[chris719]

Originally Posted by KevinGS

I'm not an EV fan or a Tesla fan either, they're certainly not my cup of tea.

"Tesla's Autopilot software has been involved in a total of 17 fatalities and 736 crashes since 2019, according to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)", per the Washington Post.

And that sounds terrible, and it is.

But we lose 40,000+ people on American roads every year, driven by humans.

So, let's keep everything in perspective.

Do we really care about saving lives, or is this just a stat to hate on Teslas? Hec, for all we know, Teslas are saving lives with their autonomous driving, improving the driving acumen for tired drivers, distracted drivers, or drivers with impaired vision.

Let's say in the future that autonomous driving (to be available in all cars like airbags today) reduces annual deaths on American roads by half, would that be considered a "success", or a failure of autonomous driving?

I'm sure it will depend on who you ask.

I am not a fan of autonomous driving when a small fraction of cars are doing it, but I am a fan of every idiot having a car drive for them. Imagine the flow of traffic if cars merge correctly and don't panic and brake and do the dumb shit that human drivers do now. We could even safely raise speed limits in places.

[eugenebmw]

Originally Posted by Rafichicago

I agree. However I see how we could implement lower speed limit for young drivers. Whatever we do we can’t save them all. Maybe it’s cruel on my end but if they do 100plus doing makeup or texting or browsing on the phone, if they don’t realize this is not PlayStation game and you don’t have many lives and can’t restart, you know where I am going with it. It’s common sense. You can’t save them from themselves.

I don't care if they end their lives by doing stupid things. However if they get into accident and hit another car/cars or another person. That is my huge concern.

[Rafichicago]

Originally Posted by eugenebmw

I don't care if they end their lives by doing stupid things. However if they get into accident and hit another car/cars or another person. That is my huge concern.

I am trying to understand that logic. Do you seriously think that if there would be a device that will not allow to go over speed limit, drivers will stop killing other people ? Few years back like five or so departament of transportation imposed mandatory electronic logging devices for commercial vehicles so that drivers would not go over their hours. Less hours behind the wheel less fatigue more rest. To this day they are unable to confirm that this improved situation on the road. In fact we have more accidents with large trucks since at the end of the day drivers tend to rush to beat the clock. Go figure.

[eugenebmw]

Originally Posted by Rafichicago

I am trying to understand that logic. Do you seriously think that if there would be a device that will not allow to go over speed limit, drivers will stop killing other people ? Few years back like five or so departament of transportation imposed mandatory electronic logging devices for commercial vehicles so that drivers would not go over their hours. Less hours behind the wheel less fatigue more rest. To this day they are unable to confirm that this improved situation on the road. In fact we have more accidents with large trucks since at the end of the day drivers tend to rush to beat the clock. Go figure.

At least in the city I lived will. There are so many drivers that shouldn't be driving on the road because of their shitty driving skill or not using their heads to think.
Now they are buying all those 0 to 60 in 3 sec (2 tonne > EV). Think about if you get hit by one of them, it is better to kiss your xxx and say goodbye.

[Rafichicago]

Originally Posted by eugenebmw

At least in the city I lived will. There are so many drivers that shouldn't be driving on the road because of their shitty driving skill or not using their heads to think.
Now they are buying all those 0 to 60 in 3 sec (2 tonne > EV). Think about if you get hit by one of them, it is better to kiss your xxx and say goodbye.

And there you have it. Proper assessment when licensing is needed. As well as annual vehicle’s inspection in every state. People hate to do maintenance they drive cars with worn up suspension and can get their license during lunch. This is ridiculous and should be revised and improved. There should be a limit on what young, novice driver could buy and drive. Many things can be done. But you know what is important to our government.

[Car-Addicted]

Remember that every government service, every offer of government - financed security, is paid for in the loss of personal freedom... In the days to come, whenever a voice is raised telling you to let the government do it, analyze very carefully to see whether the suggested service is worth the personal freedom which you must forgo in return for such service.
Ronald Reagan

[murderspice]

Hopefully i never have to get to a hospital in a hurry.

[///d]

Originally Posted by KevinGS

I'm not an EV fan or a Tesla fan either, they're certainly not my cup of tea.

"Tesla's Autopilot software has been involved in a total of 17 fatalities and 736 crashes since 2019, according to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)", per the Washington Post.

And that sounds terrible, and it is.

But we lose 40,000+ people on American roads every year, driven by humans.

So, let's keep everything in perspective.

Do we really care about saving lives, or is this just a stat to hate on Teslas? Hec, for all we know, Teslas are saving lives with their autonomous driving, improving the driving acumen for tired drivers, distracted drivers, or drivers with impaired vision.

Let's say in the future that autonomous driving (to be available in all cars like airbags today) reduces annual deaths on American roads by half, would that be considered a "success", or a failure of autonomous driving?

I'm sure it will depend on who you ask.

Well, if we want to keep things in perspective, then you need to get percentages of autopilot crashes per number of vehicles with autopilot and compare it to total numbers of drivers in the US over the years. But I was not hating on Tesla, I was simply stating that, in general, the tech required for this is not consistent or accurate enough.

Also, regarding autopilot, an automated system will always fail at some point. Electronics wear out, sensors fail, bugs happen. There is no way around that. Yes accidents occur and looking at the numbers can be unsettling, but how many accidents have been avoided BECAUSE there is a human at the wheel during an unexpected situation and was able to intervene? It's not always human error that causes a wreck.

According to this site, the average number of accidents and deaths for ALL vehicles has remained relatively unchanged since 1975, even with the increase in number of vehicles and drivers over the years. In fact, some stats have decreased even tho the numbers of people on the roads have significantly increased.

https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality...early-snapshot

Saving lives or not, it comes down to human choice, and by allowing the government to take human choice away and regulate everything in the name of "safety" it will only lead to society eventually having no human choice at all. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile. History has proven this time and time again.

Instead of requiring it, make it an option. Make it an incentive for a cheaper buying price, lower interest rate, or insurance, etc.

[MisanoblueZ4]

This is very interesting. So roads already have speed limits, why does the (no limits) crowd have a problem with future cars limited to let’s say 100mph on *public* highways?

If someone blows past your home (15-25mph limit) doing 100+ would you have a problem or give the guy a thumbs up?

Bottom line is the car crowd doesn’t want intervention when they decide to F around on public roads for fun going well past the posted speed limits.

If you don’t excessively speed or F around on public roads, this is a NON issue.

Race tracks are great places to run your cars hard and fast but it’s a lot easier to take it out on backroads and do 3-4x the limit for kicks.

[///d]

Originally Posted by MisanoblueZ4

This is very interesting. So roads already have speed limits, why does the (no limits) crowd have a problem with future cars limited to let’s say 100mph on *public* highways?

If someone blows past your home (15-25mph limit) doing 100+ would you have a problem or give the guy a thumbs up?

Bottom line is the car crowd doesn’t want intervention when they decide to F around on public roads for fun going well past the posted speed limits.

If you don’t excessively speed or F around on public roads, this is a NON issue.

Race tracks are great places to run your cars hard and fast but it’s a lot easier to take it out on backroads and do 3-4x the limit for kicks.

It honestly has nothing to do with whether or not roads already have speed limits or if we already follow those limits, it's about the gubberment once again trying to mandate something and take more control.

And the gubberment is already trying to find ways to stop racing in many places, this would be a sure fire way to slowly kill the racing industry.

[KevinGS]

Originally Posted by Rafichicago

To those who yet didn’t get this.
If you allow government to cross boundaries in extraordinary situations government will create those situations in order to act that way.

OK, this is probably true

But in this particular case, citizens and car manufacturers have created this situation of 40,000+ deaths annually (most of them preventable). So this situation exists now, without the government intervening, yet...intervention that may require limiting the maximum speed of a road car (and maybe even limiting the max acceleration too). We have the technology today to prevent this on public roads, though allowing it for race and track cars. We have decided not to, no government intervention, we're all "free" to break the law whenever we want, as long as we don't get caught.

Many cars can travel 3 times the speed limit, and very few people track their cars. Is this not a recipe for disaster? Do we expect humans to simply control themselves? Well, the answer to that is "yes".

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Remember that every government service, every offer of government - financed security, is paid for in the loss of personal freedom... In the days to come, whenever a voice is raised telling you to let the government do it, analyze very carefully to see whether the suggested service is worth the personal freedom which you must forgo in return for such service.
Ronald Reagan

Is saving American lives worth the effort since we and car manufacturers alike can't seem to control ourselves?

I'm sure all of this in this BMW forum would say, "No, my personal freedom to enjoy my car as I wish is not worthy any government regulation. Hec, why do we have speed limits at all???"

But that's why this can't solely be about us, the enthusiasts, a small fraction of society. Though we can voice our opinions and vote like everyone else.

Originally Posted by ///d

Well, if we want to keep things in perspective, then you need to get percentages of autopilot crashes per number of vehicles with autopilot and compare it to total numbers of drivers in the US over the years. But I was not hating on Tesla, I was simply stating that, in general, the tech required for this is not consistent or accurate enough.

Indeed, it's not ready today. But it will be sooner than later. So when it is ready, and the autopilot is likely safer than humans, on average, given the number of distracted drivers, poor drivers, under-the-influence drivers, and fatigued drivers, are we ready to hand over the keys to a computer?

Nope, even if it could save lives.

...which is why you can't always trust the judgment of humans (on and off the road - pun intended )

Also, regarding autopilot, an automated system will always fail at some point. Electronics wear out, sensors fail, bugs happen. There is no way around that. Yes accidents occur and looking at the numbers can be unsettling, but how many accidents have been avoided BECAUSE there is a human at the wheel during an unexpected situation and was able to intervene? It's not always human error that causes a wreck.

Sure, sometimes mechanical or electrical parts fail and then a tragic accident occurs.

But it's safe to say that most accidents are human error for a variety of reasons compared to part failures.

According to this site, the average number of accidents and deaths for ALL vehicles has remained relatively unchanged since 1975, even with the increase in number of vehicles and drivers over the years. In fact, some stats have decreased even tho the numbers of people on the roads have significantly increased.

It's still 40,000+ annually. Does that number by itself not raise an eyebrow?

Saving lives or not, it comes down to human choice, and by allowing the government to take human choice away and regulate everything in the name of "safety" it will only lead to society eventually having no human choice at all. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile. History has proven this time and time again.

Sure, it's all a "slippery slope".

And forget the government making this decision, what if society decides that enough is enough? What if Americans decide that road cars having the ability to accelerate in less than 4 seconds and able to travel at even double the posted speed limit is simply too dangerous for society as a whole....because too many of us (and I'm looking in the mirror too) can't control ourselves. And this creates danger on the road for others.

If this was about individuals driving dangerously and simply killing themselves, then yes, we should each have that freedom. But we collectively must share the road with fellow humans so we may need to collectively sacrifice some of our personal freedoms for the good of society (hence why have speed limits in the first place).

Instead of requiring it, make it an option. Make it an incentive for a cheaper buying price, lower interest rate, or insurance, etc.

Well, slower cars are often less expensive and receive lower insurance rates. So individual make these decisions today, but they still must share the road with the rest of us who made different decisions. Driving on public roads are a shared experience.

If more car enthusiasts tracked their cars to enjoy them, this could be less of an issue. But most enthusiasts don't so...

Originally Posted by MisanoblueZ4

This is very interesting. So roads already have speed limits, why does the (no limits) crowd have a problem with future cars limited to let’s say 100mph on *public* highways?

If someone blows past your home (15-25mph limit) doing 100+ would you have a problem or give the guy a thumbs up?

Bottom line is the car crowd doesn’t want intervention when they decide to F around on public roads for fun going well past the posted speed limits.

If you don’t excessively speed or F around on public roads, this is a NON issue.

Race tracks are great places to run your cars hard and fast but it’s a lot easier to take it out on backroads and do 3-4x the limit for kicks.

Exactly.

And since we do speed and F around on public roads and can't contain ourselves, speed limits and driving laws be damned, what do we do? Just put our heads in the sand?

Or ask every state to hire more police and install more cameras to catch us all?

Or do we simply use the technology available today to curb our behavior on public roads by limiting the ability of cars? Do we have the "right" to have the ability to drive dangerously on public roads?

Originally Posted by ///d

It honestly has nothing to do with whether or not roads already have speed limits or if we already follow those limits, it's about the gubberment once again trying to mandate something and take more control.

And the gubberment is already trying to find ways to stop racing in many places, this would be a sure fire way to slowly kill the racing industry.

The government should have some say over the safety on public roads since driving is a shared experience. The level of their oversight is worth debating. With 40,000+ deaths/year, some would say that they're not doing enough.

We, in this forum, would likely say the government is doing too much. Of course that's not surprising given where we're having this discussion.



Private raceways and tracks can set whatever rules they want. And cars being driven on private raceways/tracks should be able to do whatever they want, within the rules of the track.

[BeEmVe]

I recently drove a VW that I had this technology but only as warning. In places where the speed limit was known it was shown on the dash. I can remember getting a bitch message about exceeding the speed limit once or twice while passing (cause where I was driving people literally drove the speed limit, as such so did I or at least within 10km). I did not find it intrusive. I find the lane assist in many vehicles to be intrusive.

I could see such technology becoming required. The question becomes what are the bitch message limits? For instance, there is adaptive radar which typically has three settings plus off. Should one be able to turn such warnings off? Probably not.

I could see having a highway and city limits. And within each multiple levels (visual, mild sound, loud sound).

For instance:
city < 50 mph - visual - 5 mph, mild sound - 10 mph, loud sound - 15 mph
HW > 50 mph - visual - 10 mph, mild sound - 15 mph, loud sound - 20 mph

And if one wanted to tighten the warnings one could (for new/young drivers). Which could be set by driver via the FOB ID.

As for actually limiting the speed of the vehicle. I would want the above to first be implemented. Though rare, there are times when one really needs to drive like hell.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by KevinGS

But these distracted people are driving on the same roads as the rest of us, so can we save them from running into us?

Self-driving technology in the future just may solve this, and those self-driving cars won't need to go 100 mph, so their speeds can indeed be limited to right around whatever the posted speed limit is.



All the more reason to not try to control it with punitive-based legislation. Instead, maybe we should just use the technology that's available to us right now.

If we can't seem to control ourselves by driving the speed limit 99% of the time (and I'm guessing many car enthusiasts can't), then do we need technology to help us control ourselves?

Of course many of us in this forum will say, "Hell no!", but that's because we're in a BMW forum. Of course we're not going to want this kind of technology used, limiting our enjoyment.



Is 40,000+ drivers killed annually on American roads in recent years not a meaningful figure by itself?

Hec, for 3,000 people killed on 9/11 in a single event, we entered into a 10+ year war that costs like $2 trillion, a war that killed approximately 7,000 Americans BTW. We certainly deemed those 3,000 lives lost extremely significant...even though, relatively speaking, compared to even NYCs population, it was barely a drop in the bucket on a per capita basis.

So, 40,000 people killed annually on the roads is not even worth talking about?

I guess once someone in one of our own families is killed, or worse, we are, by somebody speeding or not paying attention, then it will matter. Sad that it has to happen to us before we realize that we could fix this, if we wanted to.

When that happens, I'll post about it and let you know how I feel then...

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by KevinGS

... have created this situation of 40,000+ deaths annually (most of them preventable)

Nope, even if it could save lives.

...which is why you can't always trust the judgment of humans (on and off the road - pun intended )

Sure, sometimes mechanical or electrical parts fail and then a tragic accident occurs.

But it's safe to say that most accidents are human error for a variety of reasons compared to part failures.

It's still 40,000+ annually. Does that number by itself not raise an eyebrow?

Every joint, bottle of beer, or cocktail glass should be served with a condom and abortion pill and it should be mandatory that each person use the appropriate contraceptive technology when socializing at their location of choice to consume their elixirs.

Cool with that?

[Westside Guy]

Originally Posted by chris719

Wow. I'm not getting into this one with you. It's incredibly logically flawed. I'm leaving it at that. I don't want anyone to confuse me for the dumbass that brought abortion into a speed limit discussion.

That comment was off topic and only meant to provoke.

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by Westside Guy

That comment was off topic and only meant to provoke.

No it was a statement on the value of life and how people are hypocrites and if you are uncomfortable because it made you think about 40,000 highway deaths vs 620,327 abortion deaths then good if not then you need to stop worrying about deaths on the highway. This is sadly the world we live in where ideology trumps reality.

[Westside Guy]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

No it was a statement on the value of life and how people are hypocrites and if you are uncomfortable because it made you think about 40,000 highway deaths vs 620,327 abortion deaths then good if not then you need to stop worrying about deaths on the highway. This is sadly the world we live in where ideology trumps reality.

I have read all of your posts in this thread and we both know that you have really been pushing the limits of what many would consider to be OT and meant to inflame.

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by Westside Guy

you have really been pushing the limits of what many would consider to be OT and meant to inflame.

No this thread is about government intervention in our daily lives and that inflames me.
Seems a group of folks can't get enough government intervention under the cover of "it will save lives". The fact is that it will have very little effect in saving lives and it will increase the cost of new vehicles and that will in turn cause the used car market to inflate. I have also made the point that we don't enforce the laws we have already on the books that will save lives and only drive up the costs to those who offend.
My question is, If the point of saving lives is so important why are certain lives more important that others? Answer is saving lives is only important if it serves your ideology.

[Westside Guy]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

No this thread is about government intervention in our daily lives and that inflames me.
Seems a group of folks can't get enough government intervention under the cover of "it will save lives". The fact is that it will have very little effect in saving lives and it will increase the cost of new vehicles and that will in turn cause the used car market to inflate. I have also made the point that we don't enforce the laws we have already on the books that will save lives and only drive up the costs to those who offend.
My question is, If the point of saving lives is so important why are certain lives more important that others? Answer is saving lives is only important if it serves your ideology.

This is a topic about built in speed limits so try dealing with the real issue being discussed as you know you are crossing the line when you dropped the “abortion” word earlier in this discussion.

[KevinGS]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Every joint, bottle of beer, or cocktail glass should be served with a condom and abortion pill and it should be mandatory that each person use the appropriate contraceptive technology when socializing at their location of choice to consume their elixirs.

Cool with that?

No, and I'm not "cool with" having built-in speed limits either.

But I understand the argument for them.

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

No it was a statement on the value of life and how people are hypocrites and if you are uncomfortable because it made you think about 40,000 highway deaths vs 620,327 abortion deaths then good if not then you need to stop worrying about deaths on the highway. This is sadly the world we live in where ideology trumps reality.

The reality for me is that I would indeed like to protect all life, and I'd prefer a reduced number of abortions.

So now what's your point?

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by KevinGS

No, and I'm not "cool with" having built-in speed limits either.

But I understand the argument for them.



The reality for me is that I would indeed like to protect all life, and I'd prefer a reduced number of abortions.

So now what's your point?

It's the same point; it hasn't changed. My point mirrors Car-Addicted, over-intrusion of Government. The Government is already rightly involved with speed limits as the US DOT and State(s) DOT set speed limits on roads. Everyone needs to realize speed limits are based mostly on sightlines and numbers of exits/entries on a particular section of road. Most dumbasses who speed at rates well over the speed limit think the limits are set on grip levels and an ability of a car to remain on the road. As most things, lack of education prevails when accidents happen.

I'm for better driver training, stricter licensing requirements, and periodic testing and continuing/reinforcement education.

[Rafichicago]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

It's the same point; it hasn't changed. My point mirrors Car-Addicted, over-intrusion of Government. The Government is already rightly involved with speed limits as the US DOT and State(s) DOT set speed limits on roads. Everyone needs to realize speed limits are based mostly on sightlines and numbers of exits/entries on a particular section of road. Most dumbasses who speed at rates well over the speed limit think the limits are set on grip levels and an ability of a car to remain on the road. As most things, lack of education prevails when accidents happen.

I'm for better driver training, stricter licensing requirements, and periodic testing and continuing/reinforcement education.

This was my point in one of earlier posts. However seems like people will never have enough of government intervention. Some seem to think that people that are in government are some sort of gods that have superpowers and are ultra intelligent. So sad. My faith in governments have been lost at the age of 15.
YOU need to take care of yourself.
YOU need to make sure you have money for retirement.
YOU have to take care of your health
The least Government suppose to do is to make sure our borders are secure. How that one is going doesn’t require commentary.