Is it one of those cars that alters the brake boost depending on circumstances?
That drives me nuts. When you put x amount of force into the brake pedal, you should know you're going to get y amount of deceleration. Don't double the brake boost just because you decided it's an emergency due to some opaque criteria.
I'm quite pleased to know that my Tesla S will assist me in braking when I stamp on the pedal. It's happened a couple of times and in both cases made sense and the car was under control all the time.
If you are referring to the alert stage of the emergency braking system, triggering it should be rare if you drive reasonably well. It is also most likely a situation in which you could benefit from a little more braking force.
If you decide to swerve, the additional weight at the front will help you to initiate the turn, and good systems will then reduce the braking force at the right moment to give you the most traction when cornering.
That one's easy: leave space in front of you for those merging onto the highway.
So much of road etiquette boils down to leaving adequate space so others can maneuver around you. Trying to optimize your travel by destroying any gaps as soon as they appear actually has the opposite effect.
It's really not. I drive at an upper-percentile pace, so I am rarely dawdling along in the right lane.
However, on the rare occasion I've found myself going slowly in the right lane, it's stunning how incompetent most people are at merging. It's like they don't even consider looking for an opening in traffic, matching the freeway speed, etc. They just lumber in front of you at 43mph, and maybe, if you're lucky, look in their mirrors after they've already caused you to slow for them.
Very true and it's the reason I will always leave several car gaps in front of me in heavy traffic. Just because I have electric brakes on my travel trailer, it doesn't mean I can slow down normally, they just assist. Most people really don't think about that, of course, so they ignore the trailer and just weave in and out.
Speed is a very dangerous thing when pulling any type of trailer and it always amazes me when I see a truck pulling one at break neck speeds and somehow thinking they can maneuver normally when someone causes a situation where they have to make a split second decision.
This is a great use of this technology. In aggregate, these hard braking events _do_ tell us about road design issues. They also tell us about problematic drivers, in aggregate.
I'll never use one of these dongles, though, because I don't want my every move second-guessed. There's nothing _inherently_ dangerous about isolated hard braking or cornering or acceleration events. It all depends on context. Am I braking hard to avoid an obstacle or mistake by another driver? Is there someone behind me that's likely to rear-end me, or am I in the middle of a highway in the desert? Did I just replace my brake pads and I'm bedding in the new pads?
I don't want to have to worry about whether I've used up my invisible quota before the algorithm decides I should be moved into a more expensive insurance bracket.
> There's nothing _inherently_ dangerous about isolated hard braking or cornering or acceleration events.
I have to hope that the actuaries at the insurance company are well aware of that. Tuned correctly, the algorithm should not unfairly penalize you.
I am reminded of my mother-in-law. She has very few at fault accidents in her decades of driving. And yet she has been involved in a statistically unlikely number of major wrecks. She would say that she is a safe driver, because she is not found at fault. I think it more likely that she is an unsafe driver who creates situations where accidents are more likely to occur but in a way that will not peg her as the underlying cause. Her rates should go up. As should yours, if you are experiencing a very abnormal number of hard-braking events even though you can ascribe every one of them to something outside of your control. Because the implication is that something about your driving habit is increased risk.
To be fair to a US president who doesn't deserve any kind of fairness, the US/China dynamic 30 years ago is very different from today's dynamic -- and this has a lot more to do with China's growth than anything the US has done (or not done).
The only thing that can stop China from taking Taiwan is a US president willing to put two aircraft carrier strike groups between the island the mainland. That is the same today as it was 30 years ago. However, today, unlike in the 90s the mainland can take the island in 3 days without firing a shot.
> this has a lot more to do with China's growth
That is my point. Because of China's growth they don't need to take the island by force or commit terrorist attacks against other countries especially in Europe. Today, countries like the Bahamas, Peru, Afghanistan, and Nigeria are welcoming China and their infrastructure money (not destroying infrastructure like Russia does) with open arms.
Sure they can be enforced. Your comment seems to be based on the idea of detecting AI writing from the output. But you can enforce this law based on the way content is created. The same way you can enforce food safety laws from conditions of the kitchen, not the taste of the food. Child labor laws can be enforced. And so on.
Unless you're trying to tell me that writers won't report on their business that's trying to replace them with AI.
That drives me nuts. When you put x amount of force into the brake pedal, you should know you're going to get y amount of deceleration. Don't double the brake boost just because you decided it's an emergency due to some opaque criteria.
reply