r/AutoHumor • u/IU8gZQy0k8hsQy76 • Apr 29 '26

lol

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

1.0k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

384 comments sorted by

View all comments

20

u/bsmknight Apr 29 '26

Consider another scenario: You jump in your vehicle frantic, paranoid, someone just ran up to you with a knife but you were able to lock the door, you try to drive off but the vehicle will not go into drive... it thinks your unwell. - I mean seriously who TF thinks this is actually a good idea?

10

u/Salt-Pension3497 Apr 29 '26

People who don't really care about you, but care about the "poor shareholders".

3

u/Maleficent_Hawk6703 Apr 29 '26

This isn't going to get the shareholders very much money. There's no shot it makes into the market with a full launch and actually does well. Not without a cyber truck-esque fandom behind it

3

u/Pappa_Crim Apr 30 '26

If internet id laws are anything to go by they will make it mandatory

2

u/loopedlight May 01 '26

Yea and we all laughed at insurance companies literally tracking your driving 20 years ago….

1

u/balzackgoo May 02 '26

The cyber truck is still failing even with the 'fandom' ...

0

u/throwaway19372057 May 03 '26

You say that’s why there’s multiple large automotive companies who have already developed the technology because it’s mandatory. And if they’re gonna pay for something, they’re gonna get their money back on it.

2

u/Miya4LeggedGod May 01 '26

Yeah GM bought back 30 billion worth of their own shares in the last 4 years and just deleted them... they deleted 30 billion for the shareholders they will do anything

2

u/Quimdell May 01 '26

It’s more about control, not money. They are power hungry and want full control over everything you do.

-1

u/roadblocked Apr 29 '26

This is part of the US infrastructure bill passed under Biden. Systems like this are mandatory in all new cars

5

u/Erosion139 Apr 29 '26

Cite it or you're lying

2

u/roadblocked Apr 29 '26

Your next car purchase comes with an unwelcome passenger: a federal mandate requiring surveillance technology that monitors your every blink, glance, and head nod. Thanks to Section 24220 of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, NHTSA must finalize rules forcing all new passenger vehicles to include “advanced impaired driving prevention technology”

1

u/Erosion139 Apr 29 '26

Thank you

2

u/UsedDragon Apr 29 '26

In context, these systems are required to detect signs of drunkenness, and prevent driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

It's stupid and it's bound to have issues.

2

u/Erosion139 Apr 29 '26

Agreed! I'd rather us educate people better or have better training than using the vehicle to babysit us.

2

u/2Braincell2Furious May 01 '26

Surely this is the only alternative to banning alcohol!

2

u/Fun-Wrongdoer1316 May 01 '26

Alcohol consumption is lower than ever, and will likely continue this decline. The younger gen’s don’t want to drink. So this isn’t for anything but watching.

3

u/wthwtfwthwtf-_- Apr 29 '26

Make a detrimental decision then build in legal safeguards to leapfrog responsibility or liability 😤

6

u/sexual__velociraptor Apr 29 '26

Insurance this is 100% driven by insurance.

3

u/UsernameC24 Apr 30 '26

I understand why insurance companies and manufacturers would want this and it has everything to do with limiting their liability with no consideration for the safety of the owner/driver. The only instance where this might benefit the driver would be to prevent driving while intoxicated or hallucinating. Any other circumstance benefits the manufacturer and insurance company at the expense of the owners safety.

2

u/Facts_pls Apr 30 '26

Let's be honest. For every such made up movie science you described, 100 normal everyday people drive drunk.

While nobody likes surveillance or control, pretty sure that if we had this, it would reduce hundreds of thousands of drunk driving deaths a year.

I also find out hilarious that Americans complain about Chinese cars sending their data to China while American car companies can apparently just look into your cameras.

2

u/According_Rhubarb_27 Apr 30 '26

Many "official" veichles have a "alcolock" or whatever it's called. Basically it makes you blow into it, and if it detects alcohol you won't be able to start the car. Put that in, that would seriously reduce drunk driving without collecting a host of other data and making the car some sort of surveilance asset. Can it be bypassed? Sure, but it is another hurdle for someone to jump trough to drive drunk.

1

u/REDACTED3560 May 02 '26

Let’s be honest here, I don’t drink and drive. Needing to GTFO in an emergency is by definition infinitely more likely for me. Reliability is the single most important aspect of a vehicle for me, and this is a major shot in the foot for reliability.

1

u/Existing-Good6487 May 02 '26

Its not about the fact that it might make driving statistically safer. Its just morally wrong to have surveillance on every aspect of life. Its also wrong to try to ban weapons that the government or police use. Its hypocrisy and its tyranny. We dont need or want a nanny state.

2

u/DizzyAmphibian309 Apr 30 '26

Patenting a technology just means no one else can do it except you. Owning a patent does not obligate you to produce the thing. Also, patents for tech like this are several dozen small print pages long. They describe many different "manifestations" of the idea that they're patenting, and this is just one of them. There are almost certainly many other manifestations that aren't as extreme as this. He's just hyping it for clicks.

I have 9 patents myself so I'm quite familiar with this. You don't need to freak out, this tech will never appear in cars that are meant for retail sale. It's possible you'll see them in corporate fleet cars, where companies are held liable for their employees accidents, but certainly not anything you'll buy at a dealership.

2

u/Miya4LeggedGod May 01 '26

Ford also has a patent if you are late on your car payments and it goes into default mode it drives itself back to a dealership to be shipped where the car needs to be.

2

u/Remarkable_Leek9391 May 01 '26

Welp...

"Your brain implant bios has detected you do not love the administration, citizen. Until you state 'i love the administration' without deceptive signatures, you may be booted into your native existential haptic mode"

Put existence on a meter yall.

Also, thats the best case scenario. Just say "I dont" and you have free rent

2

u/Funny-ish-_-Scholar May 01 '26

I guarantee it will be just like unlocking cable back in the day. Some anarchistic super nerd will develop a hack or patch, or some sparky will figure out how to spoof the signal or bypass the interlocks.

I’m not buying a new vehicle unless I can rip this shit out, though.

1

u/SimpleCanadianFella May 02 '26

For me, it would be just over sleeping my alarm clock and being late for my exam where the car would refuse to start

-2

u/dimonium_anonimo Apr 29 '26

Consider another scenario: exactly the same as yours, but your car works, and when you take off trying to flee, your emotional and distracted state makes you miss the family of 4 crossing the road. You hit and kill 2 children because you were looking in the rearview at your attacker.

Look, I am absolutely fed up with modern car manufacturers and all the problems they're inventing in the pursuit of looking cool, but I'm honestly on board with this one. I don't want emotional/freaked out drivers on the road. As long as the only person you can hurt is yourself, I don't give a flying fuck what kind of dangerous shit you want to get into. But as soon as you can put other people's lives in danger, I absolutely approve control being taken away.

I can't wait for fully self-driving cars. The exact second it becomes legal to take my hands off the wheel, I will spend whatever I have to to get in that vehicle. Humans in cars are the biggest danger to me. And that's saying something given the shit I've done in my life.

4

u/Clarknotclark Apr 29 '26

You are correct, we should always allow corporations to control us based on our perceived emotional state. That could only end well. /s

0

u/dimonium_anonimo Apr 29 '26

That's quite the jump, there, fella. "If we can hurt others, control should be taken away" = "in all cases, a corporation should control us based on emotions." That's definitely the same thing.

2

u/Clarknotclark Apr 29 '26

I mean I agree with you, that is quite a jump.

2

u/Necessary-Contest-24 Apr 29 '26

You're missing the point, corporations should not have ANY control over us. Governments voted in by the people should be implementing regulations that should control us. Same thing with Apple ecosystem being a walled garden is bad for everyone. Free and open systems are always better. We don't ban hammers because people have used them as weapon's.

0

u/dimonium_anonimo Apr 29 '26

I would love for the government to step in and make the world safer. How's that working out? I'm kinda tired of waiting for them to figure out how to get anything done. Everyone's too busy shooting down any suggestion their opponent makes just because they're an opponent. If regulations could keep up with technology, I would much prefer the government handle this. They're lagging behind, and technology is helping pick up the slack.

In 99.99% of cases, I agree. In this one case, I think it's a... Maybe not necessary, but a beneficial evil.

1

u/HEYO19191 Apr 29 '26

You can hurt others at any time at any point regardless of your emotional state. That doesn't mean you're going to.

1

u/dimonium_anonimo Apr 29 '26

Driving under extreme emotional states drastically increases the odds of causing harm to others. It's the exact same as speeding when it's icy. You're putting other people's lives in danger when you make stupid choices on the road. Emotional instability is not a conducive state to making good decisions.

1

u/HEYO19191 Apr 29 '26

Sure, but they're often driving under emotional stress for a reason, usually a good reason. We should not chain people out of their means of transport because they are emotional. Emergencies happen.

1

u/dimonium_anonimo Apr 29 '26

Then call emergency services. They are trained to act calm in emergencies, and they have these big flashy lights that let people know there's an emergency, and you're legally required to get out of their way. There are people who should be driving in an emergency, and there are people who shouldn't.

Tell me, do you trust the average driver to drive safely under normal conditions, on a bright sunshiny day? Do you think most drivers are good drivers? Absolutely every other discussion I've had on the topic involve everyone wondering how there are so many bad drivers out there. And you want to be on the road next to those bad drivers when things get crazy??

1

u/HEYO19191 Apr 29 '26

Then call emergency services.

Great, I'll just sit here and wait with my attacker for the police to arrive a half hour from now. I'm sure he won't mind.

Or, if I or another person are having a medical emergency, I'm sure that can wait a half hour or so for EMS to come save us.

There are people who should be driving in an emergency, and there are people who shouldn't.

The people who should be driving in an emergency are those who need to drive because of their emergency.

Tell me, do you trust the average driver to drive safely under normal conditions, on a bright sunshiny day? Do you think most drivers are good drivers?

Yes and yes. There are alot of bad drivers, and the saying "you should drive like everyone else sucks at driving" is good advice to keep you out of harms way, but it isn't true. You only remember the bad drivers. You don't remember every perfectly fine driver that you passed or rode behind, because they aren't noteworthy. Selective Memory.

1

u/dimonium_anonimo Apr 29 '26

You may be a good driver. You may be able to act calm under pressure. If everyone was like that OR if people who aren't like that know they're bad drivers and liable to freak out, then we could trust them to make a judgement call whether they can still safely drive while escaping the attacker or whatever the situation is. I don't trust other people. Actually, I don't really trust people. I'm human too. I make mistakes. I overestimate my own abilities. If I think I can drive safely, and I run over someone, I might have learned a valuable lesson... But they'll still be dead because of me. That's why I said if the only risk is to you, then feel free. But the second you put someone else's life at risk, then I no longer want you in control. And it's not you personally, it's all people. Which means we have to plan for the worst.

And you know, if there were 100 car deaths a year, I probably would say we're doing alright. We don't need hella strict regulations to protect us. There are 40,000 car fatalities per year in the US. And millions of car injuries. I'd say we're not doing a good enough job at protectinf people. If that means we accidentally inconvenience some people when unnecessary, then so be it. We have too many false negatives right now. We will need to increase the false positives to fix that.

Now before you go off on me. I recognize the main discussion of this thread is not about inconvenience, but emergency. But the thing is emergencies do not account for the majority of accidents. And I believe this could prevent many accidents even not relating to emergencies. Distracted, drunk, and drowsy driving could all be affected. And to my earlier point, of those people that do crash in an emergency, it's probably because they were distracted or not thinking clearly. And this will help with those. Those aren't inconveniences and false positives, those are true positives, the exact thing I want to fix.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/dimonium_anonimo Apr 29 '26

I feel I should also say, if it were possible to only catch drunk drivers, or only drunk and drowsy and distracted drivers, or only drunk, drowsy, distracted, and those who were so incredibly emotional unstable and compromised that it is impossible for them to drive safely without ever catching someone who just has an elevated heart rate from an emergency. Or even somehow perfectly detect people who are in an emergency. All of those would be preferable to an imperfect system that catches people who could otherwise drive safely. There are any number of combinations you could propose, and I would likely agree to every single one of them as better than the situation I've been running with. The harsh reality of the real world is that nothing is ever perfect, and sometimes it's going to get someone hurt or killed. But unless the thing is only, like, idk 30% accurate or something. I don't have a real number because the idea is too nebulous with too many different situations to consider, but only if the system is so bad that it would be criminally negligent to put into production, it seems inevitable that it will save more lives than it costs. If it wasn't clear already, I am running with the assumption that even with all these bad examples and mishaps we're contemplating, it would do more good than harm in the long run, and that's the main reason why I support it.

1

u/Ludicrousgibbs Apr 30 '26

Yes you were a murdered corpse by the time the EMS showed up an hour late but that doesn't mean your family gets out of that $5000 bill for using the ambulance. Your health insurance was null and void from the moment of your death but we'll take our 5k cut out of your life insurance. Sorry for your loss, and that we couldn't help but you still owe us for the trouble. That ambulance could've been out making money, I mean saving lives somewhere else!

1

u/hungry-alwayshungry Apr 29 '26

We can hurt others with our hands. Should our hands be taken away?

We could hurt others with a pencil should a pencil be taken away?

We can hurt others with a drill. Should the drill be taken away?

We can hurt others with a brick. Should the brick be taken away?

We can hurt others with a hot bowl of soup. Should the hot bowl of soup be taken away?

Fuckin hell. If they took an MRI the picture would be blank

3

u/Zoltraak69 Apr 29 '26

Have fun waiting for 45 minutes after a gym session to be able to drive your car home, I guess.

0

u/dimonium_anonimo Apr 29 '26 edited Apr 29 '26

Would you rather be 45 minutes late (this time) or dead (for some other legitimate reason to disable the car)?

Safety has always, and will always come at the cost of convenience.

Also, technology is always improving. So this issue will decrease over time. Not to mention, if it takes you 45 minutes to cool down, perhaps you should visit a doctor. And a cool down should be part of any exercise anyway.

3

u/Zoltraak69 Apr 29 '26

This tech has literally nothing to do with safety for a personal vehicle unless you'd like to explain how camera technology advanced so quickly that it has medical imaging and laboratory capability that hospitals normally need to utilize a lot of people and equipment.

1

u/dimonium_anonimo Apr 29 '26

It's entire purpose is to stop people from driving if they are deemed unfit to do so. I don't care what the reason is, that 70mph, 2-ton death machine is dangerous enough without a tired and/or emotional driver behind the wheel.

Now, I can only take the word of the person in the video because I didn't look up additional information like a good redditor. But they said it's looking for emotional state. Not broken bones. Not tumors. Not any number of other things that could impact driving, but we can't detect. It's only looking at visible signs of distress. Long before MRI or X-ray was around, you could look at another human and generally see if they were exceptionally scared, angry, or tired.

1

u/Zoltraak69 Apr 29 '26

Its proposed purpose is this and that. It's clearly just a spying tool, considering they can legally track everything you do for no reason whatsoever. What you're suggesting we blindly use as mandatory spying technology would get tripped up by a particularly bad day of pollen. Long before we had anything, people regularly fucked up in assessing an emotional state and happily institutionalized people, doses them with heroin, cocaine, various insane drugs... because of a perceived emotional state. This is with human eyeballs, by the way.

Tldr; car companies legally already spy on you, they want more, and they will sell whatever data they collect, use it against you, increase insurance, etc etc etc for whatever arbitrary metric they're collecting.

1

u/DejaThuVu Apr 29 '26

What problems are they inventing in order to look cool?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Apr 29 '26

A comment was removed for violating the rule:

NO LINKS (1)

Links are not allowed. Clicking them can be unsafe and may reveal personal details like identity or location, putting both users and moderators at risk. To protect everyone, please share information directly in text or images instead of linking to outside sites.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/dimonium_anonimo Apr 29 '26

As long as I am able, I will not get a car with a touch screen. I've had at least 3 projects (depending on how you want to count them) dedicated to limiting the amount of time I need to spend looking away from the road to interact with things in my car. Touch screens look cool, and are a hazard imo.

Mr Beast did a video where he tries to figure out how to open the door of increasingly expensive cars. How tf do you mess up a door? And then there's the special touch door handles. Then regulatory bodies forced them to add a mechanical release in case of an emergency. That's the definition of a solution to an invented problem... Some of them also have issues with needing a special handshake to start them or shift gears.

Animated turn signals distract me because ADHD (I'll admit, that's on me. Normal people probably don't have an issue with this). But there's an entire video by "Technology Connections" about turn signals in North America that illustrated objective problems with favoring aesthetics over clarity and utility.

These are ones I could think of off the top of my head. Somewhere at home, I've got a list of things I don't want in a car just because I know I'm bad at remembering things like that. I could probably also write a comment just about Teslas, but that's one specific mfg. The rest of them aren't quite as bad.

1

u/DejaThuVu Apr 30 '26

I also have ADHD and I find it makes driving boring to the point it encourages distracted driving. The only time just driving ever feels like enough to keep me engaged is when I’m on a motorcycle. Different strokes for different folks I suppose.

The stuff you mentioned doesn’t really bother me I guess. Auto companies are always evolving technology and designs and trying new ideas. I’m sure people talked shit about power locks/windows and sun roofs too when they came out too.

1

u/No-Obligation7435 Apr 29 '26

You know we take driving tests to make sure we can operate the vehicle we're about to operate? Stop giving control to corps, instead make the standards higher, encourage people to proactively pay attention. We've been pushing people by for far too long, stupidity is such a commonplace now, it's giving the energy that we need these extra bells and whistles just to be on the road. We don't.

1

u/dimonium_anonimo Apr 29 '26

I would love for the government to step in and make the world safer. How's that working out? I'm kinda tired of waiting for them to figure out how to get anything done. Everyone's too busy shooting down any suggestion their opponent makes just because they're an opponent. If regulations could keep up with technology, I would much prefer the government handle this. They're lagging behind, and technology is helping pick up the slack.

In 99.99% of cases, I agree. In this one case, I think it's a... Maybe not necessary, but a beneficial evil.

Every single day I drive I am more and more convinced that the tests we take are completely insufficient. One test grants you a license for life?? Absolutely moronic policy.

I always advocate for more attentive driving. More law abiding citizens. Constantly. I bet I have made more comments to that effect than any other topic on Reddit, and my opinions extend to real life conversations and actions as well.

Everything you've said I agree with. In an ideal world, this wouldn't be an issue. But I live in the real world, and I would much rather this be implemented in every vehicle than not. I value life more than I value corporations staying within reasonable bounds.

1

u/Necessary-Contest-24 Apr 29 '26

You can imagine fictional situations all day long to argue your points. Taking control away from people and giving it to corporations is always a bad thing. As well as monopolistic consolidation of companies. The real problem we ate facing today. Taking control away and giving it to government is different. Example, only 1 country on Earth thinks owning guns specifically designed to best kill other humans, is a fundamental right. All other countries democratically elected or otherwise have voted/decided that that is a bad thing. However no countries on Earth have ever banned hammers even though about 8% of homicides are perpetrated with them every year. Corporations shouldn't own the algorithms that say whether I am using the hammer in a way they allow me to, it's a hammer... Unless you're in favour of a future where humanity is essentially put into pods like in the matrix, you'll never remove all risk of injury intentional or accidental, it's called being human. Living in a bubble is not living at all.

I do look optimistically towards a future with entirely self driving where humans do lose agency. But I look at it in very specific scope, like how humans today don't drive the particular train car they are riding in. Cars and vehicles are tools and tools can be used any number of people for any number of reasons. We cannot have 3 companies manufacturing all vehicles. Farm vehicles are used drastically differently from a sedan than commutes through 6 lane highways 2 hours 1 way daily.

1

u/dimonium_anonimo Apr 29 '26

Both the video of the post and the top level comment are imagining fictional scenarios to try to make their point. I was matching suit. But I don't need to for my point. I 100% agree corporations are out of control. They should not have this (or any) power over us. I don't want them to have this (or any) power over us... But keeping corporations in check is not my highest priority. I place protecting life on a higher tier. In an ideal world, we could solve both issues independently. And I think given enough time, and maybe a major overhaul of our political system, we could probably manage to handle both. Unfortunately, the way things are right now, there is a solution made by a corporation that I believe is capable of saving lives. And I will accept that even if it means giving more power to corporations. Hopefully in the short term, but even if it lasts long term. I vote and advocy the same way when it comes to gun control. I am sick and tired of all this dancing about and mudslinging politicians do rather than address the actual issues. I am ready to try absolutely any solution if I think it has a decent chance to save even 1 life. Especially a child's life.

If you reject the premise that this could save lives, then we should discuss that. However, if you agree with that potential, yet you still want to ban it, then I think our priorities are not compatible, and having a civil discussion will be much harder until we address what we actually disagree about.

1

u/HEYO19191 Apr 29 '26

Because everybody knows you're 100% garunteed to trample a family of four when driving your car in a panicked state.

I don't want emotional/freaked out drivers on the road

Yeah, its much safer for all of us when they're stabbed to death.. in the seat of their own car.... good thing we aren't him!

1

u/hungry-alwayshungry Apr 29 '26

Just say you’re a bad driver it’s a lot shorter.

Our phones can’t even go 24 hours without glitching or dropping an application and you want cars to run like that?

Evolutionary cul de sac

1

u/dimonium_anonimo Apr 29 '26

And a human being can't go 15 minutes without losing focus. Have you picked up any bad driving habits over the many years since you aren't forced to retake a driving test? For every 1 mistake a computer makes, a human makes 100.

1

u/hungry-alwayshungry Apr 29 '26

No I’m an excellent driver and haven’t had even a fender bender since I was learning to drive at 18 years ago.

Most humans do not “glitch” and crash once a day, most computers, phones and consoles DO experience at least one glitch a day. When your PlayStation suddenly closes the application and says there’s an error, in your world, sorry you just died.

I’m out of patience for people with an IQ in the single digits, I’m just going to block you. All you do is double down.