buy it when it is used. But when large businesses go, and people lose their jobs, it has a cascading effect. Now those people don't have jobs, so they aren't spending money. Since they aren't spending, other businesses will lose their contracts or whatever, now they can't afford to run their businesses. So those businesses shut down and those people aren't spending money...... It causes market disruptions on a large scale. There are over 10 million people related to the field in the U.S. In general, most people don't need anything except for food and water. Most people don't even need shelter, but want it. Some people buy a new car because the expectation is that it would last longer without issues.... People do need to eat fats. Not the bad kinds. But the good kinds. People need to eat sugar or otherwise carbs which turns to sugars.
Car tuners will be able to do this with a click of a button. It's pretty common already for diesel owners to rip out and disable a lot of emissions stuff because they constantly cause problems. Rip it out, plug in a computer, click a button and you're done with a more reliable car.
it already exists, and every car Manufacturer tries to sue the shit out of everyone for Safety concerns or unauthorized modification and all that stuff.. xD
I was driving my 2020 Ford Escape on a 4 lane highway passing a semi when he put on his left signal and started to enter my lane, so I moved over half a lane and pushed the accelerator to get out of way. Immediately an alarm rang and a message came on the display saying that I need to pull over and rest because I was driving impaired.
@@jon199680 does *anybody* actually like that crap‽ Who TF is it for? Obviously I'm not a total vegetable if I'm the one driving the car, I can tell when or if I need to take a break goddammit!
@@first_m3m3 At that point, I'd rather live in a box in the woods. I'll take my chances. I don't understand why people making those predictions would think people would be happy. Hell, I haven't been happy for most of my childhood and my young adult life. If a company wanted to enslave me, they would need to provide everything for me. 100% would try to bankrupt the company then by making them pay for the most expensive things for me.
Im of the opinion a car should just be a car. I got the stupid "LOOKING AROUND WHILE OPERATING CAN BE DANGEROUS" pop up that is really distracting while driving. I dont need my car doing things. Just more over reach that will be a precedent for more power grabs
"Looking around while operating can be dangerous" - Wait, what? Aren't drivers SUPPOSED to be looking around, isn't situational awareness kinda important when you're operating a 2000-lb. missile?
This will strengthen the market for older vehicles that lack these undesirable "features" also this feature would likely kill people. Faulty sensor decides your drunk on a busy interstate. The mack truck behind you won't react as fast as your sensor.
Don't forget about they could potentially build the car in a way that Diabetics could never drive again because of Acetone breath. It'd be too dangerous for them to hop in a car if them breathing could result in the car stopping
They'd have to be having a medical emergency at that point and like a person having a stroke, shouldn't be driving in that state unless an absolute emergency where no other transport is available
@@DivineLightPaladin “in that state” plenty of people with Diabetes drive very safely every day. It’s called managing your diagnoses. Just because you want every move someone makes to be controlled doesn’t make this a good thing.
@@DivineLightPaladin Its like Louis said in the video, if your blood sugar is out of whack and you can't properly maintain a vehicle, I don't want the car putting other people in danger as "punishment"
The problem is this 'technology' they want to install on your vehicle is unreliable. And when its unreliable then its more of a danger to the owner of the vehicle than any vehicular accident can do.
As with most technological failures, that's probably not true. But it's not news when things work as intended, it's only news when they aren't, especially if that is catastrophically so. I have a lot of problem with the noted plan, but the reporting bias needs to be pointed out.
The problem is that if your car can be turned off remotely they can stop you from driving to protests, and they can enforce lockdowns by making your car not work anymore
I find it as a strange paradox of humanity, as we make things more automated, the less manual skills overall humans will develop. Lane assist, auto brakes, weather traction controls, all of these numb the brain and make it easy for a 12 year old to drive a car and it keeps the mind from developing a sixth sense, so when something does go out, the person will not know what to do.
What I'm wondering is: When a car erroneously disables itself because a person is driving erratically on their way to the ER, who's at fault? It can't be the manufacturer since they were forced to implement the feature, and I'm sure the government won't be interested in actually developing the feature itself so they won't have any control over how it actually works.
@@oliviastratton2169 They will probably find about the same comfort as the hundred of thousands of individuals that dies every year due to car traffic.
A couple months ago my roommate's EX showed up, drunk. She'd brought her 9 year old daughter with her to blow into her ignition interlock device. (previous conviction for impaired) I ran down the stairs and took the keys from her car. I scared the heck out of that poor kid. Felt really bad, still feel really bad. :( Cops did next to nothing.
@@aeroelectro9981 She took her child and ran away. Came back in the morning and got her car, I guess she had a spare key. Or, god forbid, the cops gave her key back.
My mother's former supervisor had multiple DUIs and a breath interlock. So he did what he was taught at his AA meetings - he disconnected the battery, taking full advantage of the "jump start override" to drive his drunk butt home from work every day. He only wrecked three times that way, hit-and-runs with personal property damage (mailboxes, fences, shrubbery, not cars). Once he got through his probation, the interlock was removed, and it took him three days to total his car while drunk. At the scene, he blew a 0.318%, well beyond the 0.08% limit. Amazing that he could function at all.
@@dashcamandy2242 you'd think somebody would notice that he had to "jump start" his car every damn day. The only word for that guy is "loser", until he decides to get his shit together.
Imagine someone jumps in front of your "smart" car and points a gun at you. You decide to run over them rather than risk being shot. Collision avoidance system refuses. Then you're wishing you still had that "dumb" car you traded.
I think you might have bigger problems than collision avoidance systems, if you live in a place where armed people jump in front of moving vehicles. It sounds horrible.
I actually wondered this exact thing the other day with my newer car I recently got, it has all the sensors and emergency braking etc. I tried reversing a trailer once without the correct plug in to disable the emergency reverse braking (short move in a yard at low speed) and the car went crazy and locked up all 4 wheels and refused to move again. It would probably do the same thing with a pedestrian/shooter.
I haven't tried this with a person for obvious reasons, but right now, I'm sure the car will obey your command to execute the perp. I have already regretfully ran over a living being without protest from my car. That being said, it's a Tesla. I don't know about other brands, you might have a paperweight.
Consequences of exposing people to all the horrors of the world in 4K: The average person is obsessed with terrorism, crime, accidents, and possibilities, in a time when we have historically low terrorism, crime, accidents, and possibilities.
Yes it does because the computer is doing the shifting of the gears based on road conditions. Cars no longer have a "kick-down" cable attached to the throttle anymore...
the thing is if you had proof they were invested then you would have some leverage because despite what people think that is illegal. so please share with the rest of the class what you have on them and we can get them impeached.
@@booey316 youtube doesn't allow links, and now they are even censoring pseudo-url links, but try opensecrets > Influence and lobbying Also, campaign contributions are public It's pointless talking to you anyway, you already have your conclusion You live surrounded by the proof, me pointing it out to you wouldn't make a difference
This is precisely the reason I don't consider brand new cars. Just too much tracking and barriers on repair. Sounds like in 2040; 2010 cars will sell for more than brand new cars.
Strange sensor behavior is dangerous. For an example, Norway's pioneering electric aircraft had an issue with motor cooling, it basically ran out and the electric motor started overheating. As a result, the controller was like "Oh the motor is overheating, CUT POWER NOW!" The problem with an aircraft is, if you lose power you just can't pull over to the side of the road, or rather you can somewhat pick a spot where to crash. This plane as a result splashed down in a shallow river with no fatalities... Proper design would be to warn of lack of coolant as the temperature was climbing, but you run that motor until it burns up if necessary to allow the pilot to pick a potential safer and less dangerous spot than in a river.
In regards to keeping people from adopting electric vehicles, I know as a teenager who has no attachments to any brands or styles yet that seeing things like forced data tracking and less control of your own vehicle makes me want to avoid anything with modern tech in it. I like tech that makes lives better and safer, but it just seems like its all going too far due to special interests.
You know what would dramatically cut down on drunk drivers? A FUNCTIONING TRANSIT AND RAIL SYSTEM that doesn't only run once every 70 minutes, or break down all the time or cost $6 per ride at the point of service. You know, like a modern country should have?
Oh man, this "unsafe following distance"-crap really hits home for me. Whenever you *try* to maintain a safe distance (in cities and on motorways), some asshole will squeeze in front of you. There's simply no way to keep a safe distance if the jerks you share the road with won't let you.
I bought a used Honda Accord. While driving down the road, the car decided that I had stolen it and set off the alarm nonstop and killed my engine, requiring me to roll the car off the road into a ditch, and then have two different police officers take my info to see if I had stolen the car. I didn't know this feature was a part of the alarm system, and I had to call the dealership to get them to call the prior owner to get the code to disable the system, and couldn't get to work.
There are some people who still drive 1960's cars in 2021, so it's entirely possible that people who care about their privacy will still be driving 2000's cars in the 2080's...
It will be illegal because they aren't electric. Or simply illegal just because. Or not illegal but impossible to find fuel because nobody sells it anynore.
@@Bonanzaking I still to this day want to off myself for not buying Bitcoin at 35 bucks when I was told to.... literally my life and my family's could have been completely changed....but I was too young to get it. If I was my age now back then I would be a billionaire by now.
There was an auto manufacturer (I think Chrysler) that would not install airbags or even offer them as an option until it was mandated. This was to avoid liability with faulty systems. This for a technology that was well under development. The only device on the market for this is the breathalyzer ignition interlock. I refuse to give my car a blow job to go to the grocery store if I have not done anything wrong.
Federal government tried to restrict cars over 15 years old in the past, (think it was in the 70's) sema and other groups where formed that halted that from happening. A new fight has been forming over the last few years.
It's just another way for them to control the movements of people. "Our systems were malfunctioning during the big protest you wanted to attend, we're sorry for any inconveniences this may have caused."
If a "feature" in your car misfires , you probably put yourself and those around you in mortal danger. Right now , the best feature in a car is to have been designed with the mindset of the previous decade. (at least) That's as far as safety goes, i would rather not start on privacy concerns.
Not the previous decade. That was the 2010s. I say we don't even design them with same kind of targets as the 2000s. Go back to the '90s, where the focus is on making the car reliable and physically resilient with mechanical redundancies, and active safety tech is on the end users to provide. I hear constant praise for modern airbags, ABS, crumple zones, and crash cells for the passenger cabin. Stuff we had in the '90s. I hear a constant complaints about radar cruise control, automatic braking, collision detection, and blind spot monitoring. Stuff we started getting in the 2000s and 2010s. It's because the first group are passive safety systems that don't interfere, but the latter group are active safety systems that *do* interfere.
@@manitoba-op4jx "Get lighter" My dude, cars have been getting heavier year over year since the late '80s. A '97 Civic sedan weighed 2,300 pounds, and a '21 Civic sedan weighs 2,900 pounds. A '97 Dodge Ram 1500 Extended Cab weighed 4,600 pounds, and 2021 RAM Tradesman Quad Cab weighs 5,200 pounds. Those are both with the maximum amount of weight reduction that's financially reasonable in 2021. Also those crossovers are friggin' huge. Compare them to the sedans and hatchbacks we used to have. A 2021 Subaru Ascent is almost a full foot longer and taller than an '01 Subaru Legacy wagon. A '21 Ford Escape is ten inches taller than any form of '01 Ford Focus, and still two inches longer than the longest station wagon form. And these CUVs are supposedly size-equivalent replacements for hatchbacks, sedans, and stationwagons despite being big enough that if they were measured fairly they'd be bumped up entire size categories. Fun aside, CUVs are smaller inside than their hatchback counterparts of the same size class, despite the CUVs always being bigger outside. Often the best interior space utilization a CUV can get is 75% of a hatchback's if compared using the same size class, such as sub-compact hatchback to sub-compact CUV. Those big wheel wells and upright seats really cut into the available interior space.
Or what you listen to in your car? Getting more ads for a particular political viewpoint, music (supposedly, Apple sucks at this in reality) that is similar to what you've been listening to, or Audible books? How about recommended specials for your grocery-buying after you discuss dinner plans, popping up on your satellite radio or Pandora? There are a lot of places this could go. A few years ago I was in a diner drinking coffee and reading an e-book on my Kindle. I don't know what the conversation in the neighboring booth was, but when I took a break from reading, Amazon shopping thought I would be interested in plastic bags, a machete, and a gas can!
We are going to end up with all-mechanical stuff no longer being retro, but something you actually NEED. TVs, cars, refrigerators, phones, people are going to want all kinds of things without worrying about someone spying on them and / or losing control of the things THEY own. Sounds like a good business model for a car / TV manufacturer, "All you want, and nothing you don't."
I already opted out. My ICE car requires 150/200€ for annual maintenance and will always allow me to do whatever the hell I want to it. I love EVs but until I can have the same level of freedom I will never buy one
I will never have an EV....I just love the sound of a gasoline engine and shifting my own gears.....I would not mind having an EV RV...but nothing else other than that.
I'm glad I have a late 90s car, base car, just the basic electronics. I'll be like Stallone in "Demolition man" with a 20th Century car, just turn the key and drive.
Agreed. I'll keep my 360,000-mile '99 Camry, thank you very much. No ABS, no Traction Control, and I'm doing my part to help the environment by keeping the car on the road as long as mechanically possible. I'm also doing my part to help myself financially, since my $750 car has cost around $5,000 in repairs over five years and 103,000 of those miles. What I've invested in this car during five years of ownership is significantly less expensive than one year of car payments. I still breeze through emissions testing with barely-registering numbers, far better than the minimum standards for California despite having the 49-state emissions system, and can easily get 30 mpg if I drive gently.
@@Bonanzaking I've driven '84 and '85 shortbeds, and an '86 longbed F-150s - all 2WD, all 4-speed manuals, all V6s. Sure, they aren't geared very well for city driving, but they are incredibly-good on gas at highway speeds. Comfortable, simple, reliable, capable. Parts are cheap, and easily-obtained; and the trucks are easy to repair and maintain. I don't blame you for hanging onto yours, they are workhorses! (Full disclosure: I'm not a "Ford Guy," but I will give credit where credit is due - I'd own one of these trucks in a heartbeat if the opportunity presented itself.)
I totally agree with you! Not only will it encourage people to buy older vehicles, the price of these vehicles will skyrocket when people realize there's a demand for them... Thus screwing everyone over 😬🥴
Ripe for abuse, same with biometric start. Around 1900, electric, steam, and gasoline had an almost even segment of the automobile market. It's too bad everyone went toward the "it's cheap" side.
I'm not a mechanic but I do all the work on my own cars, and from what I've seen 90% of the problems that occur are from failed sensors. Not the actual thing the sensor is supposed to be monitoring but the sensor itself. Adding more sensors to control more aspects of the car is just asking for problems.
Absolutely agree. I end up canceling my Tesla subscription because of the score. You drive to NYC your score has trashed. I want to decide by myself what level of forward collision warning is good for me, what speed and g force best for the specific turn. Until I’m more superior than any autopilot it’s up to me to decide. Geolocation based discrimination.
I use this video as one of the reasons 90’s JDM cars, and most older cars in general are skyrocketing in value. The merging between car and an electronic device.
With the increasing number of mechanisms to take control of a vehicle from the driver, how can the driver be held responsible for where the car goes and what it hits?
That's the one good thing I can see coming out of this. The driver gets less and less responsible for accidents happening because in the future, it looks like drivers have little to no control over their cars, and it's about time these stupid mandates stop and drivers have control over their "smart" cars again. No cameras staring at me inside the car
Sounds like a great right to repair ad tbh keep your vehicle running longer so you dont have to be spied on. 1990 dodge dd250 still running with no plans on stopping.
First it’s drinking while driving, then it’s texting while driving, followed by smoking and driving, then it’ll know if you’re oogling at a hot girl on a sidewalk, then it’ll know what you and the passengers are talking about, and what ideas are being discussed
What’s stopping someone from removing the device?? If you say that taking out the device would disable the vehicle, then what happens over time with wear and tear to the device? Computers malfunction and break every single day for seemingly no reason. What happens if it gives a false positive during a drive?
That can literally be said of every single safety device. Why have an ABS on your car, what if it fails? Why have airbags? Why have electronics at all? Stuff fails, but as long as it does more good than harm it's worth having it.
@@v0ldy54 and this doesn’t do more good. It is just a freedom grab by the government. Why not just make the car print you a speeding ticket automatically?
@@v0ldy54 abs was a luxury option on cars for years before it was made a legal requirement, electronic throttle control still is a luxury, basically my point is the issue isn't the actual reliability it's the fact that the reliability hasn't been proven prior to making it a legal requirement. Air bags is a good example though
I actually would be for a way to detect inebriation IF and ONLY IF the data was local only, no way of prying eyes seeing it remotely. It wouldn't be a bad thing. The problem stems from the government and companies insisting on taking things to the next level by collecting as much data as they can
@@orppranator5230 if there were no privacy concerns and didn't phone home or collect data, it can't possibly be a bad thing. The only people who would have a problem would be the morons who drink and drive
once self-driving cars are accepted, there will be pressure to prevent people from driving by hand. this drunk driving detection seems to be the first step in that direction.
Better yet build infrastructure that doesn't force people to drive in the first place, like a train network that people can use to commute to bars and pubs, no expensive Ubers or driving drunk.
@@thedankgoat7972 Unfortunately, that works only in large cities. Well, there used to be a massive network of passenger trains throughout the US but almost all of it is now torn up. I had a woman on my paper route years ago who was close to 100 years old and she shared stories and pictures of traveling by train from middle-of-nowhere Midwest to New York exclusively by train. Those days are long gone.
@@RegularCupOfJoe It's basically either passenger trains, or freight. The US choose freight. Can't really have both (at least, not for high speed rail), and freight is far more energy-efficient compared to the trucks that deliver most of Europe's land cargo. There really isn't a way out of this that doesn't involve massive infrastructure. The US and Europe tackled it differently, but the end result was the same: Lots of road and lots of rail.
@@thedankgoat7972 Passenger rail is as obsolete as typewriters, chamber pots, and rotary telephones. It's also incredibly expensive vs roads/cars and nowhere near as versatile. What is it with people wanting to go back to slow and expensive methods of transportation? Do they think "Who Frame Roger Rabbit" was a documentary? Do they want horse-drawn wagons ran by Uber?
@@Crosshair84 How is it obsolete, for city travel it's great because it gives you the freedom not to drive and it works great in the form of metros in cities like New York and any European city as well as Japan, it can also be faster than car travel as it doesn't get stuck in traffic. And for longer distance travel it has advantages over planes as its cheaper for passengers, the check in process is less terrible, a single train can carry more people than a plane and is more enjoyable overall as you have interesting scenery to look at as well as leg room. And how is it more expensive than roads and freeways, those things are constantly crumbling and in need of repair, cost billions of dollars or more in repairs maintenance and fruitless highway widening projects that displace hundreds of homes and businesses and they take away people's freedom to use other forms of transportation. The car is the worst form of transportation for cities, they're really expensive upfront as well as in the gas, maintenance and insurance costs. They take up a lot of space in cities especially for only transporting one person most of the time, they get stuck in traffic and they are literally the most dangerous way to travel.
Or at least record that data and report you to traffic authorities. I am sure speed governing will be standard in cars preventing speeding from being possible.And "black box" data I can see used in crime investigation.
Turning the fans to high isn't a reaction to a temperature of -124, it's a reaction to receiving a temperature that's functionally impossible. The odds are incredibly slim that that temperature is being reported because the device is being used outdoors in Antarctica in winter, so it's interpreted as an error state meaning that the device doesn't know what the temperature of the chip is. The programmer's logic for defining a range at the bottom of the sensor that maxes the fans and slows the OS is that it will be way less expensive to replace the sensor than the chip, and if the chip gets to hot it will be damaged - and it's unknown how hot it is so all cooling systems are maxed out, because there is no too cold for the chip. This isn't bad design, it's saving the users device and keeping repair costs down. However, it's super dumb and bad that then they don't publish stuff on how to replace that sensor, or make that sensor available.
I can see two outcomes here, aside from the one you mentioned about people just driving an older vehicle. 1. Either the system will not let the car drive if the sensor malfunctions and thinks you're drunk, causing a safety concern in an emergency situation. 2. The car will still let you drive if the sensor malfunctions, meaning it could easily be bypassed, by unplugging the sensor or taping over it, or perhaps modifying it etc.
@@globalist1990 Nah, a wise creed. Governments and corporations don't like the general citizen having too many freedoms and rights. Gets in the way of profits. So they will use any and all occasions to sell people on the idea of privacy violation. Just look up the Patriot Act.
@@Warfoki 🤣🤣 So what do you do when you say to someone you “deserve neither”? Arrest them in an unsafe prison? Make them your slaves? I’ll put my priorities on having a safe as possible car and safe road rules than having you drive drunk in whatever speed you’d like.
@@globalist1990 No, the idea is that if you are sacrificing freedom for safety, you will end up with neither. This idea in the video won't prevent drunk driving reliably... but it sure as shit will make a lot of money for car manufacturers when they sell your telemetry data.
Hold on. When a temperature sensor reads -127C, it SHOULD spin the fans up to full. That's not silly. The computer recognizes that this is a fail state, realizes that it has no idea what the actual temperature is, so to prevent overheating it turns the fans on just in case. This is good and proper.
@@Dranzell LOL ya, and the myriad of sensors attached to them COMMONLY screw the driver over. Now, this isn't a sensor, its an entire sensor array and computing suite, and if there is any failure in that system, it won't allow you to drive. Think of how many false IDs of stop signs, pedestrians, etc a Tesla makes. Now imagine that every one of those forced the car to a stop for who knows how long.
I had a Saturn that needed a new computer because the air intake flap rusted, which told the O2 sensor to keep trying to open it up, which caused over-current to feed back to the computer, which because of cost cutting did not have a fuse for that power line. So even using a junkyard computer (which could only be reset by the dealership) that lack of a ten-cent fuse cost me nearly $500.
One of the biggest problem is giving unknown people the authority to control how you can drive at all. The kind of power always give an unexpected turn. Such as the health code in China become an useful tool for the government to lock civil rights activists in their home by simply turn their health code red.
I think we'd all do well to start coming to terms with the idea of risk and death. I'm noticing society move in a direction that is utterly terrified of the idea of death and we're up-ending the natural order if things in an attempt to avoid it. Mandates are another example of this.
@@Bonanzaking I read every book mentioned as a kid and they clearly played a huge part in my distrust for government. I think the problem is, in fact, *too few* people reading them, thinking about them, fully consuming them as works of art. Too often I see people consume art in such a way that they never actually think about what the message is, or why the story played put how it did. They forget that the author is a real human person with their own goals and motivations, who created the art to serve some specific purpose.
Imagine trying to actually use a car like this on some back grounds. Absolute insanity. Sure just inconvenience the millions who don’t drink, or the thousands of millions who drink but have never even thought about driving drunk. Unbelievable.
The real point of failure is the sentencing for drunk driving. People can get multiple DD convictions with barely any jail time. I had someone hit my home porch, flee the scene and get just a few days in jail.
one of my ex girlfriends got two DUIs in just a couple months. The DA combined them into ONE. Why? She's a menace that belongs in jail. And they were technically her 2nd and 3rd DUIs; she had another over ten years earlier, but the state ignores ones that are that old. Other people get just one with no accidents or injuries, but get the book thrown at them. The laws are too inconsistent to be considered remotely fair.
What happens when you go to court and take the 5th? As the owner of a car, can the 5th apply to any information gathered by the car or can this info be used against you? Do we need to pass legislation that forbids a car manufacturer from using information gathered by your car against you? To what extent can we allow the government, big business, and big tech to gather information on citizens and still maintain our freedom?
So here's my perspective as a driver: no, I do not need to get a grade by the car, based on my driving skills. I certainly do not need the car telling me that I am drunk. I never consume alcohol before I drive. You know why I don't do that? Several reasons: 1. I don't want to go to jail and pay huge fines. 2. I really like driving. That's why it would really suck to have my license suspended. 3. I have seen enough idiotic people in traffic, to know not to be one of them. And that's where the police comes in. Then...here's another thing: I have mountain roads close to me. Long, twisty, no potholes...sublime roads for a relaxing drive. And not a lot of people drive through there. If I want to have a good time and go over the speed limit, with no risk basically...why should the car know that? Why should the car 'grade' that? Why should the car disable itself? Because we all know that the next thing is: "unsafe driving. pull over." :( It's my car, my life, my money...my good time in the end. Why should the manufacturer insert itself into that equation? And why should I pay for that???
A couple years ago I was driving a loaner from the dealer and I kept tripping the lane departure because I'm too late with the turn signal so it would try and force me back in to my lane. Intrigued by this half-assed autopilot one night I let it bounce me back in to my lane, then it hit the other side of the lane and bounced me back again, then again. After doing this a few times I got a warning on the screen saying I am still allowed to drive at this time giving me the impression that if I kept it I would not be allowed to drive.
Anything so called "smart" or connected is really no good.. Like all the "smart" gadgetry people put in their homes that spy on them and can be hacked by criminals. I can't believe people would put something on their door like a "smart" lock. Wow. 🙄
this makes me wanna go buy a couple old 2000s cars and keep them in storage. so i can keep using them for decades to come. my current car will probably crap out in 5-10 years (thanks rust belt)
Lewis, honestly this tracking stuff is _great._ Let me explain why: With the conditions of roads, if I cannot swerve out of the way of potholes or avoid animals because it's a possible drunk driving moment, all I have to do is file a lawsuit and basically, *win.* I can sue the two parties responsible for this: - The state government I live in, or an organization responsible for road maintenance. If a pothole kills my car because _I can't swerve to avoid lest I am "Drunk"_ then I can sue them for poor roads, and probably gain more unemployment if it happens to cause job loss. - The telemetrics organization behind my data, for putting me into a state of danger when swerving to avoid an animal, _dead or alive_ would had been demeritorious to my capability of driving a car and thus, thinking i am "Drunk" because of it. If enough people do _these two things_ and litigiously devastate this idea, a pattern will develop, precedent will set in and monitoring will become optional if it were not already.
Actually it makes sense that if it thought it was -124°C to ramp up the fans as what fans do is bring the temperature of the thing closer to ambient temperature as opposed to explicitly cooling it. If something was -124°C condensation would likely occur etc etc, you would want it to become closer to room temp
Also from a general failsafe perspective ramping the fans up to ensure your device can't cook itself is good. It's not "why is the fan on when its cold" its "my temperature sensor is probably reporting garbage data, its probably not actually cold so I need to make sure my processor is safe".
They do exactly that in extreme overclocking. Super cold liquid nitrogen to cool the CPU and GPU, and then fans blowing over nearby components to keep air moving and hopefully prevent condensation.
The temperature sensor makes sense. It outputs a value which will be considered a fault, and the computer acts to make sure it doesn't overheat the best it can.
The fan spin up on the MacBook is actually reasonable. If the sensors read less than -100 deg C, it's probably correct to assume that the sensor broke. Given that it then has no idea regarding the actual temperature, taking the worst case (overheating) and spinning up the fans seems like the right thing to do.
As far as the fan ramping up to 100%, I'd probably design a similar feature. If the magnitude of the reported temperature is equivalent to the max grounded value or max shorted value, fail as safely as possible and set fans to max to avoid an overheating situation.
I'm honestly 50/50 on this. On one hand, I've had some friends die from drinking and driving. On the other hand, there has to be better ways than fucking up someone's car.
Don't allow your emotional attachment to the issue to overwhelm your need for privacy, and control over your own life. Easier said than done, I know, and I'm sympathetic to that, but: "He who would trade freedom for security..."
Think the EU law they are trying to pass forces manufacturers to allow installing these alcohol detection devices to people who already have a DUI history. Think that's the better option.
I've already committed to not ever own a car made later than 2008 for reasons congruent with what you've outlined; any time that fact comes out, I get one of two reactions: the predictable incredulous modern car apologist, or, surprisingly more common, I get scoffed at and told that's too late. what you propose as a "potential" counterculture backlash is already well underway.
Can you imagine the court cases on drunk driving based on the "word" of your car, which you cannot access?? Jeez, we're losing every right! We're supposed to have the right to face our accuser! This might sound corny, but even the original Star Trek episode "Court Martial" warned about not simply taking the word of only a machine when you're accused!
As a car enthusiast, I love everything about ev’s. They have the superior performance even now in their infancy. But I won’t adopt them until they solve the problems you listed. I want simple reliable things and the ev drivetrain is just that. I also want the entire car to match, simple Bluetooth head unit, crank windows, manual seats, etc
You're exactly right. EVs could have been a golden age for trouble free mileage and ease of service, but instead these cars are being packed to the brim with useless features and plastic parts. My dream would be to convert something from the 70s-90s to EV using modular components.
Well you can thank insurance companies lobbying the government for this. Makes the chance of them having to payout less and they get to keep taking your money for more profit. This is just the already used (by some insurance companies) where you plug a device into the OBD II port and it monitors your driving for “discounts” for being a good driver. Its not automakers wanting to do this. Also your car is not collecting any data on you that your phone is not lol. The only data outside from your phone being collected (speed and possible impairment) is mostly useful to insurance companies.
Ah yes, Progressive's "Snapshot Discount." I considered it after they started jacking up my rates $30-40 a month for having the audacity of being a victim of DUI. Then I discovered I would be discriminated against and pay EVEN HIGHER rates because I drive during the wee hours of the day due to my job.
@@dashcamandy2242 That sucks. Yea i never trusted it because it seems more of a gotcha than anything else. I drive on the interstate highways for work and I’m sure going 75-80 would penalize me heavily when its a normal speed on interstate highways.
To be fair, in an ideal world, that is what insurance should be doing (not lobbying, but forcing manufacturers to change.) Suppose I have a 1/10 chance to have to pay $10000 a year from now. A "fair" price would be $1000 a year, plus say a $100 premium for doing this. But why would I pay the $1000 to an insurance company when I could ... just put the $1000 in the bank every year, and not pay the premium? There are reasons. Some people are riskier, some are less risk. So one can subsidize the other, but if I'm less risk, why would I? The only solution to that is to force everyone to get insurance, which is what car insurance laws and Obamacare does. Also you sometimes don't want to rely on self insurance. But what if an insurance company says, I will charge you $800. How can I get away with this? I will impose a series of rules that reduce your risk to 1/20. You save $300, we pocket $300, you are safer, everyone wins. That is a much better system than, I will charge you $800, and I can get away with that buy, er, making you sign a big contract so I can not actually pay you. Ha! The key is that those rules the insurance company imposes are voluntary. Obviously a government rule isn't good for that ... but something like Snapshot is, in my view, totally acceptable and should be encouraged. The service insurance should provide is I am encouraged to drive safer. Which imo is better than subsidizing risk that it turns out isnt actually subsidized.
Lets have every vehicle owner do this every time they use their vehicle to stop the 3 peeps that drive drunk...even when they typically have a suspended, or no, license and shouldn't be on the road at all...also when any part of that system breaks you know it will default to the vehicle being completely useless...I guarantee certain government and big business vehicles won't have this system, you know, they got a waiver that you cannot get...remember...Totalitarianism is for the People not the Totalitarian.
Once you've ignored all the warnings, Tesla autopilot puts the hazard flashers on and slowly brings the car to a halt. I tried this myself when autopilot was first enabled on my Model S, to see what would happen.
I think what you're referring to is the result of a 'hack': some people work around the annoyance of having to nudge the wheel every 30s, by putting a weight (an orange or water bottle) on one side of the steering wheel to trick autopilot. If you do that, sometimes the weight fights back too much and disengages autopilot - falling back to regular cruise control (losing auto steer).
I fault Tesla here only for making it too annoying to use the feature. This can (and will) be solved by using an interior camera, like GM's one already does. Privacy issues beside.
You're right, my bad, I apologize. Just tried it. Pinning this for accuracy. If you pull the wheel too little, it beeps at you and eventually turns off autosteer, if you pull it too hard it turns off autosteer because it thinks you're taking over. It takes a while to figure out just the right amount of pull so it doesn't turn off because it thinks you're not paying attention but also that it doesn't turn off because it thinks you're taking over.
I mean i figure its only a matter of time before we start seeing open source firmware for smart cars. I could see alot of people getting tired of the bullshit and just rooting and flashing custom OS onto their Tesla to avoid the bullshit ... (It would probibally have better self driving capability than stock firmware too )
I mean, if autopilot is in the state it is now then making you move a little the steering wheel every 30s is a very good way to enforce you to be on the wheel as the law says you have to be, for example, train drivers have to point to an specific place sometimes when entering an station, this is to check their attention, and is basically the same, and if a person is stupid enough to put a bottle as a weight in the steering wheel they deserve a Darwin award. I remember seeing a video of a person complaining that their turning lights wouldn't stay when turning to the right, is because that person was stupid enough to put a weight on the turning lights "selector" (I don't know the name of it in English) .
When we see those laws we see them as people that do things on a rational way, but there are too many people that think they are also in that category and do dumb shit like this, there is a majority of drivers that consider themselves better than average, and that is statistically impossible, for starters because every time I go out I have to enforce the fact they have to let walkers pass and they just don't reduce speed so I just begin to walk without waiting for them to slow down first, otherwise I would be there half an hour for them to not stop for 5 seconds, as they should do by law, also,if I go on a bike, they don't left the space required by law between a car and a bike (bicycle to be clear) when they pass on the side, once a cargo truck forced me to go under it so it wouldn't crushed me against other vehicles, if I slowed down a little at that point I would have also be crushed by the truck itself, so much only option was to go under it. Most drivers are irresponsible, and doing the bare minimum of being a little considerate with other people is above average, but most people wouldn't recognize they are assholes, so, they say they are above average.
At the end, measures like this will end up saving more people from themselves and from killing others in the process, but those edge cases are going to be there. But I will prefer the streets when all cars are fully self driving, there is too many assholes in the road. And yes, I know a person that was killed in a massive accident caused by a drunk driver on a truck slamming the truck against multiple people, my mother recieved him in the ICU and knew from the moment he entered that he wouldn't go out alive. A drunk driver is not a risk for one person, is a risk for multiple people, so is a tired driver, you don't need to be drunk to be a danger (by law people are required to not be on the wheel for more than 6 hours in my country)
I can't wait for the wave of strange videos erupting from this
@@mikeloeven There wont be opensource firmwares on cars. If something goes wrong who pays the bill? Insurance companies would love one more reason to not pay even if the software wasnt actually the reason. How would you prove reliably it didint?
You forgot one thing, those sensors will use "behavioral" patterns, so if you are trying to avoid the pot holes on the increasingly shitty roads, the car will decide that you are drunk.
If the roads are so bad where you are that you spend 100% of your time dodging pot holes, that is not a reason to not have this technology. It's easy to make excuses....
😒 ... Politicians' stupid ideas always have a certain level of appeal ... but in the end they always result in more problems, less freedom, less choice, less privacy, higher cost of living, more taxes, less competition, more wealth concentration, more authoritarianism, more fines and more government interference in people's lives ... !!!
@@theethicsofliberty4642 as long as people demand that violence is produced (statism), there will always be the statist class to produce it.
@@HonuManHi ...doesn't have to be "100%"
do you have a breathalyzer installed in your car or are you just making excuses?
My wife got pulled over because she was dodging out holes
Considering how often my car vibrates the steering wheel and flashes "BRAKE!" scaring the crap out of me simply because of some glitch at certain angles of going around a curve with oncoming traffic, I would have to vote a hard "no".
vibrating the steering wheel? Theres a reason why truck drivers seats vibrate, not the wheel.
Shit that directly interferes with the drivers control of the vehicle. e.g. steering wheel vibrating aggressively, would have the potential to cause accidents. shitty design tbh
@@Porouskilldeathratio Exactly. I turned off the lane departure wheel shaker feature on my car after I realized that it severely interfered with my ability to feel where the grip limit is (especially important in snow).
The problem is all the car manufacturers try go cheap with the technology... Volvo will be using cameras to monitor driver gaze and provide warnings, and intervention if necessary
Sounds like the new Mercedes Benz Sprinter :D On Motorway it often thinks it's too big to fit under the bridge starting to beep and even braking when a bridge gets closer :D I crapped my pants the first time it happened to me. It was winter time and a very slippery weather :D
♥️ my 96 mini van
Imagine a world where your cars telemetry data is used to determine your insurance rates, or worse, whether or not you deserve to continue having insurance after an accident.
we have this voluntary in europe. some insurance companies fit a telemetry box on your vehicle and give you discounts / rebates if you "drive well" and charge more if you don't. It's commonly targeted at young / newer drivers - though it's not a requirement.
Not too unrealistic, unfortunately
@@lankatr this is in America as well. Geico does it and Progressive as well. Both are voluntary but you can see this as them moving from voluntary to mandatory.
I am afraid we are getting there...
in some countries you are required to renew your drivers license with a test.... that should be the way to go, that car-sends-stuff-to-insurance - shit is just crazy
"Your car has been disabled due to lockdown. We apologize for the inconvenience"
It's not meant to prevent DUI. It's meant for them to tell you when you can drive
Exactly, another form of control
100%.
that's a conspiracy th... no your absolutely right the overreach is just becoming more and more common.
That is where it easily could go. That's one way lock people down
They already do this in other countries. Certain people and plates cannot drive on certain days. So progressive. Much freedom.
Cars may be used in cases of emergency. Are you sure we should be potentially stopping a car if I rushing my wife or child to the hospital? What if there is an evacuation order? I see lawsuits coming if this comes to pass...
They would say that they will disable safety features on the air in emergencies.
But yeah what about personal emergencies?
@@liucyrus22 In a natural disaster emergency you won't have net connection.
it would really suck if my car just randomly decided that I don't get to go to the hospital.
@@fubbernuckin I agree - just because there are a few brickheads out there - don't assume everyone is one.
Maybe it's better to just make the habitual DUI people be incapable of driving completely, either lock them up or by other means.
They would make the car manufacturers exempt like they did drug companies, set up a unique court this biased in favour of the car manufacturers ( like they do for drug companies) and it would be entirely on you to prove them in the wrong and the tax payer foots the bill not the company
Watch as it jumps from "Drunk Driving" to "Things we don't like you doing."
e.g. car auto stop when you try drinking your coffee lol
"I am sorry, but you violated the law by driving at the current coordinates. Please stand by until law enforcement arrives for questioning. The doors have been locked for your security."
Police says to pull over so the car locks you in and pulls over automatically so they can arrest you ...
"You're not vaccinated?! You can't drive then." -government
@@LiEnby Next step: racially motivated police brutality stats drop to 0
The car is now the one taking care of the shooting, the officers just do cleanup work
As with all government/laws with regards to technology, it'll be a great idea on paper, and in reality will have zero effect on drunk driver crashes and deaths.
Lost you at "great idea on paper"
@@LiEnby even with that edit, I'd say this stacks up to the average bill that gets passed as far as quality, effectiveness, and benefit to the American people.
That's because representatives don't understand that their kooky ideas are not practical in reality. th-cam.com/video/yR2lgxy-htU/w-d-xo.html What happens when their plan not only doesn't work but can't ever work‽
@Caleb Brewster ironically it was Republicans who wanted to monitor who was using which bathroom. Don't fall into the trap of believing your color is somehow different from all the other colors, they're all politicians.
@Caleb Brewster dude, I don't even disagree with you, I just wanted to point out that it isn't just the Evil Left™ pushing for this invasive crap. It was just a humorous way to point out a bit of hypocrisy coming from the right-wing. As a republican you really can't mention "bathrooms" and expect the bathroom laws not to come to people's minds.
Make value judgements about individuals based on their personal beliefs, not whole groups at once based on what you *think* people in that group believe.
Notice that in the second paragraph, I don't say anything about left and right. Everybody in this country has some work to do as far as judging the value of the *idea,* instead of judging the value of the person who shares the idea. A terrible person can write great policy, a good person can *easily* write invasive, nannying, controlling policy. We need to start judging the policy on its own, regardless of its provenance.
6:02 about the fan speed thing. Fans to maximum speed at -124C makes sense because it knows the sensor failed. The only thing that is 'broken' about this system is the indicator showing -124C rather than saying "the sensor is fucked". If the sensor failed, the computer has no idea what temperature it actually is, so it does the option that is safest for the hardware. Although the single point of failure is not great.
I do high-reliability space stuff for my profession, and this is how I would design it.
[Slaps Victor Unbea] THANK YOU!
I had this issue for about 4 years on my i5-2400. The pc thought the temperature is either -60°C or 128°C.
It's pretty rational to ramp up the fan speed to the maximum. If your temperature rating doesn't make any sense, you want to keep the CPU under maximum cooling to ensure that it won't damage itself.
Ford has that, FMEM. Failure Mode Effects Management
I'm glad I saw this reply so I didnt have to make it. I was thinking "am i crazy?" because that is how I would design it too. Sure, maybe a majority of the time it will be annoying and not the proper cooling method, but it means your computer will still work no matter what, and its also an indicator something is wrong so you can get it fixed. It's essentially a failsafe.
Even my Polaris ATV is designed this way, If you try to start it when the temperature is below -10F the overheat light comes on, the fan runs full blast and it will not start. It thinks the sensor has failed and prevents engine damage.
As someone who grew up with technology and works in that industry, I have no confidence in whatever the car companies come up with to be compliant with this.
"We suspect you may be inebriated. Please standby for an authority to authorize enablement of your vehicle"
and in true fashion, concurrently have your civil assets confiscated via civil asset forfeiture.
Nah, they send a "Tesla Uber" with a driver and bill you a fortune later. 😆
"You had large amounts of liquid assets in your bank account. It is clear that these must be the profit of a criminal enterprise. They have been seized pending further investigation."
That’s a different TH-cam channel. 😁
@@glorioskiola AtA ?
Just had this thought, imagine this scenario:
You had some fun with your SO last night in your car at around 11 P.M. You leave the car on for A/C and kill the headlights. The car has weight sensors in the front and back seats. The car knows it is stationary and currently in parked gear. It also knows that the suspension, particularly the rear suspension, began swaying back and forth, up and down in a rhythmic manner for a given time. The car thinks someone is trying rob it or something so it activates the rearview mirror camera to "catch" the "thief".
You take your car to its next scheduled service the next day. Not only could the mechanic see your SO in their birthday suit, they also get to see your performance and how long you lasted! Even without a camera, the suspension, time, and possibly location data can tell the mechanic what you were up to yesterday. Oh, and so can the manufacturer.
Either you should be allowed to buy out from telemetry gathering, they should limit telemetry to engine and wheel data, or at least inform you about the data collected.
And just as a fun alternate scenario, remember the weight sensors? Your SO weighs 120 lb, you weigh 140 lb. Your SO went out for "grocery shopping" in the early night. Take the car to the mechanic the next day, weight sensors detect 360 lb...
This has black mirror written all over it. Informing people is the absolute minimum but not enough, we need to stop motivating 'innovations' like this. By just not buying into them.
The car should congratulate you for 'getting lucky' and give you a creepy wink on the dashboard display. Or, connect to the bigscreen at the closest football stadium.
SO = smash opportunity? 😅
I've a better idea: let's sell a premium subscription service that gives you a set ammount of hours to disable your telemetry
The more you pay, the more hours you can disable your telemetry for each month.
Let's take it a step further: the car still secretly collects the telemetry and records audio and video 24/7 for security reasons, but you don't tell the consumer.
Let's call it "Cars as a service" and market it as a business model that allows the consumer to have more "Freedom of choice"
@@Gnomezonbacon the car will simply refuse to turn on for "safety reasons", and demand that you tow it to the dealership to get the telemetry module fixed.
Spot on with the Patriot Act analogy. I wish this technology was used to benefit all of us but it's not, it only passes if it helps some billionaire somewhere. Insurance companies have been pushing to normalize computerized tracking your driving, insiders chat about it openly.
It doesn't matter if you're the most law abiding citizen even who has never even gotten a parking ticket. It can still be used against you.
The question is not whether *you're* doing something wrong. It's whether you can trust the people in charge of the system not to abuse it. And if history is a guide, the answer is no.
The way it usually works is they'll convince you to accept it based on a certain reason that sounds fine initially. But then after it's implemented, it gets used for a lot more than they said it would, in ways you would never have approved of if they told you it would be used like that to begin with.
@@Knowbody42 +1
As someone who enjoys and builds technology I want it as far away as possible from my vehicles. If its a motorcycle simple efi or carbs with manual brakes. For a car, manual transmissions, no cruise, manual hand brakes (none of that electronic brake crap) and no stupid and unnecessary sensors. My old fuel injected Honda ran great for 16 years without any engine lights coming on started first time all the time . My new Toyota? Its confused half the time and thinks there's an engine issue when none exists. The simpler the better. Less sensors the better and more reliable. Will never buy a car that has junk telemetry.
I will literally start riding my bike exclusively before I'll buy a car made after 2012 or so. Total pieces of crap, and not in the way your grandpa called everything new a total piece of crap. The hellscape of extraneous systems, obnoxious/distracting warning lights/tones, and screens is as much of an affront to driving as it is an assault on the senses.
Mind you, I'm technically a zoomer! I'm not some old fart still hanging around, I was born into this shit and I still hate it. Bring back the *real* basic cars, the four-bangers with a cigarette lighter, seats, wheel, gearshift, and that's it! I want it to smell like cheap cigarillos and make a whining sound in first gear! The only thing I want to see in it that says "ABS" is an old fitness magazine on the floor in the back seat!
I was kind of hoping that once I get out of college I'd be able to get a good job and buy a nice new car but by the looks of things, nice new cars aren't going to be a thing very much longer.
Every time i see a new feature getting added to a car I don't see a feature, i see a point of failure. I want a car that is as basic as possible because i can't afford to be replacing all of these sensors and gadgets.
AGREE : )))))))))))))
AND
LETS GO BRANDON !!!
Now you’re thinking like an engineer!
this is making me more and more glad i drive a beat up old camry instead of some newer car
@@UserName-ts3sp Same been driving the same car since early 2008. I'll be driving the same car still come 2028 and hopefully even 2038.
That's why I have a car with window cranks instead of motors.
I wish the trunk would open with a key, but at least the driver's side door has keyed entry.
You are driving home from a flea market 80 miles away and the car determines you are impaired(drowsy) and stops your car 60 miles away from your house. Now what? You aren't allowed to idle your car due to environmental regs, so the heat turns off and you are now freezing in your car in the middle of nowhere. Thank you car.
It doesn't stop it randomly, jeez.
Car determines you are impaired. You might have made a late turn or swerved ever so slightly when you looked over your shoulder to change lanes. In order for the system to work, it would need to access the data of the average driver, a database which the manufacturer would create and maintain. And when something goes wrong, it's the black box defense: "it's not us, it's the algorithm." No two drivers do things in the exact same way, just as no two people have the same gait.
@@Dranzell We don't know what it does yet as it does not state what system will be accepted/required.
Great idea. Every time I'm late for work "my car has buggy anti drunk driving and disabled the car for 15 minutes again."
The counter culture you're talking about is pretty much exactly my mindset about newer cars. It's a motorized vehicle, not a spaceship - I don't need driving assistance that can't even drive on its own. I don't want my telemetry logged, a camera inside my rear mirror, or a remote switch for my engine. I'm starting to consider buying an older car than the one I currently have, simply because then I can be sure it's under my control.
This is exactly why I love my '01 E53 X5, and why when she kicks the bucket I'm planning on buying something even older. Ol' Joe is *not* going to have the privilege of deciding when, where, and how I drive. Freedom of movement is one the key things that makes us "United", and not just the "States of America".
That’s great for the used market. People buying them and using them instead of just scraping them.
@@globalist1990 The only issue is, once everyone starts hopping on the used market, the government would have basically bankrupt all car manufacturers in the U.S. The government would have to fix their mistakes and bail out those companies. Thus, us small people will have something else that we need to pay for.....
Man, I just want the economy to collapse already. Why wait to 2040 that was predicted in the 1970s..... IF they haven't bothered to provide an aid of ounce in over 50 years now...
@@flameshoter6 no one needs a new car every two years. Car makers are pushing new models based on fashion and emotions, new gimmicky tech as well. Digging their own grave. They can always sell EV. It’s like you’re saying we need to eat trans and saturated fats and refined sugars to protect it’s manufacturers.
Lots of people are doing fine while not building cars.
@@globalist1990 I kind of understand what you mean. However, I don't think you understand what I mean. But I'm looking at it as a business perspective. I need a new used car every couple of years because something serious usually happens. For new cars every 2 years, those people are making enough money to splurge. Let them take the hit financially. I'll buy it when it is used. But when large businesses go, and people lose their jobs, it has a cascading effect. Now those people don't have jobs, so they aren't spending money. Since they aren't spending, other businesses will lose their contracts or whatever, now they can't afford to run their businesses. So those businesses shut down and those people aren't spending money...... It causes market disruptions on a large scale. There are over 10 million people related to the field in the U.S.
In general, most people don't need anything except for food and water. Most people don't even need shelter, but want it. Some people buy a new car because the expectation is that it would last longer without issues....
People do need to eat fats. Not the bad kinds. But the good kinds. People need to eat sugar or otherwise carbs which turns to sugars.
Sounds like a business opportunity - to disable that kind of shit.
My thoughts precisely
Be easy too
Prefect! 👍 ☺️
Car tuners will be able to do this with a click of a button.
It's pretty common already for diesel owners to rip out and disable a lot of emissions stuff because they constantly cause problems. Rip it out, plug in a computer, click a button and you're done with a more reliable car.
it already exists, and every car Manufacturer tries to sue the shit out of everyone for Safety concerns or unauthorized modification and all that stuff.. xD
I was driving my 2020 Ford Escape on a 4 lane highway passing a semi when he put on his left signal and started to enter my lane, so I moved over half a lane and pushed the accelerator to get out of way. Immediately an alarm rang and a message came on the display saying that I need to pull over and rest because I was driving impaired.
Don't worry, the car knows best./s
LOL. wow! Fuck that.
My 2020 Corolla told me to take a break during a long road trip. I did not obey it.
@@jon199680 does *anybody* actually like that crap‽ Who TF is it for? Obviously I'm not a total vegetable if I'm the one driving the car, I can tell when or if I need to take a break goddammit!
@@jon199680 i rented a 2021 corolla on a road trip and it told me that shit... like FOH, im making only one stop in 9 hours and ill be fine
2050: Your car can sue you for not taking care of it good enough
That seems possible in the new world order where we do not own anything, because the user is damaging the company assets.
Car owns you in 2050
@@first_m3m3 At that point, I'd rather live in a box in the woods. I'll take my chances. I don't understand why people making those predictions would think people would be happy. Hell, I haven't been happy for most of my childhood and my young adult life. If a company wanted to enslave me, they would need to provide everything for me. 100% would try to bankrupt the company then by making them pay for the most expensive things for me.
You joke now.....but it will happen.
Im of the opinion a car should just be a car. I got the stupid "LOOKING AROUND WHILE OPERATING CAN BE DANGEROUS" pop up that is really distracting while driving.
I dont need my car doing things. Just more over reach that will be a precedent for more power grabs
"Looking around while operating can be dangerous" - Wait, what? Aren't drivers SUPPOSED to be looking around, isn't situational awareness kinda important when you're operating a 2000-lb. missile?
New for 2026! Milwaukee M18 Fuel battery powered breath blower. Adds just the right amount of humidity and halitosis to get your car started.
I think it would be fine with the small m12 battery especially for easy carry.
This will strengthen the market for older vehicles that lack these undesirable "features" also this feature would likely kill people. Faulty sensor decides your drunk on a busy interstate. The mack truck behind you won't react as fast as your sensor.
That's easy, just drink in the car after you've breathed into it.
😂😂😂
just buy a bagpipe fill it up pre drinking.
Lmao
That is why you have the drinks bar unlock after breathing into it.
That's why some of those machines are set up that you have to blow every x amount of driving minutes
Don't forget about they could potentially build the car in a way that Diabetics could never drive again because of Acetone breath. It'd be too dangerous for them to hop in a car if them breathing could result in the car stopping
They'd have to be having a medical emergency at that point and like a person having a stroke, shouldn't be driving in that state unless an absolute emergency where no other transport is available
@@DivineLightPaladin “in that state” plenty of people with Diabetes drive very safely every day. It’s called managing your diagnoses. Just because you want every move someone makes to be controlled doesn’t make this a good thing.
@@DivineLightPaladin Its like Louis said in the video, if your blood sugar is out of whack and you can't properly maintain a vehicle, I don't want the car putting other people in danger as "punishment"
The problem is this 'technology' they want to install on your vehicle is unreliable. And when its unreliable then its more of a danger to the owner of the vehicle than any vehicular accident can do.
As with most technological failures, that's probably not true. But it's not news when things work as intended, it's only news when they aren't, especially if that is catastrophically so.
I have a lot of problem with the noted plan, but the reporting bias needs to be pointed out.
The problem is that if your car can be turned off remotely they can stop you from driving to protests, and they can enforce lockdowns by making your car not work anymore
Even if it was reliable 100%, I wouldn't want a breathalyzer in my car or camera staring at me.
Reliable software is an oxymoron.
I find it as a strange paradox of humanity, as we make things more automated, the less manual skills overall humans will develop.
Lane assist, auto brakes, weather traction controls, all of these numb the brain and make it easy for a 12 year old to drive a car and it keeps the mind from developing a sixth sense, so when something does go out, the person will not know what to do.
What I'm wondering is: When a car erroneously disables itself because a person is driving erratically on their way to the ER, who's at fault? It can't be the manufacturer since they were forced to implement the feature, and I'm sure the government won't be interested in actually developing the feature itself so they won't have any control over how it actually works.
They’ll just say that the driver is responsible for driving erratically and get away with it.
THat might happen, but it will be very rare, over time it will save much more lives than it takes.
@@dillogdall1 And I'm sure that utilitarian logic will be a great comfort to those people who do die.
@@oliviastratton2169 They will probably find about the same comfort as the hundred of thousands of individuals that dies every year due to car traffic.
Just ride your bike to the ER dude
A couple months ago my roommate's EX showed up, drunk. She'd brought her 9 year old daughter with her to blow into her ignition interlock device. (previous conviction for impaired)
I ran down the stairs and took the keys from her car. I scared the heck out of that poor kid. Felt really bad, still feel really bad. :(
Cops did next to nothing.
Ah yes, the police didn’t do their jobs so everyone else must sacrifice instead
@@aeroelectro9981 She took her child and ran away. Came back in the morning and got her car, I guess she had a spare key.
Or, god forbid, the cops gave her key back.
My mother's former supervisor had multiple DUIs and a breath interlock. So he did what he was taught at his AA meetings - he disconnected the battery, taking full advantage of the "jump start override" to drive his drunk butt home from work every day. He only wrecked three times that way, hit-and-runs with personal property damage (mailboxes, fences, shrubbery, not cars).
Once he got through his probation, the interlock was removed, and it took him three days to total his car while drunk. At the scene, he blew a 0.318%, well beyond the 0.08% limit. Amazing that he could function at all.
@UCE6YQm1AuIsvd_3pebefMjw What a fucking loser. I don't get it at all.
@@dashcamandy2242 you'd think somebody would notice that he had to "jump start" his car every damn day. The only word for that guy is "loser", until he decides to get his shit together.
Imagine someone jumps in front of your "smart" car and points a gun at you. You decide to run over them rather than risk being shot. Collision avoidance system refuses. Then you're wishing you still had that "dumb" car you traded.
Will the guy shoot you if you don’t run him over? If not, the car did the right thing, unless you’re in America off course.
I think you might have bigger problems than collision avoidance systems, if you live in a place where armed people jump in front of moving vehicles. It sounds horrible.
I actually wondered this exact thing the other day with my newer car I recently got, it has all the sensors and emergency braking etc. I tried reversing a trailer once without the correct plug in to disable the emergency reverse braking (short move in a yard at low speed) and the car went crazy and locked up all 4 wheels and refused to move again. It would probably do the same thing with a pedestrian/shooter.
The more mundane problem is on the country roads. A dangling grass straw ahead? Slam the breaks!
I haven't tried this with a person for obvious reasons, but right now, I'm sure the car will obey your command to execute the perp. I have already regretfully ran over a living being without protest from my car. That being said, it's a Tesla. I don't know about other brands, you might have a paperweight.
Consequences of exposing people to all the horrors of the world in 4K: The average person is obsessed with terrorism, crime, accidents, and possibilities, in a time when we have historically low terrorism, crime, accidents, and possibilities.
What could go wrong when you add more code written by a teenager at 3 in the morning to a 2-ton device that has the kinetic energy of a small missile?
Because not telling developers where their code will be used has been a common feature of management
I'm glad my car is just a car. Even though it's a 2018 model, I'm pretty sure it doesn't even know what gear it's in.
Yes it does because the computer is doing the shifting of the gears based on road conditions. Cars no longer have a "kick-down" cable attached to the throttle anymore...
@@jazzman92478 it's a joke
Hell yeah. Basic cars are the best. I just like my car as advanced as having no internet connection.
@@TechnologistAtWork what kinda car you drive? I drive a scion frs and this thing feels so analog I love it
sounds like a nice car to me. what model is it?
Another example of government trying to “make us safer” when the real answer is just teaching personal responsibility.
@berserker406 anytime i hear "follow the money" you lose me. you just sound like a conspiracy nut.
@@booey316 the corruption is out in plain sight, americans just call it "lobbying"
If people cannot do it for themselves, the government will take the wheel for you.
the thing is if you had proof they were invested then you would have some leverage because despite what people think that is illegal. so please share with the rest of the class what you have on them and we can get them impeached.
@@booey316 youtube doesn't allow links, and now they are even censoring pseudo-url links, but try opensecrets > Influence and lobbying
Also, campaign contributions are public
It's pointless talking to you anyway, you already have your conclusion
You live surrounded by the proof, me pointing it out to you wouldn't make a difference
This is precisely the reason I don't consider brand new cars. Just too much tracking and barriers on repair. Sounds like in 2040; 2010 cars will sell for more than brand new cars.
if you can still buy gas for them...
@@MrTaxiRob You can, gas won't become hard to find until the 60s.
@@fortheloveofnoise it will he heavily taxed to pay for self driving EV infrastructure
What's next, inserting my license into a card reader every time i turn the engine on??
And if your license is expired, the car refuses to start.
@@aaronlane8276 both of these will happen, people call me gloom and doom....but without a cultural revolution....our world will end up like 1984
Strange sensor behavior is dangerous.
For an example, Norway's pioneering electric aircraft had an issue with motor cooling, it basically ran out and the electric motor started overheating.
As a result, the controller was like "Oh the motor is overheating, CUT POWER NOW!"
The problem with an aircraft is, if you lose power you just can't pull over to the side of the road, or rather you can somewhat pick a spot where to crash.
This plane as a result splashed down in a shallow river with no fatalities...
Proper design would be to warn of lack of coolant as the temperature was climbing, but you run that motor until it burns up if necessary to allow the pilot to pick a potential safer and less dangerous spot than in a river.
In regards to keeping people from adopting electric vehicles, I know as a teenager who has no attachments to any brands or styles yet that seeing things like forced data tracking and less control of your own vehicle makes me want to avoid anything with modern tech in it. I like tech that makes lives better and safer, but it just seems like its all going too far due to special interests.
You know what would dramatically cut down on drunk drivers?
A FUNCTIONING TRANSIT AND RAIL SYSTEM that doesn't only run once every 70 minutes, or break down all the time or cost $6 per ride at the point of service. You know, like a modern country should have?
Oh man, this "unsafe following distance"-crap really hits home for me. Whenever you *try* to maintain a safe distance (in cities and on motorways), some asshole will squeeze in front of you.
There's simply no way to keep a safe distance if the jerks you share the road with won't let you.
I bought a used Honda Accord. While driving down the road, the car decided that I had stolen it and set off the alarm nonstop and killed my engine, requiring me to roll the car off the road into a ditch, and then have two different police officers take my info to see if I had stolen the car. I didn't know this feature was a part of the alarm system, and I had to call the dealership to get them to call the prior owner to get the code to disable the system, and couldn't get to work.
There are some people who still drive 1960's cars in 2021, so it's entirely possible that people who care about their privacy will still be driving 2000's cars in the 2080's...
True that!
Except things made in the 60s were made to last- today everything is made fast and cheap
It will be illegal because they aren't electric. Or simply illegal just because. Or not illegal but impossible to find fuel because nobody sells it anynore.
ICE bans will take care of that for you.
With love, Biden.
@@Bonanzaking I still to this day want to off myself for not buying Bitcoin at 35 bucks when I was told to.... literally my life and my family's could have been completely changed....but I was too young to get it. If I was my age now back then I would be a billionaire by now.
There was an auto manufacturer (I think Chrysler) that would not install airbags or even offer them as an option until it was mandated. This was to avoid liability with faulty systems. This for a technology that was well under development. The only device on the market for this is the breathalyzer ignition interlock. I refuse to give my car a blow job to go to the grocery store if I have not done anything wrong.
Federal government tried to restrict cars over 15 years old in the past, (think it was in the 70's) sema and other groups where formed that halted that from happening. A new fight has been forming over the last few years.
It's just another way for them to control the movements of people.
"Our systems were malfunctioning during the big protest you wanted to attend, we're sorry for any inconveniences this may have caused."
If a "feature" in your car misfires , you probably put yourself and those around you in mortal danger.
Right now , the best feature in a car is to have been designed with the mindset of the previous decade. (at least)
That's as far as safety goes, i would rather not start on privacy concerns.
Not the previous decade. That was the 2010s. I say we don't even design them with same kind of targets as the 2000s. Go back to the '90s, where the focus is on making the car reliable and physically resilient with mechanical redundancies, and active safety tech is on the end users to provide.
I hear constant praise for modern airbags, ABS, crumple zones, and crash cells for the passenger cabin. Stuff we had in the '90s. I hear a constant complaints about radar cruise control, automatic braking, collision detection, and blind spot monitoring. Stuff we started getting in the 2000s and 2010s. It's because the first group are passive safety systems that don't interfere, but the latter group are active safety systems that *do* interfere.
@@manitoba-op4jx "Get lighter"
My dude, cars have been getting heavier year over year since the late '80s. A '97 Civic sedan weighed 2,300 pounds, and a '21 Civic sedan weighs 2,900 pounds. A '97 Dodge Ram 1500 Extended Cab weighed 4,600 pounds, and 2021 RAM Tradesman Quad Cab weighs 5,200 pounds. Those are both with the maximum amount of weight reduction that's financially reasonable in 2021.
Also those crossovers are friggin' huge. Compare them to the sedans and hatchbacks we used to have. A 2021 Subaru Ascent is almost a full foot longer and taller than an '01 Subaru Legacy wagon. A '21 Ford Escape is ten inches taller than any form of '01 Ford Focus, and still two inches longer than the longest station wagon form. And these CUVs are supposedly size-equivalent replacements for hatchbacks, sedans, and stationwagons despite being big enough that if they were measured fairly they'd be bumped up entire size categories.
Fun aside, CUVs are smaller inside than their hatchback counterparts of the same size class, despite the CUVs always being bigger outside. Often the best interior space utilization a CUV can get is 75% of a hatchback's if compared using the same size class, such as sub-compact hatchback to sub-compact CUV. Those big wheel wells and upright seats really cut into the available interior space.
Woot, make cars worse so more people walk and bike, so governments stop wasting money on roads that only add to induced demand!
@@Bonanzaking you overlook semis. Roads are absolutely needed for them.
There is nooooooo way the car companies would log which billboards you look at and sell that information to advertisers. That would neeeeeever happen.
AGREE ; ))))))))))))))))))
Or what you listen to in your car? Getting more ads for a particular political viewpoint, music (supposedly, Apple sucks at this in reality) that is similar to what you've been listening to, or Audible books? How about recommended specials for your grocery-buying after you discuss dinner plans, popping up on your satellite radio or Pandora? There are a lot of places this could go.
A few years ago I was in a diner drinking coffee and reading an e-book on my Kindle. I don't know what the conversation in the neighboring booth was, but when I took a break from reading, Amazon shopping thought I would be interested in plastic bags, a machete, and a gas can!
We are going to end up with all-mechanical stuff no longer being retro, but something you actually NEED.
TVs, cars, refrigerators, phones, people are going to want all kinds of things without worrying about someone spying on them and / or losing control of the things THEY own. Sounds like a good business model for a car / TV manufacturer, "All you want, and nothing you don't."
Basically bring back all the 60s tech, I'm game.
I had that idea for that type of company.... if only I was a billionaire.
I already opted out. My ICE car requires 150/200€ for annual maintenance and will always allow me to do whatever the hell I want to it. I love EVs but until I can have the same level of freedom I will never buy one
NOICE
I will never have an EV....I just love the sound of a gasoline engine and shifting my own gears.....I would not mind having an EV RV...but nothing else other than that.
I live in an area with a lot of classic car enthusiasts and I see Model T's on the road every weekend lol
I'm glad I have a late 90s car, base car, just the basic electronics.
I'll be like Stallone in "Demolition man" with a 20th Century car, just turn the key and drive.
@berserker406 1998 Camry, simple and reliable
NOICE : )))))))))))))))
LETS GO BRANDON !!!
Keeping my 14’ S197 for this reason lmao
Agreed. I'll keep my 360,000-mile '99 Camry, thank you very much. No ABS, no Traction Control, and I'm doing my part to help the environment by keeping the car on the road as long as mechanically possible. I'm also doing my part to help myself financially, since my $750 car has cost around $5,000 in repairs over five years and 103,000 of those miles. What I've invested in this car during five years of ownership is significantly less expensive than one year of car payments.
I still breeze through emissions testing with barely-registering numbers, far better than the minimum standards for California despite having the 49-state emissions system, and can easily get 30 mpg if I drive gently.
@@Bonanzaking I've driven '84 and '85 shortbeds, and an '86 longbed F-150s - all 2WD, all 4-speed manuals, all V6s. Sure, they aren't geared very well for city driving, but they are incredibly-good on gas at highway speeds. Comfortable, simple, reliable, capable. Parts are cheap, and easily-obtained; and the trucks are easy to repair and maintain. I don't blame you for hanging onto yours, they are workhorses!
(Full disclosure: I'm not a "Ford Guy," but I will give credit where credit is due - I'd own one of these trucks in a heartbeat if the opportunity presented itself.)
I totally agree with you! Not only will it encourage people to buy older vehicles, the price of these vehicles will skyrocket when people realize there's a demand for them... Thus screwing everyone over 😬🥴
It’s already begun!
Ripe for abuse, same with biometric start.
Around 1900, electric, steam, and gasoline had an almost even segment of the automobile market. It's too bad everyone went toward the "it's cheap" side.
Battery technology killed the early electrics , freezing temps and high maintenance killed steam
it only makes sense really. electric and steam must've been complete dog sht compared to gas
electric cars just became a reasonable option recently
I'm not a mechanic but I do all the work on my own cars, and from what I've seen 90% of the problems that occur are from failed sensors. Not the actual thing the sensor is supposed to be monitoring but the sensor itself. Adding more sensors to control more aspects of the car is just asking for problems.
Absolutely agree. I end up canceling my Tesla subscription because of the score. You drive to NYC your score has trashed. I want to decide by myself what level of forward collision warning is good for me, what speed and g force best for the specific turn. Until I’m more superior than any autopilot it’s up to me to decide. Geolocation based discrimination.
I use this video as one of the reasons 90’s JDM cars, and most older cars in general are skyrocketing in value. The merging between car and an electronic device.
With the increasing number of mechanisms to take control of a vehicle from the driver, how can the driver be held responsible for where the car goes and what it hits?
Lawyers: 👀👀👀👀
That's the one good thing I can see coming out of this. The driver gets less and less responsible for accidents happening because in the future, it looks like drivers have little to no control over their cars, and it's about time these stupid mandates stop and drivers have control over their "smart" cars again. No cameras staring at me inside the car
“There are so many things wrong with this” is the best short sentence of the video. This is a ridiculous bill that WILL cause issues
It sound okay until the car disables itself in the middle of the freeway
That's not how it works. It won't start if you are "drunk".
@@mrbluemancheese today. but probably not tomorrow.
@@mrbluemancheese who says that it won't malfunction and cause it to disable the car mid drive?
@@mrbluemancheese enters Boeing 737 max MCAS.
My friend's court mandated breathalocker thing strands her all the time... And has shut off the car in the middle of the road
It’s not about if someone is drinking or drunk. It’s about spying on people through inferred.
"Are you sure this will help us prevent accidents?"
"Accidents?"
Sounds like a great right to repair ad tbh keep your vehicle running longer so you dont have to be spied on. 1990 dodge dd250 still running with no plans on stopping.
First it’s drinking while driving, then it’s texting while driving, followed by smoking and driving, then it’ll know if you’re oogling at a hot girl on a sidewalk, then it’ll know what you and the passengers are talking about, and what ideas are being discussed
What’s stopping someone from removing the device?? If you say that taking out the device would disable the vehicle, then what happens over time with wear and tear to the device? Computers malfunction and break every single day for seemingly no reason. What happens if it gives a false positive during a drive?
just buy a new one what are you poor
That can literally be said of every single safety device. Why have an ABS on your car, what if it fails? Why have airbags? Why have electronics at all?
Stuff fails, but as long as it does more good than harm it's worth having it.
@@v0ldy54 and this doesn’t do more good. It is just a freedom grab by the government.
Why not just make the car print you a speeding ticket automatically?
@@v0ldy54 abs was a luxury option on cars for years before it was made a legal requirement, electronic throttle control still is a luxury, basically my point is the issue isn't the actual reliability it's the fact that the reliability hasn't been proven prior to making it a legal requirement.
Air bags is a good example though
>you get wrecked, in the name of everybody elses security theater.
I actually would be for a way to detect inebriation IF and ONLY IF the data was local only, no way of prying eyes seeing it remotely. It wouldn't be a bad thing. The problem stems from the government and companies insisting on taking things to the next level by collecting as much data as they can
Yes it would still be a bad thing, unless it could be disabled without incurring any cost at all, including opportunity cost.
@@orppranator5230 if there were no privacy concerns and didn't phone home or collect data, it can't possibly be a bad thing. The only people who would have a problem would be the morons who drink and drive
once self-driving cars are accepted, there will be pressure to prevent people from driving by hand. this drunk driving detection seems to be the first step in that direction.
Better yet build infrastructure that doesn't force people to drive in the first place, like a train network that people can use to commute to bars and pubs, no expensive Ubers or driving drunk.
@@thedankgoat7972 Unfortunately, that works only in large cities. Well, there used to be a massive network of passenger trains throughout the US but almost all of it is now torn up. I had a woman on my paper route years ago who was close to 100 years old and she shared stories and pictures of traveling by train from middle-of-nowhere Midwest to New York exclusively by train. Those days are long gone.
@@RegularCupOfJoe It's basically either passenger trains, or freight. The US choose freight. Can't really have both (at least, not for high speed rail), and freight is far more energy-efficient compared to the trucks that deliver most of Europe's land cargo. There really isn't a way out of this that doesn't involve massive infrastructure. The US and Europe tackled it differently, but the end result was the same: Lots of road and lots of rail.
@@thedankgoat7972 Passenger rail is as obsolete as typewriters, chamber pots, and rotary telephones. It's also incredibly expensive vs roads/cars and nowhere near as versatile.
What is it with people wanting to go back to slow and expensive methods of transportation? Do they think "Who Frame Roger Rabbit" was a documentary? Do they want horse-drawn wagons ran by Uber?
@@Crosshair84 How is it obsolete, for city travel it's great because it gives you the freedom not to drive and it works great in the form of metros in cities like New York and any European city as well as Japan, it can also be faster than car travel as it doesn't get stuck in traffic. And for longer distance travel it has advantages over planes as its cheaper for passengers, the check in process is less terrible, a single train can carry more people than a plane and is more enjoyable overall as you have interesting scenery to look at as well as leg room. And how is it more expensive than roads and freeways, those things are constantly crumbling and in need of repair, cost billions of dollars or more in repairs maintenance and fruitless highway widening projects that displace hundreds of homes and businesses and they take away people's freedom to use other forms of transportation. The car is the worst form of transportation for cities, they're really expensive upfront as well as in the gas, maintenance and insurance costs. They take up a lot of space in cities especially for only transporting one person most of the time, they get stuck in traffic and they are literally the most dangerous way to travel.
16:38 "There will be a counter revolution of people buying used older cars"
*ME !!!!!*
Thats like asking if a vehicle should stop you from speeding
Or at least record that data and report you to traffic authorities. I am sure speed governing will be standard in cars preventing speeding from being possible.And "black box" data I can see used in crime investigation.
Its proposed in europe now
Because the answer is "obviously no!", right? Please say "right"...
@@jittertn It has been for years now, will probably not pass any time soon.
They have it here for our buses. Some sort of speed governor hooked to the wheels, starving the engine once you go past 70/80km/h.
Turning the fans to high isn't a reaction to a temperature of -124, it's a reaction to receiving a temperature that's functionally impossible. The odds are incredibly slim that that temperature is being reported because the device is being used outdoors in Antarctica in winter, so it's interpreted as an error state meaning that the device doesn't know what the temperature of the chip is. The programmer's logic for defining a range at the bottom of the sensor that maxes the fans and slows the OS is that it will be way less expensive to replace the sensor than the chip, and if the chip gets to hot it will be damaged - and it's unknown how hot it is so all cooling systems are maxed out, because there is no too cold for the chip. This isn't bad design, it's saving the users device and keeping repair costs down.
However, it's super dumb and bad that then they don't publish stuff on how to replace that sensor, or make that sensor available.
I can see two outcomes here, aside from the one you mentioned about people just driving an older vehicle.
1. Either the system will not let the car drive if the sensor malfunctions and thinks you're drunk, causing a safety concern in an emergency situation.
2. The car will still let you drive if the sensor malfunctions, meaning it could easily be bypassed, by unplugging the sensor or taping over it, or perhaps modifying it etc.
Call for primaries on any politicians who does not pledge to repeal the Patriot Act, in full, zero discussion.
Politicians keep themselves busy by finding new issues to force on people, while they don’t follow ANY of it.
I am a strong believer in the credo of: "If you put safety over freedom you deserve neither."
The bully’s creed.
@@globalist1990 Nah, a wise creed. Governments and corporations don't like the general citizen having too many freedoms and rights. Gets in the way of profits. So they will use any and all occasions to sell people on the idea of privacy violation. Just look up the Patriot Act.
@@Warfoki 🤣🤣 So what do you do when you say to someone you “deserve neither”? Arrest them in an unsafe prison? Make them your slaves?
I’ll put my priorities on having a safe as possible car and safe road rules than having you drive drunk in whatever speed you’d like.
@@globalist1990 No, the idea is that if you are sacrificing freedom for safety, you will end up with neither.
This idea in the video won't prevent drunk driving reliably... but it sure as shit will make a lot of money for car manufacturers when they sell your telemetry data.
Hold on. When a temperature sensor reads -127C, it SHOULD spin the fans up to full. That's not silly. The computer recognizes that this is a fail state, realizes that it has no idea what the actual temperature is, so to prevent overheating it turns the fans on just in case. This is good and proper.
Horrible idea, the only reliable thing about electronics is that they will glitch and fail, then it will cost hundreds of dollars to fix.
Hundreds? Aren't you an optimist! LOL
You realise cars have been using ECUs for a lot of years now, right?
Nah, you don't realise that.
@@Dranzell LOL ya, and the myriad of sensors attached to them COMMONLY screw the driver over.
Now, this isn't a sensor, its an entire sensor array and computing suite, and if there is any failure in that system, it won't allow you to drive.
Think of how many false IDs of stop signs, pedestrians, etc a Tesla makes. Now imagine that every one of those forced the car to a stop for who knows how long.
I had a Saturn that needed a new computer because the air intake flap rusted, which told the O2 sensor to keep trying to open it up, which caused over-current to feed back to the computer, which because of cost cutting did not have a fuse for that power line.
So even using a junkyard computer (which could only be reset by the dealership) that lack of a ten-cent fuse cost me nearly $500.
*Next idea*
(When you swear in your car)
*"John Spartan you are fined one credit for violation of the verbal morality statutes !”*
😆😅
Remember folks that the government knows best. You are guilty until you are proven innocent.
One of the biggest problem is giving unknown people the authority to control how you can drive at all. The kind of power always give an unexpected turn.
Such as the health code in China become an useful tool for the government to lock civil rights activists in their home by simply turn their health code red.
I think we'd all do well to start coming to terms with the idea of risk and death. I'm noticing society move in a direction that is utterly terrified of the idea of death and we're up-ending the natural order if things in an attempt to avoid it. Mandates are another example of this.
@EM yep, the bubble wrap generation, except there's about 4 generations fully invested in this ideology right now. I have no idea where it came from.
@@Bonanzaking I read every book mentioned as a kid and they clearly played a huge part in my distrust for government. I think the problem is, in fact, *too few* people reading them, thinking about them, fully consuming them as works of art. Too often I see people consume art in such a way that they never actually think about what the message is, or why the story played put how it did. They forget that the author is a real human person with their own goals and motivations, who created the art to serve some specific purpose.
Imagine trying to actually use a car like this on some back grounds. Absolute insanity. Sure just inconvenience the millions who don’t drink, or the thousands of millions who drink but have never even thought about driving drunk. Unbelievable.
The real point of failure is the sentencing for drunk driving. People can get multiple DD convictions with barely any jail time. I had someone hit my home porch, flee the scene and get just a few days in jail.
one of my ex girlfriends got two DUIs in just a couple months. The DA combined them into ONE. Why? She's a menace that belongs in jail. And they were technically her 2nd and 3rd DUIs; she had another over ten years earlier, but the state ignores ones that are that old. Other people get just one with no accidents or injuries, but get the book thrown at them. The laws are too inconsistent to be considered remotely fair.
What happens when you go to court and take the 5th? As the owner of a car, can the 5th apply to any information gathered by the car or can this info be used against you? Do we need to pass legislation that forbids a car manufacturer from using information gathered by your car against you? To what extent can we allow the government, big business, and big tech to gather information on citizens and still maintain our freedom?
So here's my perspective as a driver: no, I do not need to get a grade by the car, based on my driving skills. I certainly do not need the car telling me that I am drunk. I never consume alcohol before I drive. You know why I don't do that?
Several reasons:
1. I don't want to go to jail and pay huge fines.
2. I really like driving. That's why it would really suck to have my license suspended.
3. I have seen enough idiotic people in traffic, to know not to be one of them. And that's where the police comes in.
Then...here's another thing: I have mountain roads close to me. Long, twisty, no potholes...sublime roads for a relaxing drive. And not a lot of people drive through there. If I want to have a good time and go over the speed limit, with no risk basically...why should the car know that? Why should the car 'grade' that? Why should the car disable itself? Because we all know that the next thing is: "unsafe driving. pull over." :(
It's my car, my life, my money...my good time in the end. Why should the manufacturer insert itself into that equation? And why should I pay for that???
A couple years ago I was driving a loaner from the dealer and I kept tripping the lane departure because I'm too late with the turn signal so it would try and force me back in to my lane. Intrigued by this half-assed autopilot one night I let it bounce me back in to my lane, then it hit the other side of the lane and bounced me back again, then again. After doing this a few times I got a warning on the screen saying I am still allowed to drive at this time giving me the impression that if I kept it I would not be allowed to drive.
everyday i learn more about smart cars the less and less i want one
Anything so called "smart" or connected is really no good..
Like all the "smart" gadgetry people put in their homes that spy on them and can be hacked by criminals.
I can't believe people would put something on their door like a "smart" lock. Wow. 🙄
@@marcodarko6941 that's why i got a hard wired security camera system that is not connected to the internet at all.
ME TOO
Love my old ass Evo, I'm in full control of everything
this makes me wanna go buy a couple old 2000s cars and keep them in storage. so i can keep using them for decades to come. my current car will probably crap out in 5-10 years (thanks rust belt)
Lewis, honestly this tracking stuff is _great._ Let me explain why:
With the conditions of roads, if I cannot swerve out of the way of potholes or avoid animals because it's a possible drunk driving moment, all I have to do is file a lawsuit and basically, *win.* I can sue the two parties responsible for this:
- The state government I live in, or an organization responsible for road maintenance. If a pothole kills my car because _I can't swerve to avoid lest I am "Drunk"_ then I can sue them for poor roads, and probably gain more unemployment if it happens to cause job loss.
- The telemetrics organization behind my data, for putting me into a state of danger when swerving to avoid an animal, _dead or alive_ would had been demeritorious to my capability of driving a car and thus, thinking i am "Drunk" because of it.
If enough people do _these two things_ and litigiously devastate this idea, a pattern will develop, precedent will set in and monitoring will become optional if it were not already.
Imagine having a way to ground massive groups of vehicles simultaneously.
I'm sure Al Qaeda will enjoy that.
This is why I’ll be keeping my 2nd Gen Tacoma for a very long time. ONLY I can drive and stop it, and ONLY I know where I’m driving. 👍🏻😎🇺🇸
Actually it makes sense that if it thought it was -124°C to ramp up the fans as what fans do is bring the temperature of the thing closer to ambient temperature as opposed to explicitly cooling it. If something was -124°C condensation would likely occur etc etc, you would want it to become closer to room temp
Also from a general failsafe perspective ramping the fans up to ensure your device can't cook itself is good. It's not "why is the fan on when its cold" its "my temperature sensor is probably reporting garbage data, its probably not actually cold so I need to make sure my processor is safe".
They do exactly that in extreme overclocking. Super cold liquid nitrogen to cool the CPU and GPU, and then fans blowing over nearby components to keep air moving and hopefully prevent condensation.
Apple fanboy thread detected.
@@danilodistefanis5990 I don’t they’re saying it’s good, they’re just rationalizing why it might have been done
this in the same machine that will let itself go to 90c before the fan even turns on! th-cam.com/video/wgeh7ZJRhZU/w-d-xo.html
The temperature sensor makes sense. It outputs a value which will be considered a fault, and the computer acts to make sure it doesn't overheat the best it can.
The fan spin up on the MacBook is actually reasonable. If the sensors read less than -100 deg C, it's probably correct to assume that the sensor broke. Given that it then has no idea regarding the actual temperature, taking the worst case (overheating) and spinning up the fans seems like the right thing to do.
As far as the fan ramping up to 100%, I'd probably design a similar feature. If the magnitude of the reported temperature is equivalent to the max grounded value or max shorted value, fail as safely as possible and set fans to max to avoid an overheating situation.
I'm honestly 50/50 on this. On one hand, I've had some friends die from drinking and driving. On the other hand, there has to be better ways than fucking up someone's car.
Don't allow your emotional attachment to the issue to overwhelm your need for privacy, and control over your own life. Easier said than done, I know, and I'm sympathetic to that, but: "He who would trade freedom for security..."
Think the EU law they are trying to pass forces manufacturers to allow installing these alcohol detection devices to people who already have a DUI history. Think that's the better option.
@@Dranzell That's a compromise I could live with.
I've already committed to not ever own a car made later than 2008 for reasons congruent with what you've outlined; any time that fact comes out, I get one of two reactions: the predictable incredulous modern car apologist, or, surprisingly more common, I get scoffed at and told that's too late. what you propose as a "potential" counterculture backlash is already well underway.
Can you imagine the court cases on drunk driving based on the "word" of your car, which you cannot access?? Jeez, we're losing every right! We're supposed to have the right to face our accuser! This might sound corny, but even the original Star Trek episode "Court Martial" warned about not simply taking the word of only a machine when you're accused!
As a car enthusiast, I love everything about ev’s. They have the superior performance even now in their infancy. But I won’t adopt them until they solve the problems you listed. I want simple reliable things and the ev drivetrain is just that. I also want the entire car to match, simple Bluetooth head unit, crank windows, manual seats, etc
You're exactly right. EVs could have been a golden age for trouble free mileage and ease of service, but instead these cars are being packed to the brim with useless features and plastic parts. My dream would be to convert something from the 70s-90s to EV using modular components.
Well you can thank insurance companies lobbying the government for this. Makes the chance of them having to payout less and they get to keep taking your money for more profit.
This is just the already used (by some insurance companies) where you plug a device into the OBD II port and it monitors your driving for “discounts” for being a good driver.
Its not automakers wanting to do this.
Also your car is not collecting any data on you that your phone is not lol. The only data outside from your phone being collected (speed and possible impairment) is mostly useful to insurance companies.
Lobbying is corruption and a disgrace to democracy.
Ah yes, Progressive's "Snapshot Discount." I considered it after they started jacking up my rates $30-40 a month for having the audacity of being a victim of DUI. Then I discovered I would be discriminated against and pay EVEN HIGHER rates because I drive during the wee hours of the day due to my job.
@@dashcamandy2242 That sucks. Yea i never trusted it because it seems more of a gotcha than anything else. I drive on the interstate highways for work and I’m sure going 75-80 would penalize me heavily when its a normal speed on interstate highways.
To be fair, in an ideal world, that is what insurance should be doing (not lobbying, but forcing manufacturers to change.) Suppose I have a 1/10 chance to have to pay $10000 a year from now. A "fair" price would be $1000 a year, plus say a $100 premium for doing this.
But why would I pay the $1000 to an insurance company when I could ... just put the $1000 in the bank every year, and not pay the premium?
There are reasons. Some people are riskier, some are less risk. So one can subsidize the other, but if I'm less risk, why would I? The only solution to that is to force everyone to get insurance, which is what car insurance laws and Obamacare does. Also you sometimes don't want to rely on self insurance.
But what if an insurance company says, I will charge you $800. How can I get away with this? I will impose a series of rules that reduce your risk to 1/20. You save $300, we pocket $300, you are safer, everyone wins.
That is a much better system than, I will charge you $800, and I can get away with that buy, er, making you sign a big contract so I can not actually pay you. Ha!
The key is that those rules the insurance company imposes are voluntary. Obviously a government rule isn't good for that ... but something like Snapshot is, in my view, totally acceptable and should be encouraged.
The service insurance should provide is I am encouraged to drive safer. Which imo is better than subsidizing risk that it turns out isnt actually subsidized.
Lets have every vehicle owner do this every time they use their vehicle to stop the 3 peeps that drive drunk...even when they typically have a suspended, or no, license and shouldn't be on the road at all...also when any part of that system breaks you know it will default to the vehicle being completely useless...I guarantee certain government and big business vehicles won't have this system, you know, they got a waiver that you cannot get...remember...Totalitarianism is for the People not the Totalitarian.
Mark my words, one day America will be less free than Russia and China is now....and it won't be due to communism, but corporatism.
@@fortheloveofnoise Totalitarianism is Totalitarianism regardless the flavor.
This is why I drive a 12 year old car.
Respect your elders, I drive a 13 year old car ;)