> It is very frustrating when people misstate other people's beliefs
I agree. It is also frustrating when people don't recognize or cry foul when their personal beliefs are restated within homotopy equivalence, perhaps (I speculate) because they think it weakens an already weak argument. Perhaps even moreso for those stating the equivalence because there is not argumentative advantage to be gained by expressing said frustration regarding said response.
Or at least it could be. I'm actually feeling indifferent on the topic.
> There are politicians and activists that have been pushing for lower car ownership and they do it openly.
Words are cheap, words and rallys and activist productions moreso, show the policy that impacts national and international production.
You are making the serious suggestion that a significant portion of the average cars cost is artificial in order to make people not buy them? And the extremely powerful automotive lobby is just fine with this?
It isn't unheard of that business will collude with government to "pull the ladder up behind them". I've worked in companies where that has been their stated strategy.
if i am a hardcore environmentalist, i throw regulations at cars to make prices eye wateringly high. car makers are aligned due to ensuing profit
if i am a hardcore environmentalist, i throw regulations at homebuilding to make housebuilding excruciating. homeowner voters are thrilled by the ensuing valuations
Tire sensors and backup cameras are dirt cheap though. Maybe lane warning and collision avoidance are a bit more but they’re both 10+ year old technology, they can’t cost that much. Also all of these things are good. Redoing the steering wheel or using 22” wheels or adding heating for each individual ass cheek… that I don’t need, and it adds to the cost.
There are countless scenarios where cars are operated in close proximity for over an hour, like rural highway traffic or metro corridor traffic.
Every time a TPMS battery dies in these circumstances, the vehicle shouldn't pair with random TPMS sensors around it. Especially when we're talking about logic of a regulated safety system. It's a little better that it is deterministic, and follows an explicit pairing process.
> Every time a TPMS battery dies in these circumstances, the vehicle shouldn't pair with random TPMS sensors around it.
Random sensors around it that aren't already paired to their own car.
Also it could wait for you to complete an entire trip or two.
> Especially when we're talking about logic of a regulated safety system.
"Safety" in the sense that the little warning light usually gets you to do something about it eventually? Is this data going into anything where the correctness is a big deal?
As always with RF propagation, it depends. They're frequently in the 315Mhz band, so should be roughly similar to garage door openers, remote controls, etc.
> Random sensors around it that aren't already paired to their own car.
There's no handshake -- TPMS sensors are generally unencrypted broadcast devices. A car will see a lot of sensors. (and you can set up an antenna and track cars driving down your street) The "pairing" is simply the vehicle remembering which ones is theirs.
> Also it could wait for you to complete an entire trip or two.
It could. Now add the complication of: spare tires. And also, some but not all vehicles store the positionality of the sensor, so they can tell you which tire is low.
But if you're going to give the system so much hysteresis, you might as well just save the money and use the ABS-sensor based system that other vehicles use. These don't require any additional sensors or programming, but they are slower to react and don't provide pressure readings. The reason automakers use direct sensor systems is to provide a more direct and immediate reading.
> "Safety" in the sense that the little warning light usually gets you to do something about it eventually? Is this data going into anything where the correctness is a big deal?
It is a big enough deal that the reason many cars have them is to comply with the legal requirement that they have them. Before the light (and better cars have textual warnings), you'd have to manually check your tire pressure to identify an underinflated tire, leading to many people driving on them for extended periods of time and experiencing rapid unscheduled failures.
Even if you do a walk around, under-inflated tires are typically not distinguishable from normally inflated tires. Especially on today's cars with shorter and stiffer sidewalls.
I had a rental Mercedes with a leak in a tire recently... a tire was at something like 15psi but looked visually the same as the other tires. I absolutely do a walk around on all of my rentals and take pictures, but I would have had no clue if it weren't for TPMS. I would have driven it until it failed.
Tires can have low enough pressure to affect vehicle handling without being visually low, you simply cannot measure tire pressure visually. That's why even tire shop workers use a gauge instead of eyeballing it.
The tool is $10, the two minute walkaround of undoing your pressure caps, measuring the pressure, and redoing them, every trip, adds ~1000 minutes/year.
... Or you could just have the manufacturer spend $30 to embed this into the car's dash.
For similar reasons, your car also comes with a fuel gauge, and doesn't require hand-cranking to start.
If you really want car prices to come down, have the manufacturers fire most of their workers and replace them with robots (I'm not sure if the robots will make for a good consumer base, but that's someone else' problem.)
Look at a BYD car factory versus any one ran by the American auto dinosaurs, and that's where you'll find the price delta.
Anything that takes control away from me I am not interested in. I am both legally and financially liable for anything the car does. I am also not trusting my life to some poorly maintained software written by someone in another country.
You've had backup cameras often fail? You must be very unlucky. After many years of driving and riding in cars with backup cameras, I have never seen one not work, let alone "often" not work.
Where is the ubiquitously proven support for the assertion that backup cameras don't increase safety?
Deliberately re-framing an argument to force me to accept a conclusion, while misinterpreting what I said is disingenuous.
I've read several of your replies towards me and I can tell that you either unable or unwilling see my point of view. So there is no point in having a discussion with you.
If you want to use "often don't work properly" as an argument, then people are allowed to challenge that argument.
I guess they shouldn't have assumed you were speaking from experience, but I don't think that's a big deal. That's not forcing you to accept any conclusion. If it happens "often" you should have examples and/or data. If you don't then maybe you should reconsider if it actually is "often".
And they directly asked for data that it doesn't increase safety.
That's not unwillingness to see your point of view. If you provide quality evidence, you can win them over.
I am specifically talking about things that take over control of the vehicle.
I've had lane assist fight me when trying to move lanes. I apparently wasn't turning the wheel enough and it thought I was drifting (I wasn't).
I've had another hire car refuse to move backwards without me putting it into reverse. It had anti-rollback measures. I didn't know what was going on. All my other cars would rollback (I drive manuals). Now I know technically you shouldn't coast backwards but it was maybe a foot.
Sure it does. You can tune it to get better performance or fuel economy. (Tbf, you can do the same by fuel mapping your injectors, but it would probably void any warranty).
What you seem to be alluding to is that the automated features give you different performance than what you were expecting and you have little recourse. The same could be said for your fuel injectors.
Owners of car companies, to make more money. More disposable, more expensive cars, in less easily entered industry. How else will they keep BYD and others from coming in?
The average age of an American car is, at the moment, 14 years[1]. That means that there are about as many 28+ year old cars on the road as there are new cars.
Repairability becomes somewhat less relevant when reliability is better out-of-the-box.
Not to be too nit picky, but I think you’re conflating median and average. The median age is probably lower because the age distribution skews older due to vintage cars and such. But you are right about cars lasting much longer today. At the same time, I think there is a point that they are also less repairable. (I’ve heard horror stories of $7k+ touch screen replacements, which control everything from the radio to the HVAC).
Vintage cars are a tiny fraction of the vehicle base, and due to demand and population growth, and the fact that an old car had to have been a new car at some point, there is an immediate bias towards having more newer cars.
Also, unlike with money and wealth and other metrics where averages aren't very useful, the distribution of car ages does not have a tail of incredible outliers. There aren't a lot of billion-year-old cars driving that average away from the median.
Look, it's entirely possible that 'this time it'll be different', and we'll regress on this metric, but at the moment the data does not support it.
It doesn't compute like that because the minimum age is zero. So a long tail of fewer people driving stuff that's older than 28yr reduces the number of people driving things 14-28yr by greater than one each.
Sure, why not. Those are features people consider valuable and we'd continue to have them.
Save perhaps rarely if ever used seating positions (middle rear of the super stripped down V6 Mustang they make like 10 of so they can advertise a starting MSRP or some other comparable niche) I don't think seatbelts are going away anywhere they matter.
Ditto with headlights and tail lights, drivers find them useful. Perhaps we'd see a delete option used by fleet buyers who intend to equip the vehicles with alternative lighting.
The point of my post was to understand why those sensors exist ubiquitously to point to why removing them isn’t necessarily easy or smart. You seemed to have interpreted it completely wrong.
But what do we do about externalities, like when the value is for other people? I don’t get much value out of my turn signals, but I assume other drivers do…
Do you blindly assume that regulators are right 100% of the time? If they aren't , then by virtue of regulation being never removed in the long run, you will end up with inflated regulation for which some of it is done for no good reason.
This is absolutely true. This is how housing prices have gotten so bad in the United States, through incredibly insane zoning and all the other land use regulation around it.
Is there a particular regulation you would prefer to remove? If you list something specific, let's talk about other alternatives to removing the regulation that could cause better outcomes without reducing supply in that market.
