307
submitted 2 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] tal@lemmy.today 51 points 2 months ago

I don't really care about the honking so much as I do the fact that this mandates that the car track its position.

[-] Dran_Arcana@lemmy.world 33 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

“[an] integrated vehicle system that uses, at minimum, the GPS location of the vehicle compared with a database of posted speed limits, to determine the speed limit, and utilizes a brief, one-time visual and audio signal to alert the driver each time they exceed the speed limit by more than 10 miles per hour.”

Honestly the only part of this that is unreasonable is that it isn't immediately followed with "the database updates will be maintained and provided in an open, unencrypted format for free for the life of the vehicle, and the tracking data cannot be used for any other purpose". GPS is a one-way, triangulation-based signal. It doesn't inherently track or leak anything. I think we would be a lot safer if we all could agree what speed to go.

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 44 points 2 months ago

I think we would all be safer if we recognized individual competence and attention as the key ingredient in safety, and stopped trying to replace human attention with an ever-expanding set of sensors and woefully inadequate algorithms for determining whether the driver is being safe.

Like, if they have to model the driver as someone who’s not paying attention, then the whole design philosophy of the car is fucked, and we’re designing for failure.

[-] fiercekitten@lemm.ee 20 points 2 months ago

I agree. And the whole design philosophy of the car was fucked when manufacturers were allowed to build SUVs and oversized trucks that weigh 2+ tons and don’t require any additional certification or licensure.

[-] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The statistics around accidents with large vehicles like that are less about their operation and more that they exist at all. Accidents will always happen, certification or no. The issue is someone struck by one will be more likely to sustain heavier or critical injuries, and smaller cars offer less protection for their passengers when hit by heavier vehicles.

So rather than "you can use one of these completely unnecessary vehicles if you pass a test once", they should just be outlawing them all together as basic consumer vehicles. If they aren't being designed for specific utilities or business purposes, you can't make them and sell them to just anyone.

[-] reev@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 months ago

The whole design philosophy of the car is fucked and we have designed for failure.

"Individual competence" leads to over a million annual road traffic fatalities globally. Every. Year.

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago

Don’t get me wrong, it’s bad when people die on the road. I just don’t think the path to reducing those numbers is trying to make the cars foolproof. Cars are dangerous. Perhaps we should require regular skills testing for drivers to make sure they know what they’re doing. There are definitely people who have licenses who should not have those licenses.

Skills testing would be a better investment of our resources than adding more attention replacement systems to account for a steadily-stupefying population of drivers.

[-] reev@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The problem is that in many places there are no alternatives to driving. Taking away licenses from "those who shouldn't have licenses" restricts their access to regular life so massively that you don't do it unless there's no more room to doubt the decision. The question moves from "do you meet the maximum safety standards" to "do you meet the minimum safety standards".

The solution is to either make driving foolproof or to provide viable alternatives to those unfit (or unwilling) to drive.

[-] Neato@ttrpg.network 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Well we've been trying that for 100 years and it turns out it doesn't work because people are easily distracted and are generally terrible at driving.

[-] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago

Na, relying on individuals to be competent and not distracted is not the logical way to make the system safer. There's a well established hierarchy of how to design safe systems, and relying on individual expertise is at the bottom right above asking pedestrians to wear helmets to cross the street. We need safer streets, fewer, smaller, slower cars that have automated braking features. We need enforcement of speeding and distracted driving. It's fucking absurd how many drivers are on their phones. Making folks take a competency test does nothing for this (although I'm also for stricter licensing, but we also need alternatives to driving so people can live normal loves when we take their driving privileges away).

https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/Hierarchy_of_Controls_02.01.23_form_508_2.pdf

[-] HaywardT -1 points 2 months ago

People don't speed because they are distracted. People speed because they think they are better than average drivers; every damn one of them.

[-] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 months ago

Polls show nearly everyone, speeding or not believes they are berger than average drivers.

[-] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

The GPS isn't the issue, the speed limit database is. How does the car know what the limit is, and how does that database get updated when limits are changed or new roads are built? What is the mandate on the updating of that database?

[-] Dran_Arcana@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

hence the omission I suggested unreasonable. That database needs to be updatable by the end user, trivially. IMHO could/should be done ad-hoc by a hobbyist or as part of a standard oil change every ~6mo.

[-] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

I can also see bad actors "updating" the database to 100mph everywhere. I'm sure write restrictions could be put in place, but allowing the public access to a system like this would make it ripe for abuse.

[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

the database updates will be maintained and provided in an open, unencrypted format for free

the tracking data cannot be used for any other purpose

These are mutually exclusive. If the data is open, unencrypted and freely accessible, it will be used for other purposes, by anyone who wants to.

Also, tracking every vehicle location and storing that in a centralized database is a privacy nightmare, no matter how well it's secured.

[-] tal@lemmy.today 11 points 2 months ago

I think that they're talking about two different things there in those two different sentences.

The first is the map updates, the second the log of position data on the car.

[-] vorpuni@jlai.lu 5 points 2 months ago

OSM doesn't track you. The driving data could remain offline and the car can store the database locally to compare speed with what it should be at location x travelling direction y.

[-] tal@lemmy.today 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

GPS itself doesn't transfer data about the location to the outside world, but it means that the car has to constantly determine its location, and that this is now a legal mandate.

[-] Crackhappy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Someone in the statehouse has never experienced for each loops.

[-] Monument 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It already does, and auto manufacturers already share or sell this data.

Heck, because there’s a massive loophole in consumer privacy around the government buying data, any government agency can just go directly to a vehicle manufacturer and ask to buy the data.

There was a big flap about this regarding car insurance recently, but as pointed out by the EFF (How to Figure Out What Your Car Knows About You), industry folks have been looking at monetizing this data for a while for all sorts of purposes, including advertising, consumer data sales, and even behavior analysis to understand how to better force consumers to pay for vehicle-based subscriptions.

We own nothing, not even our privacy.

[-] tal@lemmy.today 4 points 2 months ago

It already does,

Yes, but they weren't legally required to do this prior to this point.

[-] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

no honking at any point is involved.

[-] Whirling_Cloudburst@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Wouldn't that mean you would also have to pay someone to be tracked on a subscription based system?

this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
307 points (94.8% liked)

News

22488 readers
3922 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS