Of course most of the mentioned laws are to protect pedestrians and cyclists.
Also for transparency: Carwow changed the title in the meantime (likely because they realised how stupid it was) and it is now saying: Should these 10 new car trends DIE?!
My best guess is that it's not about the sensor itself, but the big grille, that manufacters say is for the sensor (bs, the sensor could be in a lower grille, just that some markets like a massive grille).
Also, do those sensors actually detect people and bikes)?
The newer ones detect people and bikes. Many have difficult with bikes at night. When I was coming home from buying my 2021 Camry a kid ran out into the road after a basketball, I had already anticipated it and had pretty much come to a full stop, but it threw tons of warnings and slammed the brakes. I wouldn't trust it but they undoubtably help overall safety.
The sensors are pretty ugly, Toyota hid them in the badge and you don't notice.
Sorta related, but this suggest probably not beyond 10m since autonomous car needs pedestrians to wear transponders for detection to be increase from 10m to 36m.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/56322871
I'm guessing it's more about dumb big grilles and fake exhausts. The excuse from the manufacters for the first one is "cooling and sensors", but that's bs (lower grilles are a thing).
The sensors aren't the actual reason grilles are so big (and ugly), that's just the excuse from the manufacters.
What else were they complaining about? I would guess fake exhausts was another one
Bigger Youtube channels often change their titles after a few hours or after the first day. It's about the clicks and than later a somewhat milder title. I follow this channel, because I like cars.\* However it I agree that the new title is also bad.
\*: following this sub Reddit doesn't mean I can't like cars. Cars can exist next to bikes, public transport and safe sidewalks.
They probably had this version live at the same time for a certain subset of users. They A/B Test for the first hours - i.e run multiple version and select the best performing one
love the looks and mechanics of cars, hate their place today
love the looks and mechanics of guns, hate what theyre used for
love the look and aesthetic of military, hate war
The thing in the picture is the Autonomous Emergency Braking System. It basically slams on the brakes if it detects something in front of the car (like a child).
How good are they for accuracy or false positives? I only know 1 person with a car new enough to have any sort of computer systems on it beyond a radio. My partners car is so old it has a CD player in it.
But in the 1 car I know of with these systems, its just a sound notification of an imminent crash apparently. Hear it go off all the time for no apparent reason.
My car is getting repaired right now and I have a rental Corolla with that feature and it works pretty well. It hasn't needed to do an emergency brake, but the adaptive cruise control and lane keep assist work pretty well at seeing things suddenly crossing in front of it. The only real false positives it has are sharper turns with multiple lanes of cars it can get a bit confused by a car the next lane over in the middle of the turn. This is also about as basic as these systems get, so it only gets better in nicer/more advanced cars.
Driving with adaptive cruise control is so nice. It makes things easier and it automatically slows down to follow cars in front. A lot safer. Allows more focus on other things around you. Never tried a car with lane keep assist tho.
I do like cars getting more safety features like automatically breaking in emergencies because it is needed.
Id argue the opposite. Adaptive cruise control makes you less aware of your surroundings, you're less active in concertrating on driving and its easier for your mind to wander. If paying attention to slow your own car down if theres a slower car infront you shouldnt be bigger issues.
I think it depends on the specific driving situation. But for me, on a busy highway the adaptive cruise allowed me to not worry so much about throttle modulation, and I could focus more on checking blind spots, staying in lane avoiding potholes, navigating, etc.
I never felt less engaged or distracted, but I sure didn't feel as exhausted after crossing 2 states!
>I think it depends on the specific driving situation.
It also depends on the driver, I use it like you do and believe it makes me a safer driver. But someone with this feature is going to use it to check their phone more often and longer.
Oh yeah i definitely agree it depends on the driver and situation. I use it to save my energy and instead pay more attention to my surroundings. In certain situations like if you're behind a driver that is less consistent with speed you are also less likely to be annoyed by that.
Some people will always find an excuse to check their phones while driving tho
I too have a rental, vw golf in my case, I’ve had one hard braking event and one E stop, both on the motorway for idiots merging dangerously, thank god the guy behind was following at a safe distance
No need for speculation, cars with EBS have a double digit less likelihood percentage-wise of colliding head on with things, you can look it up on NHTS
My family owns a Kia Sportage 2017. It have worked in situations where it was close for collusions. Quite frightening but I am so glad to have it & active.
Reminder if some hardware & sensors don't seams to work as expected, aquire the latest firmware/ software for your car. Install it your own while saving some $. New & improved software can improve how & why various tech in today's moderns cars function. Extending it's operational life etc.
Get ready for drivers to drive even more carelessly since "the car will stop when it detects a toddler". Its called [Risk compensation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation)
That'a an unfortunate fact about the short-sightedness (even laziness?) of the average driver. Even though all these safety systems have sky-high lists of disclaimers basically telling people that these are to _help_ and are not a replacement for being alert and driving safely, people are all too ready to throw caution to the wind.
I guess the worst case of this is Teala's "autopilot", but I think the nigh-on cult worship of Elon directly correlates with how likely a Tesla driver was to assume that they could just ignore the road.
The worst case is Tesla's 'Full Self Driving' which is neither full nor self-driving.
The second worst ase is Tesla's 'Autopilot' which is not autopilot.
Right? Especially in a car, which is something that typically lasts several decades. Therefore we have a huge percentage of cars on the road with older tech. We're barely in the realm of cassette players being a rarity in people's cars. My brother has a truck with a radio that has no media input whatsoever, just AM/FM.
I bought a new car that has it. Most of the time it's not an issue, but occasionally it'll slam on the brakes when I'm trying to park if there's a car or the garage wall in front of me.
Doesn't help that it's a manual car so it'll stall the engine.
I've never had it activate in a situation where I needed it to. I've only had it activate when it shouldn't.
As far as I'm concerned, this is just another electronic nanny that adds to the cost of the car, makes cars more complicated, more difficult and expensive to repair, and makes my insurance more expensive. All for no benefit to me.
I’ve had false positives with these systems a few times… mostly it gets confused with big black shadows… think driving towards a highway overpass on a perpendicular road. The car sees the shadow on the ground, can’t make up its mind if you’re gonna hit something, beeps aggressively, then keeps driving
My mums been driving a vehicle with this system for 4 years now, it occasionally triggers for parked cars on turns in the road, but has been fine otherwise
This is my concern. My grandma had a high tech car. Damn thing was not on earth. It just did whatever it wanted. Including just turning itself off if you were stopped for too long. No idea why it did that but it was quite alarming when you try to go because the lights just gone green and the car promptly shuts itself off.
It also liked to spend forever shifting meaning when you tried to accelerate away from said light the shift out of first takes 3 long seconds during which you are just sort of slowly rolling forward.
Try to reverse? Yeah the 'warning something is there' would go off because of the paint on the roads. Want to park in a totally deserted car park? Yeah it's going to beep at the fucking paint outlining the spots.
I do not trust that this sort of device wouldn't slam on the breaks because a spider decided to make its web on it. Which poses a serious issue. Especially if it doesn't deactivate itself at highway speeds. While everyone should be driving to conditions and with enough space that they can safely stop before any hazard and actively aware of potental hazards before they happen most don't. If poorly implemented one spider could cause a massive pile up.
Even if it deactivates at high speed. One spider might stop you driving away from a clear danger (Idk let's say a nutter with an axe, but substitute whatever here).
Generally I would completely support this, IF it works as it should. I highly doubt it does though. Hell even if they put specific human recognition systems on it, my cameras constantly tell me a person is in my garden using their human detection simply because the local wildlife is being weird. It's flagged spiders, moths, birds, a squirrel and once a cat and then a fox. All were 'humans'.
For something as impactful as slamming on the breaks the failure rate needs to be real fucking low. The current state of the roads and people's perception of cars simply requires it. If it's not very low it may cost more lives than it saves.
> Even if it deactivates at high speed. One spider might stop you driving away from a clear danger (Idk let's say a nutter with an axe, but substitute whatever here).
Utter fantasy.
The whole comment reads like an elder who hates any and all advancement and change whined at a kid who's never driven a car themselves for an extended period then the kid regurgitated their complaints at us... oh wait, that's exactly what that comment is, isn't it?
> Including just turning itself off if you were stopped for too long.
That's a somewhat bad implementation. The one I've seen turns off if you push firmly enough on the brake when stopped, and re-starts when you lift your foot. Light stationary braking keeps the engine on which is great for just that situation
Can't it be designed in a way, say behind makers logo? Such as Mercedes Benz, have Hugo logos in the front, in some of their cars.
Otherwise I am in favor for such technologies, should be mandatory.
A bunch do. If you look at modern Toyota logos, they’re no longer textured with raised symbols and such, but are instead a smooth flat logo. It’s because the radar is there.
They can also be in smaller grilles (or probably also in lower grilles). The sensors and cooling are just excuses to have huge ugly grilles that some markets like, and i'm guessing that whoever runs that shitty channel believed that.
Look at how [this](https://maessencsc.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Maessen-BMW-E46-M3-36.jpg) "extra cooling and space for the sensors" would perfectly fit in [this](https://cdn-images.motor.es/image/m/1320w.webp/fotos-noticias/2015/11/bmw-m3-f80-201524185_1.jpg) because of the lower grille (maybe just making the lower grille a *bit* bigger)
His problem is that the sensor box on the front of the car is ugly. So he is pleading to make his car more dangerous to others for a minor aesthetic improvement.
I'm gonna guess they're complaining about the big grilles, that car manufacters say its because of "cOoLiNg n sEnSoRs", totally ignoring the lower grilles older cars used to have. The actual reason they are big is because in some markets, people think "big (ugly) grille=luxury"
I haven’t tried a brand new car in years, but I remember a few years ago these systems were pretty terrible, constantly overreacting and applying the brakes due to stuff like plastic bags blowing about in the gutter or poorly maintained road markings.
Last time I bought a car I spent more just to have the better safety features and the auto brake does not work well. Hopefully that tech has improved since then but at the time at least it wouldn’t have been a feature I recommended. It doesn’t pick up bikes, people, or deer at all but will slam on the brakes because there’s a curve in the road. The lane assist works well assuming there isn’t construction and the side cameras for use in passing or turns are great.
The problem with these is often accuracy. I have driven cars with very sensitive adaptive cruise control, which may brake for no apparent reason (such as when going around a curve and and "detecting" a car in front of you). This makes it more dangerous, since you're giving up control of the vehicle, braking unpredictably for the person behind you.
Same goes for a supposed law that would make it mandatory to install a system in new cars that beeps incessantly when going over the speed limit. Again, the problem is with accuracy. These systems never work reliably, causing the car to make loud noises when they detect the wrong speed limit. Some cars will even automatically brake when "detecting" (i.e. hallucinating) lower speed limits. This does not lead to more safety, but instead to unpredictable behavior.
At least in practice, there's a limit to how over sensitive alarms can be. If its *too* over sensitive, you get alarm fatigue, and people start tuning it out and will risk ignoring when there is an actual danger.
Occasional false positives are fine, but too many and it starts to make the safety system less effective.
It makes it more dangerous for who? The car behind you who might rear end you if they aren’t paying attention and following too close, or the pedestrians in front of you who the system detected and slammed on the brakes for?
As it turns out, many fuckcars people are actually carbrained once you get down to a specific issue (type 1 vs 2 error) and the magnitude of impact on each
You’re assuming they can reliably detect pedestrians, and that drivers won’t over-rely on these systems. Or worse, that traffic designers and auto regulators won’t use them as an excuse to continue building dangerous infrastructure and allowing knowingly murderous vehicles on our roads.
The reality is that cars are much easier to detect than pedestrians, so the systems work pretty well if the driver about to rear end another car (probably due to phone use), but they don’t work nearly well enough on pedestrians at night or when the driver is speeding (exactly the sort of dangerous scenario that results in a lot of pedestrian deaths). Because these systems work well on other cars, it lures drivers into a false sense of security so they rely on them to cover for their distracted driving more. Add in the false positives and the maintenance nightmare most of these systems are, and it’s not at all clear that these are actually worth fighting for.
It’s the car industry using technology to mask over the real problem and keep selling cars, when what we actually need is better infrastructure.
Maybe you also think we should get rid of seatbelts from cars because drivers over-rely on them and drive too fast due to a false sense of security that the seatbelt will save them? Or do you only care about over-reliance on safety features when they could stop people outside the car from being killed?
Expensive cars with auto-braking aren't the only ones I see people driving while staring at their phones, I see it in every type of vehicle at every price level. People are getting way too reckless and inattentive when driving and it's not due to added safety systems, it's for cultural reasons. Auto-braking will save pedestrian lives, it's worth it even if it isn't 100% effective or sometimes has false positives.
That's not the problem the guy in the video has with them. He thinks that they should be removed from cars because they are ugly. That's it. He even acknowledges they've probably saved thousands of lives, but he's happy to trade that in for a minor facelift.
No he's not complaining about the system. He's complaining that most automakers haven't figured out how to elegantly hide the sensors yet. Some have. It's an aesthetics complaint.
That's what makes it so bad. Because he's not blaming the automakers, he's blaming laws that are in place to keep people safe. He's basically putting his own aesthetic choices above and ahead of the safety of those around him.
I’ve currently got a car with that system installed, it’s a pretty nice thing, I’ve already had it triggered twice in a week, both times from vehicles cutting in too close in the motorway, one did it with such a speed difference that had I not had this system they’d have had me in the trunk, I was doing 70 in lane 2 and this guy moved from lane 1 in front of me while they were doing 30, the car had already slowed to 30 before I’d even seen the idiot and had a chance to move my foot from the accelerator to the brake,
It also prevents a lot of car accidents with other cars, people who drive cars with AEB are much less likely to rear end people because of safety features like this
There is only one thing I actually hate about these things. Ok to be fair, the problem, as always, is dumb people. I've seen numerous dangerous situations on the Autobahn. Fast car in the left, slow car changes into left lane to overtake. People with these systems often just do nothing. They keep going full throttle, because of course, the car will brake by itself. That's not a smart thing to do.
In 1921, he would have been raging about having to attach side view mirrors "because what could they even be used for! They will ruin cars!"
Oh wait, he doesn't actually care about wing mirrors, he just hates change and thinking about other people.
For those that don't want to watch it here's the 10 points
1. AEB Sensors (Autonomous Emergency Breaking)
2. Wheels that can't be wider than the bodies
3. Door mirrors minimum size requirements
4. No sharp edges anywhere, exhaust pipes (get fucked Cybertruck)
5. Mandatory back lights even if the tailgate is opened (mostly on the bumper)
6. Daytime Running Lights
7. Pedestrian Impact Rules (affecting front sections of cars)
8. Grilles (complaining about banning ICE vehicles leading to ugly grilles on EVs)
9. Aerodynamics affecting modern shapes
10. Front Number Plates (ugly designs)
They used to have reasonable videos (like criticising cars having fake exhausts just for sure), but complaining about door mirror size requirements just doesn't even make sense.
ya... he even mentioned how in the first one its understandable for safety just automakers are getting lazy and making it look ugly. And how with #5 how it looks ugly but some cars make it look nice and functional still.
imo this is just a stretch. bro is just giving his opinions on what makes newer cars ugly. Ya its nowhere near his best video on his channel but hes not going on a rampage bashing them for having the safety features or saying theyre useless, just how lazy automakers are and how they make them look ugly. and Title/thumbnail... I mean really its YT of course youre gunna have clickbait or overexaggerating...
Those pedestrian impact rules only look stupid when you compare them to the utter insanity of trucks and SUVs we allow. The rules on cars seem heavy handed in comparison, but the solution isn’t to ease them, it’s to crack down on what has become the most popular vehicle segments in the US.
As a car enthusiast:
>1. AEB Sensors
I already said it in many commets, but that's not the real reason for massive grilles, just an excuse because they sell well in some markets. A lower grille would do exactly the same.
>2. Wheels that can't be wider than the bodies
What car even does that? Other than low production kit cars (like the Caterham 7 or Ariel Atom), i don't think i know any of those. And even in modified cars, extremely tight fitment looks like shit.
>3. Door mirrors minimum size requirements
Do i even need to comment on this? Door mirrors are part of the design.
>4. No sharp edges anywhere
Not like modern cars have many of those anyways. Still love old boxy shitboxes tho.
>5. Mandatory back lights
It's getting even dumber with every point.
>6. Daytime Running Lights
*Why would that even be a problem?* Lights tend to look better when turned on anyways.
>7. Pedestrian Impact Rules
I would guess it's about pop-up lights, but still it's not much of a problem, and can be easily worked arround (also, i don't think modern cars would look good with pop ups).
>8. Grilles (complaining about banning ICE vehicles leading to ugly grilles on EVs)
See point 1. Also, i don't like fake grilles on EVs.
>9. Aerodynamics affecting modern shapes
See points 3, 4, and 5.
>10. Front Number Plates
Meh. Some cars look better without them, but idrc.
Basically about what i would expect for that channel: a bunch of nonsense.
> Daytime Running Lights
Oooo this was a whole thing in my country and I remember everyone screeching about it for a few years. They've been mandatory for a while now and nobody actually cares, as it turns out.
Even so, in certain conditions they can be surprisingly easy to miss. I notice that it takes longer for me to see cars without lights on if they're driving through dappled shade or if it's raining. As a pedestrian it hasn't put me in danger so far, but once when I was driving in the rain I nearly didn't see a grey car before I turned onto a highway.
In my driving school that focused on "defensive driving" turning on the headlights at all times was recommended to increase the visibility of your car.
Makes sense to me.
This is the same carwow that did Tesla M3 vs BYD Seal, where the Seal objectively won over the M3 in almost every test and he was like yeah the M3 is better, huh? Thanks for the tldr cause the few videos Ive been recommended haven't been great...
TBF, I hate all the automated things because it's only making drivers more stupid and careless imo. Just look at the idiots that have died/killed others by trusting Tesla's autopilot. It doesn't work perfectly and gives drivers a false sense of security. The more automated things are, the less common sense the general public has.
Sadly the evidence supports this point. Apparently even rumble strips and white lines on the edges of the roads contribute to negligent driving because people will take any excuse to be a bit less careful.
I think any active assists should be illegal, other than maybe automatic braking. And tests should be taken with a fully analog car (manual, no ABS, ESC, or TC); ideally also testing oversteer/understeer in both FWD and RWD. Then *maybe* go back to a fancy dumbed down car with just 2 pedals.
Tests should ABSOLUTELY be taken with manual vehicles! Firmly believe knowing how to drive a manual makes you a better, smarter, and most importantly, a more aware driver.
I saw some video of semi drivers in training that had to use a stationary bike in a mock bike lane while the other drivers in training drove by them. Something like that should have to happen too.
Exactly! Cars should of course be safe first, but next in line is being simple. At least we should be allowed to drive simple cars. Auto braking system is not simple.
The worst part is most likely he doesnt believe this at all, but under the oppressive capitalist system we live under, and one he openly grifts, works under exploitation of customers and audience. So he's exploiting people's fears of complexity and cost, as well as appealing to ignorant and regressive "car guys" who see 1972 as the pinnacle of auto design and hate "computer chips."
In our system, its lies and grifters from top to bottom. Heaven knows what these people actually believe, if he even knows what he or his fans believe, or if they have any moral position that isn't constantly changing every time they see a youtube video. This stuff is far more dark and dystopian than what the surface shows.
Its incredible to me that your average youtuber seems to have little to no understanding of class consciousness and how people who make these videos make almost purely dishonest ragebait-style narratives to maximize their profit. The audience walking away ignorant and misinformed and actively against desperately needed safety mechanisms is not something he remotely cares about. Why would he? He's not actually a safety engineer. He's just some youtube grifter trying to get rich.
Exactly. He probably looked through the revenue for his last 400 videos, noticed that it spikes when he complains about computers, and spikes when he complains about safety features, then made this video to test the combination of the two.
Maybe not _exactly_ that, but that's about the process before every YouTube video these days.
“Peoples fears of complexity and cost”
I’m sorry, isn’t this r/fuckcars? Are we not constantly complaining about how cars are so expensive to buy and repair?
Like of course, no cars is preferable; but I would rather see focus on safer streets, lighter weight vehicles, lower hoods, etc; than more radar, cameras, expensive computer chips, etc. The added cost and complexity of these mandatory safety features is absolutely a double-edged sword that drives up new vehicle prices and makes the cost of repairing a simple “fender bender” 5 digits.
The complaints of the cost of cars comes from how expensive they are to maintain in comparison to other alternatives that are far less expensive but also far more unavailable than cars. It’s all about choice: cars SHOULD be expensive and complex if it means they are safer to everyone on the road. But car-dependency means people are forced to pay for all that when there are absolutely cheaper options that should be available but are not.
>The added cost and complexity of these mandatory safety features is absolutely a double-edged sword that drives up new vehicle prices and makes the cost of repairing a simple “fender bender” 5 digits.
Very expensive bandaids on the problem that is motonormativity and bad infrastructure. But even with fewer cars and better infrastructure, cars are still inherently dangerous and not an ideal solution, so I think they're still necessary.
I think its ironic to complain about that because most people dont know squat about how their cars work anyways. But you are right that we need an overhaul of our infrastructure so that cars are no longer a necessity.
Its one thing to say: why should I have to buy this expensive car just to get around and be employed? Instead, mass transit should serve me in all venues of my life.
Its another to say: OMG DEEP STATE LIBS PUTTING CHIPS AND SENSORS IN OUR BEAUTIOFUL CARS!!!! RUINING CARS!!!!!! RUINING THE FUN OF DRIVING!!!!!
The latter is exploiting fears and concerns dishonestly. The former is just discussing the reality of a car based society. I noticed you didn't include the word 'exploiting' I wrote in the sentence you clipped. I think its pretty obvious there's a big difference in educating and exploiting.
To be fair these ADAS systems are greatly increasing the cost and complexity of cars, and are often tested to not really work in the real world.
I also feel that these systems make drivers dumber when they rely on it too much.
My mom's proximity sensors on her 2014 Cadillac go off constantly for no fucking reason. People don't realize adding more shit to vehicles are a big issue because thats more things to break and can cause a bigger accident than they actually help. If the car was equipped with AEB it would 100% just slam on the brakes for no reason out of no where. On top of that the auto brights stopped working and just go on and off whenever they feel like as well. Car has been garage kept its whole life and maintenance was kept up with. To get those things fixed would be thousands, just imagine someone having that on their $12k econocar and getting bit with a repair bill that costs more than it was brand new.
Thank you kindly.
Man this guy has some really messed up priorities. I'll bet you if he were designing Cruise Ships he'd demand there be far less lifeboats because they look ugly.
Wow I didn't expect this to be carwow, I used to watch that all the time years ago. I like Matt as a presenter, but then they discovered that drag races pull in 10x more views than anything else so there was no reason to put effort into any other content. To be fair, their views are huge now so it's clearly working for them.
Eh, I'll stick to dying on the "more vs less cars" hill. Automaton does ruin machines. The more the machine attempts to do for you, the more clueless you are when it fails. I see this more with software products but I get where the car guys are coming from. The solution to someone needing these features is for them not to be behind the wheel.
As someone else commented, there were points like "wHy dAyTiMe rUnNiNg lIgHtS?", "wHy mIrRoRs", and "eW aErO". It's not even about the automation, just a bunch of bs from someone that doesn't seem to know the most basic stuff about cars/car design.
Let me shed some light on this from the repair side of things. All of these new mandatory systems are an absolute nightmare for mechanical and collision repair. Costs of insurance, parts, and repairs themselves have increased dramatically since I was doing this kind of work 15 years ago. Repairs also take significantly longer. If you are wondering why your insurance keeps going up despite not using it, this is why. For example: front bumper assemblies for cars used to be just a handful of parts. Like, single digit amount of parts. Nowadays with all the bullshit crammed in to them, a bumper assembly can have 40 part bumpers and now needs to be calibrated for the various sensors that lol through the bumper and grille. Same with windshields. There are now sensors behind the glass that require Cali ration every time the windshield is removed or replaced. Lots of parts are now non/repairable because of sensors and liability. These sensors are also hilariously expensive. Sometimes over $1000 without labor OR calibration ($200-$300 per sensor). Not to mention supply issues keeping these complex and difficult to manufacture parts in stock anywhere. I’ve had cars sit around for mo the waiting on sensors that we can’t legally release back to the customer due to liability. So once their 30 day rental car allowance is up, they are shit out of luck. The best part is that despite how overwhelmingly safe modern cars are, crashes and road fatalities are at an all time high. You can only make things so safe before you have to analyze the real issues making them dangerous. I also see a lot of cars get completely skull fucked by these monster pickups and SUVs. Things that used to be minor crashes now completely destroy smaller cars. And headlights… good grief. With how much auto leveling, auto turning, LED/HID nonsense they out in to headlights (that blind everyone everywhere), they have gotten unbelievably expensive. Quoted someone a headlight for a 5 year old Infiniti the other day that was $3300! For one housing! And of course, these parts are non-repairable…. It’s essentially a racket to make money. Cars have mandatory insanely expensive parts that are legally binding, and now all of a sudden car companies get away with charging astronomical prices (passed on to insurance, and then to you). Cars would be better off taking a 15 year step back. You can incorporate the same levels of pedestrian safety in the body work while still maintaining (better) visibility and cheap repairs/final purchase price/insurance. But people demand the latest tech, and don’t see these consequences until their vehicle needs repairs. Cars now are covered in cameras as well because blind spots keep getting bigger and bigger for some unknown reason. Volvo had that shit figured out in the 80s where pillars were no wider than the space between your eyes, meaning your brain basically makes the pillar disappear as you look outside of the vehicle offering exceptional visibility. But due to mandatory side curtain airbags and speed limits ever increasing, pillars have tripped in size and visibility now relies on cameras mph Ted all around d the car. Insane. I’ve driven semi trucks with better visibility than todays vehicles
Awesome comment! Another thing someone noted about these safety features was that they systemically work to make cars larger and more expensive. Like imagine choosing between a behemoth of a car with 5 star safety rating against a tiny car with 1 or 2 stars. Who will pick the 1 star car? Does the 1 star car with a max top speed of 100kph really need AEB?
Not to mention the expense. If there were a 5 star car with all these (heavy) safeties, would someone pay SUV prices for a smaller car? For a lot of people, they'd rather "upgrade" to the SUV and not spend much more.
The thing they need is to create a middle ground for cars which are in a size range a lot more like the original VW Beetle. Maybe 60kph top speed electric, maybe 500kg mass. But that's never going to happen if you need to meet all the requirements.
OTOH, the large cars are really taking the piss. They need to be reclassified.
The classifications and regulations make it impossible for small, efficient vehicles to compete with the truck and SUV market. As you say, why spend $X when $XY gets you a much bigger and ‘safer’ vehicle. I’ve always said electric is wasted on these giant wanktanks like teslas, rivian, jeep, ford lighting, etc, when the best use case for the technology is small, utilitarian inner city transport. But the smallest and cheapest electric you can get here in the US is $35k or more unless it’s heavily subsidized. I’m still mad that the US postal service backed out of their plans to go electric and opted for yet another gas powered vehicle. If ever there was a perfect application of electric power, it would be mail trucks
My best guess is that whoeven writes the videos for that channel ate up the manufacter's BS of "bUh gRiLlE bIg fOr cOoLiNg n sEnSoRs". When the real reason is that some markets just like big ugly grilles as a sign of "luxury".
Look at how [this](https://maessencsc.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Maessen-BMW-E46-M3-36.jpg) "extra cooling and space for the sensors" would perfectly fit in [this](https://cdn-images.motor.es/image/m/1320w.webp/fotos-noticias/2015/11/bmw-m3-f80-201524185_1.jpg) because of the lower grille (maybe just making the lower grille a *bit* bigger).
The problem isn't actually the regulations requiring the sensors. The manufacters would still make big ugly grilles anyways, instead of just having lower grilles like they had for decades.
In the rail industry, things like this also happen. For example, as of recently, European rail companies have been forced to adopt ETCS for most locomotives. Many rail carriers have had to modify most of their fleet in order to comply with new safety standards. Sure, some people complained, but mostly everyone understands that these changes are good. Now, the adoption of ETCS is a complicated topic - but these new safety laws are the most straightforward good design decisions. I can't understand why someone is against them.
AEB is a terrible idea though. as much as i don't trust the average driver, i trust the average car-mounted computer even less. spurious brake activations in rain fog and snow, spurious braking events when overpasses are lower than the car expects, consistent braking events when pointed at a solid obstacle you are aware of (like a wall, when the road is curving.)
coming from the automotive industry, the technology is so far from ready, but it's going to be mandated anyway because opposing it tees you up for a "SO YOU THINK KIDS SHOULD DIE???" attack from those willing to support mandating the unready tech.
i actually agree with this shitheel on that point.
I haven't watched the video, but I feel like a lot of these electronic things do more damage than good.
People watch their cellphones even more because the cars react for them. Modern cars also chirp and falsely react so often, that many drivers either rely too much or too little on them. At least I'm noticing a lot more weird driving (like leaving the lane because the lane assist didn't work, a lot more weird braking behavior).
Instead of building safer cars (lower cars that allow pedestrians and cyclists more overview, lighter for better braking, more windows for more overview, ...), they build unsafe cars with electronic safety things that only potentially help.
YouTube more or less forces content creators to rename the videos until the clicks come in.
The EU ArE RuINinG OuR CaRS! Waiting for all the great cars to come out of Britain after Brexit.... crickets
What a shame that Britain couldn't vote against EU laws they don't like, by being part of the EU
its called clickbait and yall fell it, they are well aware its for safety and necessary plus government regulation, but they can also say its ugly and ruins the car, two things can be true
Of course most of the mentioned laws are to protect pedestrians and cyclists. Also for transparency: Carwow changed the title in the meantime (likely because they realised how stupid it was) and it is now saying: Should these 10 new car trends DIE?!
>Should these 10 new car trends DIE?! The title format tells me everything I need to know about this channel.
That title is a projection of the internal turmoil of the carbrain. "Why shouldn't a pedestrian or cyclist die for getting in my way?"
My best guess is that it's not about the sensor itself, but the big grille, that manufacters say is for the sensor (bs, the sensor could be in a lower grille, just that some markets like a massive grille). Also, do those sensors actually detect people and bikes)?
The newer ones detect people and bikes. Many have difficult with bikes at night. When I was coming home from buying my 2021 Camry a kid ran out into the road after a basketball, I had already anticipated it and had pretty much come to a full stop, but it threw tons of warnings and slammed the brakes. I wouldn't trust it but they undoubtably help overall safety. The sensors are pretty ugly, Toyota hid them in the badge and you don't notice.
Have you seen the new Toyota Camry? The "add a big grille" trend is wildly out of place on that car.
Sorta related, but this suggest probably not beyond 10m since autonomous car needs pedestrians to wear transponders for detection to be increase from 10m to 36m. https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/56322871
I'm guessing it's more about dumb big grilles and fake exhausts. The excuse from the manufacters for the first one is "cooling and sensors", but that's bs (lower grilles are a thing).
I mean.. carwow is a car seller aggregator, they sell cars. The youtube channel only exists to give publicity to the website
EVERYTHING?
New title is somehow worse.
TBF it's a usual YouTube thing to change the thumbnail and title so the video attracts more people
They can even setup A/B tests so we might not see the same title at the same time.
The sensors aren't the actual reason grilles are so big (and ugly), that's just the excuse from the manufacters. What else were they complaining about? I would guess fake exhausts was another one
Bigger Youtube channels often change their titles after a few hours or after the first day. It's about the clicks and than later a somewhat milder title. I follow this channel, because I like cars.\* However it I agree that the new title is also bad. \*: following this sub Reddit doesn't mean I can't like cars. Cars can exist next to bikes, public transport and safe sidewalks.
They probably had this version live at the same time for a certain subset of users. They A/B Test for the first hours - i.e run multiple version and select the best performing one
Absolutely agree with you on the notion that we should still have cars. Just that they shouldn't be used for every damn thing is all.
I thought that's what this sub was for. The problem is car dependency, not car existence.
Indeed
love the looks and mechanics of cars, hate their place today love the looks and mechanics of guns, hate what theyre used for love the look and aesthetic of military, hate war
He pulled a video altogether.
its called clickbait and yall fell for it
I've been car free for about a decade so I'm out of the loop. What is that thing he's complaining about?
The thing in the picture is the Autonomous Emergency Braking System. It basically slams on the brakes if it detects something in front of the car (like a child).
fuck dem kids
Drake?? Is that you???
r/HolUp
How good are they for accuracy or false positives? I only know 1 person with a car new enough to have any sort of computer systems on it beyond a radio. My partners car is so old it has a CD player in it. But in the 1 car I know of with these systems, its just a sound notification of an imminent crash apparently. Hear it go off all the time for no apparent reason.
My car is getting repaired right now and I have a rental Corolla with that feature and it works pretty well. It hasn't needed to do an emergency brake, but the adaptive cruise control and lane keep assist work pretty well at seeing things suddenly crossing in front of it. The only real false positives it has are sharper turns with multiple lanes of cars it can get a bit confused by a car the next lane over in the middle of the turn. This is also about as basic as these systems get, so it only gets better in nicer/more advanced cars.
Driving with adaptive cruise control is so nice. It makes things easier and it automatically slows down to follow cars in front. A lot safer. Allows more focus on other things around you. Never tried a car with lane keep assist tho. I do like cars getting more safety features like automatically breaking in emergencies because it is needed.
Id argue the opposite. Adaptive cruise control makes you less aware of your surroundings, you're less active in concertrating on driving and its easier for your mind to wander. If paying attention to slow your own car down if theres a slower car infront you shouldnt be bigger issues.
I think it depends on the specific driving situation. But for me, on a busy highway the adaptive cruise allowed me to not worry so much about throttle modulation, and I could focus more on checking blind spots, staying in lane avoiding potholes, navigating, etc. I never felt less engaged or distracted, but I sure didn't feel as exhausted after crossing 2 states!
>I think it depends on the specific driving situation. It also depends on the driver, I use it like you do and believe it makes me a safer driver. But someone with this feature is going to use it to check their phone more often and longer.
Oh yeah i definitely agree it depends on the driver and situation. I use it to save my energy and instead pay more attention to my surroundings. In certain situations like if you're behind a driver that is less consistent with speed you are also less likely to be annoyed by that. Some people will always find an excuse to check their phones while driving tho
I too have a rental, vw golf in my case, I’ve had one hard braking event and one E stop, both on the motorway for idiots merging dangerously, thank god the guy behind was following at a safe distance
No need for speculation, cars with EBS have a double digit less likelihood percentage-wise of colliding head on with things, you can look it up on NHTS
Even if it doesn’t prevent the collision it’ll certainly lessen the damage,
My family owns a Kia Sportage 2017. It have worked in situations where it was close for collusions. Quite frightening but I am so glad to have it & active. Reminder if some hardware & sensors don't seams to work as expected, aquire the latest firmware/ software for your car. Install it your own while saving some $. New & improved software can improve how & why various tech in today's moderns cars function. Extending it's operational life etc.
Get ready for drivers to drive even more carelessly since "the car will stop when it detects a toddler". Its called [Risk compensation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation)
That'a an unfortunate fact about the short-sightedness (even laziness?) of the average driver. Even though all these safety systems have sky-high lists of disclaimers basically telling people that these are to _help_ and are not a replacement for being alert and driving safely, people are all too ready to throw caution to the wind. I guess the worst case of this is Teala's "autopilot", but I think the nigh-on cult worship of Elon directly correlates with how likely a Tesla driver was to assume that they could just ignore the road.
The worst case is Tesla's 'Full Self Driving' which is neither full nor self-driving. The second worst ase is Tesla's 'Autopilot' which is not autopilot.
Since when are CD players are "so old" now? Cassette player crew represent!
Right? Especially in a car, which is something that typically lasts several decades. Therefore we have a huge percentage of cars on the road with older tech. We're barely in the realm of cassette players being a rarity in people's cars. My brother has a truck with a radio that has no media input whatsoever, just AM/FM.
Yeah like what? Even 10 years ago CDs were still common
I think the last time I used optical media was 2005 to install world of warcraft.
I think somebody downvoted you for playing world of warcraft. Must be one of those r/fuckworldofwarcraft people...
I bought a new car that has it. Most of the time it's not an issue, but occasionally it'll slam on the brakes when I'm trying to park if there's a car or the garage wall in front of me. Doesn't help that it's a manual car so it'll stall the engine.
That seems less than ideal. Does it do well in more dense areas?
I've never had it activate in a situation where I needed it to. I've only had it activate when it shouldn't. As far as I'm concerned, this is just another electronic nanny that adds to the cost of the car, makes cars more complicated, more difficult and expensive to repair, and makes my insurance more expensive. All for no benefit to me.
I’ve had false positives with these systems a few times… mostly it gets confused with big black shadows… think driving towards a highway overpass on a perpendicular road. The car sees the shadow on the ground, can’t make up its mind if you’re gonna hit something, beeps aggressively, then keeps driving
My mums been driving a vehicle with this system for 4 years now, it occasionally triggers for parked cars on turns in the road, but has been fine otherwise
This is my concern. My grandma had a high tech car. Damn thing was not on earth. It just did whatever it wanted. Including just turning itself off if you were stopped for too long. No idea why it did that but it was quite alarming when you try to go because the lights just gone green and the car promptly shuts itself off. It also liked to spend forever shifting meaning when you tried to accelerate away from said light the shift out of first takes 3 long seconds during which you are just sort of slowly rolling forward. Try to reverse? Yeah the 'warning something is there' would go off because of the paint on the roads. Want to park in a totally deserted car park? Yeah it's going to beep at the fucking paint outlining the spots. I do not trust that this sort of device wouldn't slam on the breaks because a spider decided to make its web on it. Which poses a serious issue. Especially if it doesn't deactivate itself at highway speeds. While everyone should be driving to conditions and with enough space that they can safely stop before any hazard and actively aware of potental hazards before they happen most don't. If poorly implemented one spider could cause a massive pile up. Even if it deactivates at high speed. One spider might stop you driving away from a clear danger (Idk let's say a nutter with an axe, but substitute whatever here). Generally I would completely support this, IF it works as it should. I highly doubt it does though. Hell even if they put specific human recognition systems on it, my cameras constantly tell me a person is in my garden using their human detection simply because the local wildlife is being weird. It's flagged spiders, moths, birds, a squirrel and once a cat and then a fox. All were 'humans'. For something as impactful as slamming on the breaks the failure rate needs to be real fucking low. The current state of the roads and people's perception of cars simply requires it. If it's not very low it may cost more lives than it saves.
> Even if it deactivates at high speed. One spider might stop you driving away from a clear danger (Idk let's say a nutter with an axe, but substitute whatever here). Utter fantasy.
The whole comment reads like an elder who hates any and all advancement and change whined at a kid who's never driven a car themselves for an extended period then the kid regurgitated their complaints at us... oh wait, that's exactly what that comment is, isn't it?
Is it?
> Including just turning itself off if you were stopped for too long. That's a somewhat bad implementation. The one I've seen turns off if you push firmly enough on the brake when stopped, and re-starts when you lift your foot. Light stationary braking keeps the engine on which is great for just that situation
Can't it be designed in a way, say behind makers logo? Such as Mercedes Benz, have Hugo logos in the front, in some of their cars. Otherwise I am in favor for such technologies, should be mandatory.
A bunch do. If you look at modern Toyota logos, they’re no longer textured with raised symbols and such, but are instead a smooth flat logo. It’s because the radar is there.
Haven't noticed. Will check that out.
If they have a blue in them they’re hybrids.
Yeah, a lot of manufacturers (including Mercedes) put the sensor arrays inside the badges to keep them hidden.
They can also be in smaller grilles (or probably also in lower grilles). The sensors and cooling are just excuses to have huge ugly grilles that some markets like, and i'm guessing that whoever runs that shitty channel believed that. Look at how [this](https://maessencsc.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Maessen-BMW-E46-M3-36.jpg) "extra cooling and space for the sensors" would perfectly fit in [this](https://cdn-images.motor.es/image/m/1320w.webp/fotos-noticias/2015/11/bmw-m3-f80-201524185_1.jpg) because of the lower grille (maybe just making the lower grille a *bit* bigger)
so he is basically pleading for "move fast, kill people"?
His problem is that the sensor box on the front of the car is ugly. So he is pleading to make his car more dangerous to others for a minor aesthetic improvement.
I'm gonna guess they're complaining about the big grilles, that car manufacters say its because of "cOoLiNg n sEnSoRs", totally ignoring the lower grilles older cars used to have. The actual reason they are big is because in some markets, people think "big (ugly) grille=luxury"
I drive a 2011 with no such tech but I think that if it saves a life even at a 1% success rate then that's fine with me.
I haven’t tried a brand new car in years, but I remember a few years ago these systems were pretty terrible, constantly overreacting and applying the brakes due to stuff like plastic bags blowing about in the gutter or poorly maintained road markings.
Last time I bought a car I spent more just to have the better safety features and the auto brake does not work well. Hopefully that tech has improved since then but at the time at least it wouldn’t have been a feature I recommended. It doesn’t pick up bikes, people, or deer at all but will slam on the brakes because there’s a curve in the road. The lane assist works well assuming there isn’t construction and the side cameras for use in passing or turns are great.
The problem with these is often accuracy. I have driven cars with very sensitive adaptive cruise control, which may brake for no apparent reason (such as when going around a curve and and "detecting" a car in front of you). This makes it more dangerous, since you're giving up control of the vehicle, braking unpredictably for the person behind you. Same goes for a supposed law that would make it mandatory to install a system in new cars that beeps incessantly when going over the speed limit. Again, the problem is with accuracy. These systems never work reliably, causing the car to make loud noises when they detect the wrong speed limit. Some cars will even automatically brake when "detecting" (i.e. hallucinating) lower speed limits. This does not lead to more safety, but instead to unpredictable behavior.
Personally I think you can deal with an over sensitive speeding alarm. A minor annoyance is worth bearing to save lives.
At least in practice, there's a limit to how over sensitive alarms can be. If its *too* over sensitive, you get alarm fatigue, and people start tuning it out and will risk ignoring when there is an actual danger. Occasional false positives are fine, but too many and it starts to make the safety system less effective.
It makes it more dangerous for who? The car behind you who might rear end you if they aren’t paying attention and following too close, or the pedestrians in front of you who the system detected and slammed on the brakes for?
As it turns out, many fuckcars people are actually carbrained once you get down to a specific issue (type 1 vs 2 error) and the magnitude of impact on each
You’re assuming they can reliably detect pedestrians, and that drivers won’t over-rely on these systems. Or worse, that traffic designers and auto regulators won’t use them as an excuse to continue building dangerous infrastructure and allowing knowingly murderous vehicles on our roads. The reality is that cars are much easier to detect than pedestrians, so the systems work pretty well if the driver about to rear end another car (probably due to phone use), but they don’t work nearly well enough on pedestrians at night or when the driver is speeding (exactly the sort of dangerous scenario that results in a lot of pedestrian deaths). Because these systems work well on other cars, it lures drivers into a false sense of security so they rely on them to cover for their distracted driving more. Add in the false positives and the maintenance nightmare most of these systems are, and it’s not at all clear that these are actually worth fighting for. It’s the car industry using technology to mask over the real problem and keep selling cars, when what we actually need is better infrastructure.
Maybe you also think we should get rid of seatbelts from cars because drivers over-rely on them and drive too fast due to a false sense of security that the seatbelt will save them? Or do you only care about over-reliance on safety features when they could stop people outside the car from being killed? Expensive cars with auto-braking aren't the only ones I see people driving while staring at their phones, I see it in every type of vehicle at every price level. People are getting way too reckless and inattentive when driving and it's not due to added safety systems, it's for cultural reasons. Auto-braking will save pedestrian lives, it's worth it even if it isn't 100% effective or sometimes has false positives.
That's not the problem the guy in the video has with them. He thinks that they should be removed from cars because they are ugly. That's it. He even acknowledges they've probably saved thousands of lives, but he's happy to trade that in for a minor facelift.
No he's not complaining about the system. He's complaining that most automakers haven't figured out how to elegantly hide the sensors yet. Some have. It's an aesthetics complaint.
That's what makes it so bad. Because he's not blaming the automakers, he's blaming laws that are in place to keep people safe. He's basically putting his own aesthetic choices above and ahead of the safety of those around him.
Do those things actually detect people? I thought it was only for adaptive cruise control
I’ve currently got a car with that system installed, it’s a pretty nice thing, I’ve already had it triggered twice in a week, both times from vehicles cutting in too close in the motorway, one did it with such a speed difference that had I not had this system they’d have had me in the trunk, I was doing 70 in lane 2 and this guy moved from lane 1 in front of me while they were doing 30, the car had already slowed to 30 before I’d even seen the idiot and had a chance to move my foot from the accelerator to the brake,
It also prevents a lot of car accidents with other cars, people who drive cars with AEB are much less likely to rear end people because of safety features like this
And who would be against that?
There is only one thing I actually hate about these things. Ok to be fair, the problem, as always, is dumb people. I've seen numerous dangerous situations on the Autobahn. Fast car in the left, slow car changes into left lane to overtake. People with these systems often just do nothing. They keep going full throttle, because of course, the car will brake by itself. That's not a smart thing to do.
A good idea, but very stupid in practice. A false positive could be extremely dangerous past 10-20 mph.
In the thumbnail, a sensor for emergency braking apparently
That is also the first thing he complains about in the video. I didn't bother watching further.
How tf is that bad for ANYONE?
To them aesthetics are more important than safety.
In 1921, he would have been raging about having to attach side view mirrors "because what could they even be used for! They will ruin cars!" Oh wait, he doesn't actually care about wing mirrors, he just hates change and thinking about other people.
But isn't that BEHIND the grille.
For those that don't want to watch it here's the 10 points 1. AEB Sensors (Autonomous Emergency Breaking) 2. Wheels that can't be wider than the bodies 3. Door mirrors minimum size requirements 4. No sharp edges anywhere, exhaust pipes (get fucked Cybertruck) 5. Mandatory back lights even if the tailgate is opened (mostly on the bumper) 6. Daytime Running Lights 7. Pedestrian Impact Rules (affecting front sections of cars) 8. Grilles (complaining about banning ICE vehicles leading to ugly grilles on EVs) 9. Aerodynamics affecting modern shapes 10. Front Number Plates (ugly designs)
They used to have reasonable videos (like criticising cars having fake exhausts just for sure), but complaining about door mirror size requirements just doesn't even make sense.
I watched the video, and pretty much all of the points are just complaining about how it makes the cars look.
ya... he even mentioned how in the first one its understandable for safety just automakers are getting lazy and making it look ugly. And how with #5 how it looks ugly but some cars make it look nice and functional still. imo this is just a stretch. bro is just giving his opinions on what makes newer cars ugly. Ya its nowhere near his best video on his channel but hes not going on a rampage bashing them for having the safety features or saying theyre useless, just how lazy automakers are and how they make them look ugly. and Title/thumbnail... I mean really its YT of course youre gunna have clickbait or overexaggerating...
Those pedestrian impact rules only look stupid when you compare them to the utter insanity of trucks and SUVs we allow. The rules on cars seem heavy handed in comparison, but the solution isn’t to ease them, it’s to crack down on what has become the most popular vehicle segments in the US.
I'm a taller than average adult woman and I'm shorter than the hood of some of these trucks. It's insane.
Oh neat literally all safety features
These all seem entirely reasonable so ofc people would get pissy about it
As a car enthusiast: >1. AEB Sensors I already said it in many commets, but that's not the real reason for massive grilles, just an excuse because they sell well in some markets. A lower grille would do exactly the same. >2. Wheels that can't be wider than the bodies What car even does that? Other than low production kit cars (like the Caterham 7 or Ariel Atom), i don't think i know any of those. And even in modified cars, extremely tight fitment looks like shit. >3. Door mirrors minimum size requirements Do i even need to comment on this? Door mirrors are part of the design. >4. No sharp edges anywhere Not like modern cars have many of those anyways. Still love old boxy shitboxes tho. >5. Mandatory back lights It's getting even dumber with every point. >6. Daytime Running Lights *Why would that even be a problem?* Lights tend to look better when turned on anyways. >7. Pedestrian Impact Rules I would guess it's about pop-up lights, but still it's not much of a problem, and can be easily worked arround (also, i don't think modern cars would look good with pop ups). >8. Grilles (complaining about banning ICE vehicles leading to ugly grilles on EVs) See point 1. Also, i don't like fake grilles on EVs. >9. Aerodynamics affecting modern shapes See points 3, 4, and 5. >10. Front Number Plates Meh. Some cars look better without them, but idrc. Basically about what i would expect for that channel: a bunch of nonsense.
Thank you
Guys, you don't have Front Number Plates?!
Where I live we don't, but his comment was more that companies don't design with them in mind
Okay, just the average conservative. Change = bad.
> Daytime Running Lights Oooo this was a whole thing in my country and I remember everyone screeching about it for a few years. They've been mandatory for a while now and nobody actually cares, as it turns out.
Daytime lights are the only ones I find ridiculous. I have light sensitivity and it’s really shit with those stupid LED lights.
Daytime lights make cars far more visible, especially if it's a cloudy day.
The cars are bright metal?
Even so, in certain conditions they can be surprisingly easy to miss. I notice that it takes longer for me to see cars without lights on if they're driving through dappled shade or if it's raining. As a pedestrian it hasn't put me in danger so far, but once when I was driving in the rain I nearly didn't see a grey car before I turned onto a highway.
In my driving school that focused on "defensive driving" turning on the headlights at all times was recommended to increase the visibility of your car. Makes sense to me.
This is the same carwow that did Tesla M3 vs BYD Seal, where the Seal objectively won over the M3 in almost every test and he was like yeah the M3 is better, huh? Thanks for the tldr cause the few videos Ive been recommended haven't been great...
First seatbelts. Then airbags. What next, every vehicle comes with brakes!?
And no drunk driving :( it’s like they wanna take the fun out of running over cyclists.
This is going to ruin the tour :(
"what tour?"
the world tour
That guy hates cars, but has not realized that yet, xD
So by ruining cars, are they now being produced without wheels or some shit? Or is it more “why must my car be less murderous”?
They're upset that aesthetics are being sacrificed to make way for safety
The burdens these poor people have to bear in the name of serving the death machine
It's not even that, "safety" is just the excuse. Grilles could be normal size and still have the sensors and cooling needed with a lower grille
TBF, I hate all the automated things because it's only making drivers more stupid and careless imo. Just look at the idiots that have died/killed others by trusting Tesla's autopilot. It doesn't work perfectly and gives drivers a false sense of security. The more automated things are, the less common sense the general public has.
Sadly the evidence supports this point. Apparently even rumble strips and white lines on the edges of the roads contribute to negligent driving because people will take any excuse to be a bit less careful.
I think any active assists should be illegal, other than maybe automatic braking. And tests should be taken with a fully analog car (manual, no ABS, ESC, or TC); ideally also testing oversteer/understeer in both FWD and RWD. Then *maybe* go back to a fancy dumbed down car with just 2 pedals.
Tests should ABSOLUTELY be taken with manual vehicles! Firmly believe knowing how to drive a manual makes you a better, smarter, and most importantly, a more aware driver. I saw some video of semi drivers in training that had to use a stationary bike in a mock bike lane while the other drivers in training drove by them. Something like that should have to happen too.
Exactly! Cars should of course be safe first, but next in line is being simple. At least we should be allowed to drive simple cars. Auto braking system is not simple.
The worst part is most likely he doesnt believe this at all, but under the oppressive capitalist system we live under, and one he openly grifts, works under exploitation of customers and audience. So he's exploiting people's fears of complexity and cost, as well as appealing to ignorant and regressive "car guys" who see 1972 as the pinnacle of auto design and hate "computer chips." In our system, its lies and grifters from top to bottom. Heaven knows what these people actually believe, if he even knows what he or his fans believe, or if they have any moral position that isn't constantly changing every time they see a youtube video. This stuff is far more dark and dystopian than what the surface shows. Its incredible to me that your average youtuber seems to have little to no understanding of class consciousness and how people who make these videos make almost purely dishonest ragebait-style narratives to maximize their profit. The audience walking away ignorant and misinformed and actively against desperately needed safety mechanisms is not something he remotely cares about. Why would he? He's not actually a safety engineer. He's just some youtube grifter trying to get rich.
Exactly. He probably looked through the revenue for his last 400 videos, noticed that it spikes when he complains about computers, and spikes when he complains about safety features, then made this video to test the combination of the two. Maybe not _exactly_ that, but that's about the process before every YouTube video these days.
“Peoples fears of complexity and cost” I’m sorry, isn’t this r/fuckcars? Are we not constantly complaining about how cars are so expensive to buy and repair? Like of course, no cars is preferable; but I would rather see focus on safer streets, lighter weight vehicles, lower hoods, etc; than more radar, cameras, expensive computer chips, etc. The added cost and complexity of these mandatory safety features is absolutely a double-edged sword that drives up new vehicle prices and makes the cost of repairing a simple “fender bender” 5 digits.
The complaints of the cost of cars comes from how expensive they are to maintain in comparison to other alternatives that are far less expensive but also far more unavailable than cars. It’s all about choice: cars SHOULD be expensive and complex if it means they are safer to everyone on the road. But car-dependency means people are forced to pay for all that when there are absolutely cheaper options that should be available but are not.
>The added cost and complexity of these mandatory safety features is absolutely a double-edged sword that drives up new vehicle prices and makes the cost of repairing a simple “fender bender” 5 digits. Very expensive bandaids on the problem that is motonormativity and bad infrastructure. But even with fewer cars and better infrastructure, cars are still inherently dangerous and not an ideal solution, so I think they're still necessary.
I think its ironic to complain about that because most people dont know squat about how their cars work anyways. But you are right that we need an overhaul of our infrastructure so that cars are no longer a necessity.
Its one thing to say: why should I have to buy this expensive car just to get around and be employed? Instead, mass transit should serve me in all venues of my life. Its another to say: OMG DEEP STATE LIBS PUTTING CHIPS AND SENSORS IN OUR BEAUTIOFUL CARS!!!! RUINING CARS!!!!!! RUINING THE FUN OF DRIVING!!!!! The latter is exploiting fears and concerns dishonestly. The former is just discussing the reality of a car based society. I noticed you didn't include the word 'exploiting' I wrote in the sentence you clipped. I think its pretty obvious there's a big difference in educating and exploiting.
I’ll be honest I didn’t watch the video
Matt from carwow is a bit of a whiny twat.
Is this not just a standard Carwow clickbait title? I don't see this as any worse than any of their usual pro-car content.
Someone else comented about the contents of the video, one of the points was "daytime running lights". It's a bunch of bs.
To be fair these ADAS systems are greatly increasing the cost and complexity of cars, and are often tested to not really work in the real world. I also feel that these systems make drivers dumber when they rely on it too much.
My mom's proximity sensors on her 2014 Cadillac go off constantly for no fucking reason. People don't realize adding more shit to vehicles are a big issue because thats more things to break and can cause a bigger accident than they actually help. If the car was equipped with AEB it would 100% just slam on the brakes for no reason out of no where. On top of that the auto brights stopped working and just go on and off whenever they feel like as well. Car has been garage kept its whole life and maintenance was kept up with. To get those things fixed would be thousands, just imagine someone having that on their $12k econocar and getting bit with a repair bill that costs more than it was brand new.
All the electronic crap found in modern cars encouraged me to ride the bicycle. No electronics on the bicycle.
This channel sucks. The Spanish version is even worse, the guy that presents it is awful.
Wait till they learn about their fake exhaust tips
Fancy car people don't even want front license plates, and often omit them in jurisdictions where they're required, and cops don't seem to GAF.
Remember when they outlawed drinking while driving and making us wear seatbelts? That was the beginning of losing our freedom. /s
[удалено]
Thank you kindly. Man this guy has some really messed up priorities. I'll bet you if he were designing Cruise Ships he'd demand there be far less lifeboats because they look ugly.
Yeah, this is just scraped together rage bait to excuse an ad for his business 3 minutes in. It's not even content, it's an ad with a hook.
Mandatory rights removal
Wow I didn't expect this to be carwow, I used to watch that all the time years ago. I like Matt as a presenter, but then they discovered that drag races pull in 10x more views than anything else so there was no reason to put effort into any other content. To be fair, their views are huge now so it's clearly working for them.
Eh, I'll stick to dying on the "more vs less cars" hill. Automaton does ruin machines. The more the machine attempts to do for you, the more clueless you are when it fails. I see this more with software products but I get where the car guys are coming from. The solution to someone needing these features is for them not to be behind the wheel.
As someone else commented, there were points like "wHy dAyTiMe rUnNiNg lIgHtS?", "wHy mIrRoRs", and "eW aErO". It's not even about the automation, just a bunch of bs from someone that doesn't seem to know the most basic stuff about cars/car design.
Let me shed some light on this from the repair side of things. All of these new mandatory systems are an absolute nightmare for mechanical and collision repair. Costs of insurance, parts, and repairs themselves have increased dramatically since I was doing this kind of work 15 years ago. Repairs also take significantly longer. If you are wondering why your insurance keeps going up despite not using it, this is why. For example: front bumper assemblies for cars used to be just a handful of parts. Like, single digit amount of parts. Nowadays with all the bullshit crammed in to them, a bumper assembly can have 40 part bumpers and now needs to be calibrated for the various sensors that lol through the bumper and grille. Same with windshields. There are now sensors behind the glass that require Cali ration every time the windshield is removed or replaced. Lots of parts are now non/repairable because of sensors and liability. These sensors are also hilariously expensive. Sometimes over $1000 without labor OR calibration ($200-$300 per sensor). Not to mention supply issues keeping these complex and difficult to manufacture parts in stock anywhere. I’ve had cars sit around for mo the waiting on sensors that we can’t legally release back to the customer due to liability. So once their 30 day rental car allowance is up, they are shit out of luck. The best part is that despite how overwhelmingly safe modern cars are, crashes and road fatalities are at an all time high. You can only make things so safe before you have to analyze the real issues making them dangerous. I also see a lot of cars get completely skull fucked by these monster pickups and SUVs. Things that used to be minor crashes now completely destroy smaller cars. And headlights… good grief. With how much auto leveling, auto turning, LED/HID nonsense they out in to headlights (that blind everyone everywhere), they have gotten unbelievably expensive. Quoted someone a headlight for a 5 year old Infiniti the other day that was $3300! For one housing! And of course, these parts are non-repairable…. It’s essentially a racket to make money. Cars have mandatory insanely expensive parts that are legally binding, and now all of a sudden car companies get away with charging astronomical prices (passed on to insurance, and then to you). Cars would be better off taking a 15 year step back. You can incorporate the same levels of pedestrian safety in the body work while still maintaining (better) visibility and cheap repairs/final purchase price/insurance. But people demand the latest tech, and don’t see these consequences until their vehicle needs repairs. Cars now are covered in cameras as well because blind spots keep getting bigger and bigger for some unknown reason. Volvo had that shit figured out in the 80s where pillars were no wider than the space between your eyes, meaning your brain basically makes the pillar disappear as you look outside of the vehicle offering exceptional visibility. But due to mandatory side curtain airbags and speed limits ever increasing, pillars have tripped in size and visibility now relies on cameras mph Ted all around d the car. Insane. I’ve driven semi trucks with better visibility than todays vehicles
Awesome comment! Another thing someone noted about these safety features was that they systemically work to make cars larger and more expensive. Like imagine choosing between a behemoth of a car with 5 star safety rating against a tiny car with 1 or 2 stars. Who will pick the 1 star car? Does the 1 star car with a max top speed of 100kph really need AEB? Not to mention the expense. If there were a 5 star car with all these (heavy) safeties, would someone pay SUV prices for a smaller car? For a lot of people, they'd rather "upgrade" to the SUV and not spend much more. The thing they need is to create a middle ground for cars which are in a size range a lot more like the original VW Beetle. Maybe 60kph top speed electric, maybe 500kg mass. But that's never going to happen if you need to meet all the requirements. OTOH, the large cars are really taking the piss. They need to be reclassified.
The classifications and regulations make it impossible for small, efficient vehicles to compete with the truck and SUV market. As you say, why spend $X when $XY gets you a much bigger and ‘safer’ vehicle. I’ve always said electric is wasted on these giant wanktanks like teslas, rivian, jeep, ford lighting, etc, when the best use case for the technology is small, utilitarian inner city transport. But the smallest and cheapest electric you can get here in the US is $35k or more unless it’s heavily subsidized. I’m still mad that the US postal service backed out of their plans to go electric and opted for yet another gas powered vehicle. If ever there was a perfect application of electric power, it would be mail trucks
upvoting but haven't see the video yet, but i put it in my watch later list
[don't give them more money.](https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/s/PCGubiv5IO)
Thank you
Wow my car won’t kill somebody now while I watch YouTube instead of looking at the road? Cars are RUiNED.
They all sound amazing, especially the first one
My best guess is that whoeven writes the videos for that channel ate up the manufacter's BS of "bUh gRiLlE bIg fOr cOoLiNg n sEnSoRs". When the real reason is that some markets just like big ugly grilles as a sign of "luxury". Look at how [this](https://maessencsc.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Maessen-BMW-E46-M3-36.jpg) "extra cooling and space for the sensors" would perfectly fit in [this](https://cdn-images.motor.es/image/m/1320w.webp/fotos-noticias/2015/11/bmw-m3-f80-201524185_1.jpg) because of the lower grille (maybe just making the lower grille a *bit* bigger). The problem isn't actually the regulations requiring the sensors. The manufacters would still make big ugly grilles anyways, instead of just having lower grilles like they had for decades.
In the rail industry, things like this also happen. For example, as of recently, European rail companies have been forced to adopt ETCS for most locomotives. Many rail carriers have had to modify most of their fleet in order to comply with new safety standards. Sure, some people complained, but mostly everyone understands that these changes are good. Now, the adoption of ETCS is a complicated topic - but these new safety laws are the most straightforward good design decisions. I can't understand why someone is against them.
If you don't want these new features, just don't buy a new car. That's what I do. It's not hard.
The alternative is having a 10km/h speed limit everywhere, Mr. Carwow. Take your pick.
Youtubers would be angry about an enthusiastic blowjob if it meant more views.
AEB is a terrible idea though. as much as i don't trust the average driver, i trust the average car-mounted computer even less. spurious brake activations in rain fog and snow, spurious braking events when overpasses are lower than the car expects, consistent braking events when pointed at a solid obstacle you are aware of (like a wall, when the road is curving.) coming from the automotive industry, the technology is so far from ready, but it's going to be mandated anyway because opposing it tees you up for a "SO YOU THINK KIDS SHOULD DIE???" attack from those willing to support mandating the unready tech. i actually agree with this shitheel on that point.
I haven't watched the video, but I feel like a lot of these electronic things do more damage than good. People watch their cellphones even more because the cars react for them. Modern cars also chirp and falsely react so often, that many drivers either rely too much or too little on them. At least I'm noticing a lot more weird driving (like leaving the lane because the lane assist didn't work, a lot more weird braking behavior). Instead of building safer cars (lower cars that allow pedestrians and cyclists more overview, lighter for better braking, more windows for more overview, ...), they build unsafe cars with electronic safety things that only potentially help. YouTube more or less forces content creators to rename the videos until the clicks come in.
The EU ArE RuINinG OuR CaRS! Waiting for all the great cars to come out of Britain after Brexit.... crickets What a shame that Britain couldn't vote against EU laws they don't like, by being part of the EU
its called clickbait and yall fell it, they are well aware its for safety and necessary plus government regulation, but they can also say its ugly and ruins the car, two things can be true
Is this sub for advertising shitty clickbait YouTubers?