![Transportation Transportation](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/transportation_64.png)
![Government Government](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/government_64.png)
![United States United States](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/usa_64.png)
US Reviewing Automatic Emergency Braking Rule (reuters.com) 178
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: A U.S. auto safety agency said on Friday it is reconsidering a landmark rule from the administration of former President Joe Biden requiring nearly all new cars and trucks by 2029 to have advanced automatic emergency braking systems. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said it would delay the effective date to March 20 to give the new Trump administration time to further review the regulation.
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing General Motors, Toyota Motor, Volkswagen and other automakers, last week filed suit to block the rule, saying the regulation is "practically impossible with available technology." The group asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to overturn the rule, saying the requirement that cars and trucks must be able to stop and avoid striking vehicles in front of them at up to 62 miles per hour (100 kph) is unrealistic. It unsuccessfully asked NHTSA last year to reconsider the rule. Come 2029, all cars sold in the U.S. "must be able to stop and avoid contact with a vehicle in front of them at speeds up to 62 mph," reports Car and Driver."
"Additionally, the system must be able to detect pedestrians in both daylight and darkness. As a final parameter, the federal standard will require the system to apply the brakes automatically up to 90 mph when a collision is imminent, and up to 45 mph when a pedestrian is detected."
According to the NHTSA, the rule will save at least 360 lives annually and prevent more than 24,000 injuries.
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing General Motors, Toyota Motor, Volkswagen and other automakers, last week filed suit to block the rule, saying the regulation is "practically impossible with available technology." The group asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to overturn the rule, saying the requirement that cars and trucks must be able to stop and avoid striking vehicles in front of them at up to 62 miles per hour (100 kph) is unrealistic. It unsuccessfully asked NHTSA last year to reconsider the rule. Come 2029, all cars sold in the U.S. "must be able to stop and avoid contact with a vehicle in front of them at speeds up to 62 mph," reports Car and Driver."
"Additionally, the system must be able to detect pedestrians in both daylight and darkness. As a final parameter, the federal standard will require the system to apply the brakes automatically up to 90 mph when a collision is imminent, and up to 45 mph when a pedestrian is detected."
According to the NHTSA, the rule will save at least 360 lives annually and prevent more than 24,000 injuries.
Rule is for advanced, higher-speed AEB (Score:5, Informative)
"In 2016, 20 automakers voluntarily agreed to make automatic emergency braking standard on nearly all U.S. vehicles by 2022. By late 2023, all 20 had equipped at least 95% of vehicles with the braking systems, but critics say there is no way to ensure effectiveness without government regulations." (link [reuters.com])
AEB is already nearly ubiquitous for new cars. The pushback is not for AEB but for advanced AEB at higher speeds. Current systems work at around 30 mph, but the advanced systems that are the focus of this thread are for higher speeds around 60 mph. Obviously braking at higher speeds is more challenging, so the question is how well these systems can work at these higher speeds.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said in my just wow post the lav-25 and m242 can take a human target at nearly a mile while moving at 40mph over rough terrain.
They can make a car stop.
Re:Rule is for advanced, higher-speed AEB (Score:5, Interesting)
One catch with the automatic braking is that it can do false detection and suddenly brake in unexpected situations.
This means that the rules imposed have to be working in reality so that the vehicles don't accidentally misinterprets things like a mailbox as a child and do an emergency braking.
Re: (Score:3)
But I keep hearing from "unlucky" drivers all about how a mailbox can just jump out in the middle of the road and get hit! What about them?
Re: (Score:2)
But I keep hearing from "unlucky" drivers all about how a mailbox can just jump out in the middle of the road and get hit! What about them?
I have heard about your bleeding heart "Won't Someone Think Of The Mailboxes" rhetoric. Next you''' be playing the racing card.
Re:Rule is for advanced, higher-speed AEB (Score:4, Informative)
One catch with the automatic braking is that it can do false detection and suddenly brake in unexpected situations.
It happened to me. Car braked suddenly because it THOUGHT I was going to hit something, and almost got rear-ended.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not fully qualified to say which statement is true. But they can't both be true simultaneously.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure there are systems capable of identifying a human from far away, even at night. The hard part is that this problem has very low tolerance for both false positives and false negatives. You don't want your vehicle emergency stopping on its own in the middle of a h
Re: (Score:3)
It has a high tolerant for false negatives.
False negatives mean we're at the status quo which has been fine for decades (based on the fact we let people drive). This isn't meant to replace careful driving, so if it only works 25% of the time it saves 8,000 injuries a year rather than 24,000. That's an improvement (of the cost is worth it is another matter, I don't know what systems are expected to cost per car).
False positives on the other hand run the risk of making things worse than the status quo and abs
Re:Rule is for advanced, higher-speed AEB (Score:4, Insightful)
"In 2016, 20 automakers voluntarily agreed to make automatic emergency braking standard on nearly all U.S. vehicles by 2022. By late 2023, all 20 had equipped at least 95% of vehicles with the braking systems, but critics say there is no way to ensure effectiveness without government regulations." (link [reuters.com])
AEB is already nearly ubiquitous for new cars. The pushback is not for AEB but for advanced AEB at higher speeds. Current systems work at around 30 mph, but the advanced systems that are the focus of this thread are for higher speeds around 60 mph. Obviously braking at higher speeds is more challenging, so the question is how well these systems can work at these higher speeds.
I’d say the challenges with high speed braking will come down to the meatsack still driving a pre-AEB vehicle trying to react in the same millisecond speed the “advanced” system in front of them did, and failing.
And saving 360 lives a year? Gee, I wonder how many more-than-that could be saved if we treated smartphone addiction leading to harm or death like we do a drunk driver harming someone? With punishment that includes mandatory treatment for addiction. I worry about the smartphone junkie way more than any drunk now. Drunk drivers represent some assholes on the road. Smartphone addicts represent damn near everyone under 40 licensed to drive a car. You tell me what the bigger problem is and will be. There’s a reason we need AEB instead of better drivers. Smartphone Addiction; When everyone is an addict, no one is.
Truth hurts. Ignorantly harming someone, hurts a hell of a lot more.
Re: (Score:2)
I’d say the challenges with high speed braking will come down to the meatsack still driving a pre-AEB vehicle trying to react in the same millisecond speed the “advanced” system in front of them did, and failing.
This is why you have to mandate such features on all cars. Rolling it out to only the high-end cars means that the wealthy live and everyone else dies. Yes, it takes time for it to become ubiquitous, but the sooner you roll it out, the sooner used cars have it, and the sooner almost everyone has it.
Basically, you can't fully judge the success or failure of a policy like this until about 13 years later, which is the average age of cars on the road. And that average is increasing, so every extra year you w
Re: (Score:2)
And that challenge is easily done by maintaining a safe following distance and not tailgaiting.
If the car in front of you suddenly slams on their brakes, you need to slam on your brakes. The following distance is to allow for you to see and react to that event. 2 seconds is the
Re: (Score:2)
No system can overcome the laws of physics - if you are too close the system simply can't work. It would have to actively correct the unsafe driver controlling the car. The driver will have the pedal to the floor and complain the car can't go any faster. Now the lead car switches lanes and the car will allow full
Re: (Score:2)
Adequate braking at higher speeds might require G forces that could well kill some passengers.
Re: (Score:2)
Adequate braking at higher speeds might require G forces that could well kill some passengers.
I'm pretty sure the wheels will lose traction long before you reach that point. And by pretty sure, I mean absolutely 100% certain unless those passengers aren't buckled in.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the automakers just are unwilling (for cost reasons) rather than "it's impossible"
Trains can have AEB, and they have much longer stopping distances. It's been around since the 80's. What makes it hard(er) for cars, trucks, and other passenger-type vehicles is that it can't be done with cameras alone (where a train has track-side equipment to help,) it has to be done with with the vehicles own speed monitoring and a radar system. Relying on the cameras alone means it won't have the necessary depth pe
Re: (Score:2)
Based on COVID stats that sadly doesn't seem to be true.
With extra people working from home, those that were driving were driving faster. It actually lead to more traffic deaths, not less (since people were more able to drive at fatal speeds rather than fender bender speeds).
Re: (Score:2)
I did not believe you, so I searched online, and found some credible sources of information about this.
Now, I believe you.
There was a big increase in fatalities in absolute numbers (not just as a proportion of miles traveled). Even though there was a huge (billions) drop in miles traveled, even more people died than before. And the death are attributed to speeding (a you said) and also driving drunk and failing to wear a seat belt.
So, I guess working from home only saves the lives of those who actually wo
Re: (Score:2)
Based on COVID stats that sadly doesn't seem to be true.
With extra people working from home, those that were driving were driving faster. It actually lead to more traffic deaths, not less (since people were more able to drive at fatal speeds rather than fender bender speeds).
That's true, but it's only half the story. They were able to drive at highway speeds (or faster) in cities where the speed during rush hour would normally be much slower. If everyone knew that they could work from home forever, you'd have fewer people in those cities, and lower odds of someone not expecting a car flying along at 80 MPH.
Additionally, after a time, a lot of folks will get the urge to speed out of their systems and stop driving like that.
And there was also a very large increase in the percen
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between a mandate and an ad. (Score:4, Insightful)
Companies are promising their AIs will be able to outperform humans at just about everything in a year or two but slowing a car down, even given 5 years, it seems is not one of those things.
Re: (Score:2)
Companies are promising their AIs will be able to outperform humans at just about everything in a year or two but slowing a car down, even given 5 years, it seems is not one of those things.
Ironically it’s probably you the human that is causing that delay.
If you slow-ass drugged/drunk/distracted meatsacks weren’t still following way too close impatiently, they just might be able to deploy automatic advanced braking systems ready to stop on a dime in front of you.
You’d probably be singing a different tune through a straw from a hospital bed with an ambulance chaser consoling you with zeros by your side. Also known as justified liability and the reason for “technical di
Re: (Score:2)
If Waymo can detect pedestrians at 45mph but nobody else can, that's understandable, but then Musk needs to cool it with the FSD promises.
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing is that, I believe, Waymo cars are already doing this. Meanwhile Musk says Level 5 vehicle automation with nothing but cameras is right around the corner but he doesn't seem able to deliver. The rest of the car manufacturers say that pedestrian detection is impossible.
If Waymo can detect pedestrians at 45mph but nobody else can, that's understandable, but then Musk needs to cool it with the FSD promises.
Detecting the pedestrian shouldn't be the problem. That's a thoroughly solved problem. Recognizing whether the pedestrian is going to cross the road or not is harder, but not impossible.
Tesla's FSD problems are mostly a combination of path planning issues, really poor understanding of which lane to use, learning from bad drivers to drive in ways that violate the law and potentially can be safety issues, and not accurately judging the size of objects, resulting in clipping your mirrors on things. These ar
Re: (Score:2)
"will save at least 360 lives annually" (Score:5, Insightful)
So, it barely does anything, and will add massively to the cost of cars. Laws like this are effective misdirections that keep cars both expensive and only available from major manufacturers. You could probably save many more lives, annually, by requiring bathtubs that aren't slippery when wet.
Re: (Score:2)
So, it barely does anything, and will add massively to the cost of cars.
Yeah fuck those 360 people. And fuck those 24000 others who have to live with potentially life changing injuries. I just want a cheaper car! /s
It's amazing how self centreed some people are. I remind you that car makers are promising cars will drive themselves by that time. I remind you that cars already have front facing radars, cameras, and sonar sensors from other regulations, including AEB that doesn't quiet yet meet the requirements. Yet you're here ignorantly complaining that this will increase cost (
Re:"will save at least 360 lives annually" (Score:5, Insightful)
So, it barely does anything, and will add massively to the cost of cars.
Yeah fuck those 360 people. And fuck those 24000 others who have to live with potentially life changing injuries. I just want a cheaper car! /s
It's amazing how self centreed some people are. I remind you that car makers are promising cars will drive themselves by that time. I remind you that cars already have front facing radars, cameras, and sonar sensors from other regulations, including AEB that doesn't quiet yet meet the requirements. Yet you're here ignorantly complaining that this will increase cost (which you have zero basis to say given that the hardware already exists in new vehicles) all the while dismissing the idea of killing 360 people.
I wonder if your view would change if it was someone you cared about? Or if your arm got torn off in an accident.
Treating mental illness and addiction would save a hell of a lot more than 360 people. We care more about the tax revenue selling addicts cars filled to the MSRP-plus-priced brim with shit no consumer asked for, especially in in the “base” model (the hell is even that anymore), and have fuck all to do with safety (heated, cooled, and massage seats?).
If anything, our fucking touchscreen tactile-free infotainment cocoons behind the wheel are enabling problems with distracted driving. Car companies had no choice but to cater to the Touchscreen Generation. Just like AEB. That’s not progress. It’s tolerating addiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Then fucking do it.
You'd be a billionaire from licensing it to all the car companies.
If it was that fucking easy, I'm betting at least ONE of the companies out there would have it at market already though. You know, with all the advertising and shit that their "only $3,000 system" will save you so much money on insurance claims and safety ETC... Kinda funny how they aren't raking in the free money, no?
set it to 50 (Score:2)
set it to 50
Good News Everyone! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Vin never breaks, but he does brake.
There goes that bumper sticker... (Score:2)
There goes that bumper sticker the comedian Gallagher once suggested, that read...
"I break for no fouk a reason." (also for a C++ programmer)
Now the auto industry can focus on my car suddenly turning a sharp angles with "rack and opinionated" steering...no more unlucky breaks or brakes.
JoshK.
Yay, more stolen cars (Score:2)
What will really happen? Pedestrians don't need to wait for the walk signal, every car will automatically stop. We've already seen robo-taxis immobilized by placing obstructions (witch's hats) in front of it. Here, when the driver gets out, a car thief gets in.
Stealing cars and paradoxically, catching car thieves just got a lot easier. This rule can be used against certain other 'people' but I won't give the game away. It's fascinating how laws to stop 'bad stuff' happening, actually enable criminals
Re: (Score:2)
Many years ago, I drove my nephew to his first date. On the way back, a group of four kids ran across the street (two lanes each way, 45mph limit, not a controlled access highway). Light rain. Three of them were decisive and made it across. The fourth didn't move at first but then decided to go.
Its not worth it. (Score:2)
Eventually we're going to have to accept that people die, and not always of old age.
not til 2029 (Score:2)
"practically impossible with available technology."
Well they've got 4 years to advance the technology...
It isn't unrealistic. (Score:2)
"Practically impossible" (Score:2)
If it's impossible how come every new European passenger vehicle has advanced emergency braking as standard since has been mandatory mandatory since 2024? And these rules come into force for new large vehicles like buses and lorries this year too. I suspect the reason US car makers don't want this has nothing to do with it being possible or not and more to do with their fear of regulatory testing, especially when it comes to pedestrian safety.
Why not 100 MPH? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How to make drivers even stupider... (Score:2)
This would require the car to block tailgating... (Score:2)
I try to keep a distance that if the car in front suddenly becomes a wall I might have time to panic stop. The problem with this on double lane roads is inevitably someone always go around you and fills in that safety gap.
Getting there 1 second faster is not going to save your crumby day. But at least you are
Legally mandating technology... (Score:2)
...that doesn't exist yet is silly and wrong.
It demonstrates that politicians are clueless.
A batter approach would be to encourage the development of tech.
Any mandate should be delayed until development and testing are complete, and it is agreed that the tech works, and the pitfalls, edge cases and side effects are determined to be manageable.
the rule will save at least 360 lives annually (Score:2)
A gizmo that would stop cars from starting when alcohol fumes are detected inside the car, should be much easier and cheaper and save 37 deaths per day instead of just 1, or one person every 39 minutes.
Making Car Unaffordable for Regular People (Score:2)
Guess EU rules must be imaginary (Score:2)
considering the EU has mandated emergency braking for years now and is getting along fine. Likewise, they've been mandating amber turn signals for even longer and have fewer people turning getting rear ended as a result.
But I suppose getting either in the next five years in the US is unlikely because it would require Republicans to care about something other than manufacturing consent for fascism, blaming brown and queer people for all of their own failings, and finding ways to legalize slavery.
Yeah, yeah (Score:2)
Re:"Blood for the Blood God! Sacrifices Must Flow! (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that auto makers have had automatic emergency braking for a while now as long as the speed is under around 30 mph. My grand Cherokee has it but I've never tested it. Adaptive cruise is pretty good at slamming on the brakes when I come up on a slow car. On this case the previous administration was wanting aeb to work at much higher speeds. I think this was a case is the regulation getting out too far ahead of the technology.
Anyway you can drop the hyperbole. There are many reasons to be concerned about trump but I don't think this is one of them. Remember a stopped clock is still right twice a day.
Re: (Score:2)
All that said I would be interested to see an economic analysis. In other words is it worth more to have the accidents stopped then to have the cost of the car go up. If so, and if we were a functioning civilization, then we would do this and subsidize it at the point of sale via tax dollars.
Although honestly if we were properly functioning civilization
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as self-driving cars work insurance companies will make it impossible for you to drive without them.
They can try, but there are ways to avoid insurance (New Hampshire doesn't even require it), and state legislatures can easily write laws to prevent insurance companies from requiring self driving. Because good luck trying to take away peoples cars.
Re: (Score:2)
They won't require it, you'll just pay a higher premium then the self-driving car will.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Millennials in early 40s now. Why would anyone in their early 40s not want a car? Most of us have kids and jobs that require a car.
Now had you said gen alpha or maybe even gen Z but millennials existed before the Internet and we all grew up driving and getting licensed at 16, etc.
Re: "Blood for the Blood God! Sacrifices Must Flow (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By the time it detects a real situation I've already braked, or steered clear.
So you're complaining about an emergency system not activating because you were completely able on your own to avoid the emergency in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think this was a case is the regulation getting out too far ahead of the technology.
If that were the case the regulation would implement it now instead of in 2029. The world of car safety changes a lot in that time. Virtually throughout all of history we've had a step change or breakthrough in safety over that time frame.
You want to talk about it being unrealistic to stop a car automatically? The car companies are suggesting they'll have level 3 autonomous driving by that point. The lawsuit in this case is just companies who don't want regulation to set a standard - they want to focus R
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you cant adapt to adaptive cruise? Cruise or not I always take control well before I catch up with a car of truck in front iI am closing with because I am paying attention.
Seems like a you problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Adaptive cruise is pretty good at slamming on the brakes when I come up on a slow car.
My mom has adaptive cruise in her vehicle and I find it a bit annoying. I'm used to setting my cruise control at the speed limit and if there's a truck struggling to get up a hill in front of me then I see the truck approaching, I check for traffic, if the lane is clear I change lanes and cruise by. With Mom's vehicle I get a subtle slow down and then get baffled for a bit why traffic is passing me. I then check the speed, notice I'm having some computer match the speed of the truck in front of me, and by then the traffic is so heavy in passing the truck that I'm stuck there. It's not a big deal in the grand scheme, a "first world problem" is you will, but I don't believe it is adding much in safety or convenience.
It does take a bit to get used to, but once you do, it is actually an improvement. I'm speaking as someone who has used cruise control regularly, often even in city driving circumstances for a couple decades.
If you are even almost "baffled" or surprised by your vehicle slowing down as the distance to the lead vehicle decreases, you really, really need to pay more attention while driving. It should be very obvious, because it is doing something you should already have done on your own.
It in fact is add
Re: (Score:2)
I use to use cruise control exactly how you describe. It's the thing I most miss about older vehicles. I now never use CC anymore and it's almost entirely because of the automatic braking.
A great example. I'd have CC on and be following someone else at an appropriate following distance. In the old days, someone could get in front of me and then continue to pass over to the next lane. It all worked out just fine. Today, if that happens, my car slows down dramatically. I almost got rear-ended the first time m
Re: (Score:2)
If you have to keep watching your speedometer to gauge your relative speed, perhaps automated driving cars are for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Cruise control enables you to pay more attention to your surroundings not less, regularly looking at the speedo, each time requiring your eyes to refocus on the road reduces your situational awareness, a principle pilots are trained on.
Re: (Score:2)
Pilot here.. we are trained to constantly scan our instruments. As often as once every 5 minutes, maybe less if in IMC. Situational awareness includes knowing the speed of the craft, the angle of attack, bank angle, and thrust power. If you hit a giant headwind (speed) you want to be aware so you can adjust (thrust, aoa, bank, etc). Translate this to driving and you should be constantly scanning your speed, surroundings, etc.
If you cannot refocus after looking at your speedometer, then maybe you should no
Re: (Score:2)
Driver here... Flying an airplane is different in at least one way that is significant to refocusing time: minimum separation distances, translated into travel time, are much greater for plants than for cars. A usual rule of thumb is that cars should be two seconds apart. That means a driver needs to be able to shift focal distance from long to short distance, read the cabin controls, and shift back to long-distance focus in that time.
What does a three- or five-mile separation between planes translate to
Re: (Score:2)
"much greater for plants than for cars"
The above may be obvious, but minimum separation times are also much greater for PLANES than for cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Pilot here to, Of course you scan the instruments once every 5 minutes, but car drivers do it far too often, as they have to obey changing speed limits, and can be fined for exceeding them. Ever been pulled over by the FAA for speeding?
You adjust bank and aoa for a headwind? Do you really fly or are you just making shit up? Perhaps incredibly poorly trained. Good luch flying IMC and looking at the AH every 5 minutes, ever been under the hood ?
Its from pilot training that the refocussing time facts come. It
Re: (Score:2)
Ok Mr Pilot, then surely you know about the maximum maneuverable speed. When you are flying into moderate to heavy turbulent weather, you want to reduce your speed to avoid an attitude upset which could send you to your limits and destroy your plane. Further, if you have a heavy headwind, then you absolutely will need additional power during different phases of your flight (landing and take off comes to mind)
It takes between 1-1.5 sec to fully refocus your eyes to distance, thats just medical fact, look it up.
And if that prevents you from driving/causes an accident then you have a medical condition and sho
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest problem with some of these automated braking/steering systems is that you have two drivers (human and computer), and neither is 100% what the other is thinking or doing.
My Kia almost killed me because I was moving over to another lane to avoid stopped traffic ahead in my lane. But it decided when I was about halfway over that I was going to hit the cars in the stopped lane, so it slammed on the brakes. There was a car behind me in the lane I was moving into that would have slammed into me if
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this. I've had a number of times where a car in front is slowing to turn left or right and is partially out of the lane, the lane is either wide enough to allow me to pass them or I'm going to cheat over into the next lane just a bit and not slow down, and then my car's alarm starts freaking out. Fortunately it's not hitting the brake, but I sure wouldn't want it to in that case. I've also had it hit the brake hard a time or two when I still had plenty of stopping room; it's completely jarring and n
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe don't drive with automated emergency braking and pay attention to what's going on around you?
You don't seem to understand the difference between a control system and a safety system. No one drives with automatic emergency braking. It's just there. No one pays attention to it, no one changes their driving style because of it.
On the other hand cruise control automates an act of driving and you're complaining about you yourself not paying attention to what it does.
Re: (Score:2)
The advantage of AEB is the reaction time of a computer vs. a human can either completely prevent an accident or greatly reduce the collision speeds.
The problem with the cruise control is definitely not paying attention. Driver should notice he's gaining on the slow vehicle and deal with it. He failed to do so, so now the car's computer is dealing with it.
Better/newer cruise control allow for "following distance" settings to be set. My vehicle has 5 settings; the 5th is the safest if it was just me and the
Re: (Score:2)
My closest following distance is still WAY to large. It leaves such a huge gape that it's only matter of time before someone gets in front of me to then change lanes again to move to the faster lane. This causes my car to needless slow down.
I basically stopped using cruise control altogether in my current car because of how all the safety features have made cruise control a death trap.
Sure, the car is following the law to the T. Shame no human drive does that.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do we even care if the worst drivers die?
Because they typically cause casualties. No one gives a fuck about the driver of the car at fault dying. We shed more tears for the poor person who got hit having to fill out paperwork because their shoulder is slightly sore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any executive order making energy cheaper is an executive order that deals with grocery prices and inflation. All of Trump's orders relating to fossil fuels and "green" mandates and spending fall into that category. Whether they will have the desired effect is a different question.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is the one who made the big promises. Time to deliver!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Trump is the one who made the big promises. Time to deliver!
The thing is that he very likely will for the things that his "base" care about. Dictatorship works to begin with. At this point there are still plenty of people in the US who have the habit of freedom and thinking or themselves. He will give an order and, if they think it's sensible, they will try hard to implement it. For most of what he wants to do he will find enough people who think it's sensible that implementation won't be a problem. Just the fact that lots of his policies are popular / populist will
Re:"Blood for the Blood God! Sacrifices Must Flow! (Score:5, Interesting)
>>Trump hasn't been in the White House for a week yet. He's been signing new executive orders at a rate not seen before
That's because he doesn't even read them. When a reporter asked him if he agrees people who are violent against police deserve jail time and why he pardoned many violent January 6 rioters, he responded, "pardoned?"
Re:"Blood for the Blood God! Sacrifices Must Flow! (Score:5, Insightful)
>>Trump hasn't been in the White House for a week yet. He's been signing new executive orders at a rate not seen before
That's because he doesn't even read them. When a reporter asked him if he agrees people who are violent against police deserve jail time and why he pardoned many violent January 6 rioters, he responded, "pardoned?"
Stephen Miller and the Project 2025 crew, with a side of Elon, are running the show. Trump's just the man with a Sharpie. His goal is to get back to golfing as soon as possible, while saying he's too busy to golf. It's going to be a long 4 years...
Re: (Score:2)
That does not mean that he doesn't read them. It could be that he just doesn't know what "pardoned" means.
Re: (Score:2)
If Trump could lower food prices with a flick of his pen then why didn't that happen when Biden was POTUS? Isn't high food prices the fault of Biden as much as Trump?
Inflation is mostly the fault of the fed chief, who was installed by Trump in his previous administration. Maybe Trump can eventually fix the problem of his own creation by choosing a fed chief with a different attitude towards inflation and unemployment, though it will mostly take care of itself eventually without intervention.
Similarly, to bring this back on topic, the lack of automatic emergency braking at highway speeds will also mostly eventually take care of itself as self-driving tech gets better.
Re: (Score:2)
Awesome..
Based on his selection of the "best people" last time around, I have zero faith in the honesty and integrity of his choices this time around.
Re: "Blood for the Blood God! Sacrifices Must Flow (Score:2)
Oh yeah, the fiat currency meltdown. I heard that was going to happen in 2012 or so, did I miss something?
Re: "Blood for the Blood God! Sacrifices Must Flow (Score:2)
I just crossed the border yesterday. Seemed open to me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They'll also give the Nazi salute (let's not waste effort blaming the Romans for the way the Nazis appropriated this gesture from the work of 18th Century French artists [wikipedia.org]) to not-true, or not-citizen, or not-Aryan humanoids too ; but the not-true, or not-citizen, or not-Aryans will be served the additional honour of the vehicle parking across their chest first.
This site allegedly being for "nerds", do I need to e
Re: (Score:2)
indeed. note the downmods that refuse to explain how such a dichotomy - a "fully self-driving automobile" exists, but a small part of it - emergency braking - is impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
From my robotic heart to your neurocon interface, brother!
Re: (Score:2)
Chrysler has tech in their tanks since the 60s that find a human at over a mile and kill them.
This statement more proves taxpayers haven’t really cared about the MSRP per tank unit for over half a century now, and Eisenhower was a prophet regarding the MIC.
Re: (Score:2)
So the tank just inferred that there was a person a mile away? How did it do that? With a camera? Radar?
I kid, I kid.
But in all seriousness, I doubt you would be willing to pay up for a military grade infrared system to stick on your car.
Re: (Score:2)
The last generation of M60 tanks had an a inferred system that could detect a human target at over a mile.
The M1 tanks and my favorite ride the LAV-25 could detect and track a human target at over 5 mile and slave the M242 to that target track. I have used it many times to take a human target, and it rarely missed.
They can make a car stop.
Costs aside, the driving environment is totally different from a battlefield. So, umm, No. They can't. Otherwise the self-driving cars we already have would not be crashing.
Re: (Score:2)
I have been in both driving scares the hell out of me, combat not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are on a straight road and it phantom deploys that must suck. Any car that did th