You've clearly never been in a car accident before, seeing as bemoaning the three-years-prior death of an aging performance car with steadily dropping sales numbers matters far more to you than making sure people say alive. You have repeatedly shown an inability to distinguish between "requiring certain safety equipment to prevent accident, injury, or death" and "the government is trying to tell me what to do." Time and time again, corporations have proven that they can't be trusted to do the right thing, necessitating government regulation. Granted, the government isn't much better, but it's not a baseless assumption to say that new vehicle safety regulations in the past decade alone have already saved countless lives.
There's one very simple thing you miss. You can't. Force people. To be safe. People will seek safety if they want it, you yourself are proof of that. The three-point seatbelt was invented by a Volvo engineer in 1963, well before any mandates. The first car to come with an airbag, so far as I know, was a 1974 Oldsmobile - and from there the option sold very poorly, across makes and models, until its eventual across-the-board discontinuation because no one could figure out how to make the things work without doing more damage than the accident itself. 15 years or so later, when the powers that be decided to mandate airbags, this was still the case, and the engineers protested as such - but the mandate was rammed through anyway. But if someone is looking to buy a sports car, it's a fair bet that they don't give one single little rip about how many airbags it has. Do you honestly believe that this is objectively, morally wrong somehow? And if it's really all about saving lives, then why, pray tell, is it still forbidden to remove or deactivate a known-dangerous Takata airbag - even temporarily, while waiting for your number to come up? It's common knowledge that these airbags are potentially deadly, and the recall will take years to run its course due to the enormous number of cars involved. The government is forcing you to drive around with a Claymore mine pointed at your face - or else buy another car, at your own expense, while you wait (potentially years) for yours to get fixed - simply because it can't be bothered to even make an exception to its post-purchase modification rules for this case. And why, also, are cars set loose on the streets with auto-braking systems that are well-known to initiate full-panic stops at the slightest provocation or none at all? Why are EVs granted a blanket exception to the Sacred Safety Standards, huh?
Takata scandal is honestly the only time I have heard of airbags worsening things, and it's thought the dodgy takata bags are a tiny tiny tiny fraction of a percent. Nor are EVs granted exceptions to the safety standards, though there's evidence in their construction actually being far safer in the vast majority of accidents. --- Post updated --- Plus fact of the matter is that the viper could have very easily been fitted with side curtains, there are numerous ways to do so. The real reason it was killed was simple, they don't sell well and FCA are pulling out of that market
If you don't need to work around the engine, you can make a far bigger crumple zone. The engine is so problematic that in the late 90s Rover was considering making a car with a rear engine and front wheel drive.
Natural selection at work. No, they sold poorly because they were marketed poorly. GM is infamous for this. Have you seen an old commercial for an EV1? The marketing team barely knew what they were selling. Additionally, like you, the uninformed consumer didn't understand why they needed this new technology when cars had existed for decades prior without them. They didn't understand that airbags could save lives, and GM didn't bother to explain that to them because they didn't want it to lead to the government forcing them to spend a little more money. This is false, as MrAnnoyingDude already pointed out. By the early 90's car manufacturers had already introduced airbags designed to limit secondary injuries. And just call it "the US Government," you sound like a conspiracy theorist nutjob who listens to Death Grips when you call it "The Powers that Be." Maybe you don't care about safety in sports cars, but don't try and claim that's true for anyone. There are three kinds of people who buy sports cars: Idiots with money, regular people with money, and enthusiasts with money. The idiot will attempt to do a burnout in his Mustang upon leaving a Cars & Coffee and send it right into a tree (or god forbid, a crowd of people). Maybe he didn't care if there was an airbag in front of his face before, but he certainly does now. The regular person owns his sports car because he has enough money to afford one. Beyond that, for him it's not much more than an everyday sedan with a little more power and a little more status (which is why modern sports cars have all of the same features, like infotainment, and drawbacks, like a large serving of plastic, as their lower-class cousins). This regular person is the definition of an "average driver," in terms of knowledge and ability, and an average driver knows the rules of the road and is far from totally helpless in a bad scenario. But when a less-than-average driver slams into him at 60 miles per hour, there isn't much that he himself can do. Luckily, his sports car has airbags and other federally mandated safety equipment, so he survives with minimal injuries. The enthusiast is well-experienced in many aspects of motoring and knows how to make a car go fast. But like the regular person, he is well-versed in traffic laws and what to do when something goes wrong. Most importantly, he understands the line between regular everyday driving on public roads and "yee-haw-i-am-speed." He knows that if he removes certain components, it'll save some weight and make the car go faster, but it won't be safe to take on the highway anymore. Automatic emergency braking is still in its infancy, and there are manufacturers, like Honda and Mazda, who have yet to perfect it. But as Consumer Reports reports (hmm), several companies, like Tesla, Toyota, and Hyundai, have exceptional braking systems. So it varies, but the technology is proven to work, and in the future it will improve. It also isn't yet federally mandated, so don't try to complain that it's being forced on you. They aren't. They're passenger cars sold in the US and are subject to the same safety standards as any other passenger car sold in the US.
After driving and riding as a passenger in a Tesla, the Tesla's owner showed the car's functionality by turning driver assist on, after a while a car (an econobox IIRC) is changing lane from two lanes away to the lane next to me, and the Tesla did panic braking, which made me disgusted. Not only it hurts passenger confort and fuel economy, but also increase danger behind the Tesla. More important, this is acturally encourage others to cut-in in front of an AEB vehicle(but the econobox didn't cut-in, though). If Tesla really have exceptional braking system, the engineer should tune the onboard computer to let the car adjust following distance smartly and dynamically, to actively discourage cut-in bahaviors instead of doing the exact opposite. Continue from my this post, a fully controllable vehicle may not be 100% safe, but an uncontrollable vehicle is 100% unsafe. --- Post updated --- Sorry for what? Sorry for not having automatic braking. Well you "still" have seat belts, airbags, ABS and ESC. You should satisfied. If you never heard of AEB you don't feel unsatisfied, you feel unsatisfied just because you heard of AEB and haven't buy a vehicle that have one. That's a psychology trap
Maybe a real driver doesn't need them, but most people on the road are far from real drivers. The vast majority of drivers use a car to get from A to B, the less work they have to do, the better. People already drive like idiots, I don't think having technology to idiot-proof cars is entirely a bad thing. There's no simple answer to a question of how to balance driving feel and safety, but at the end of the day, I think manufacturers will lead turn saving lives versus more manual control over braking. I won't try to combat any of these points because I can't see the argument here. How driving assists and the car market and economy collapsing have zero correlation in my mind.
I will say, having been in one, the Tesla AEB has a lot of room for improvement. It has improved in the few months my housemate has had his, but it's way overcautious.
deleted So how did they pass the driving test and got their licenses So manual braking is life-threatening?
2020 VW Passat in small overlap crash test(64kph) If NCAP don't test cars in 25% small overlap,then you can just bulid cars like this. Nobody will know anyway. Great Job VW.
The fact that something didn't exist does not mean that it shouldn't. If improvement can come, I want it.
A lot can change between when somebody is licensed and current day. Also, for example, you can't use a phone on your driving test, but you might be able to get away with it elsewhere. Manual braking is in no way life threatening, but AEB might help save a life.
You mean that American driving test that most countries look at and laugh as even a child can pass it, hell, American driving instructors have even been known to fail euro test standards.
so, spent the day ripping about on the scooter, got better fuel, and adjusted the seat. the engine rips, the suspension sorta works, but holy shit does it start easily
despite the fact it has suspension, the wheels are tiny, and my jump has a terrible runup and landing
Not surprising honestly. A lot of people where I live don't even seem to understand the concept of right-of-way at stop signs.
