discussion Your Car is Watching You | What will happen when dumb-cars are outlawed?

[LloydLynx]

First I wanna say being at the point we have to specify "dumb-cars" is ridiculous.

Some regulatory bodies are outlawing cars based on emissions or age. You can still use a reasonably dumb-car today and probably 10 years into the future. But in the 30's, 40's, and onward, what will we do? The only way forward I see is building custom cars.

 

In the case of emissions, individuals could take old cars and convert them to electric drive. Or if age or safety is an issue, just take a newer car and rip out all the smarts. But that would most likely cripple the car. So the custom builder would need to replace all the major components with custom components. A new market could sprout from this. Maybe even small companies starting up to create product lines of dumb-cars. Or at least FOSS and privacy respecting cars.

 

I drive an 02 Ford Ranger and am lucky enough to live in a location without mandated inspections and where emissions laws are grandfathered from the year of manufacture. I refuse to own a smart-car ever.

[8tg]

from my cold dead hands

if they outlaw my car I will simply be an outlaw 

[LloydLynx]

3 hours ago, 8tg said:

from my cold dead hands

if they outlaw my car I will simply be an outlaw 

Beautiful. 80s and 90s Fords had such style.

[Rocketdog2112]

Yeah, it's a shame when you can't even go for drive without your car spying on you and selling your routines and whereabouts to the highest bidder. 

[it_dont_work]

15 hours ago, LloydLynx said:

First I wanna say being at the point we have to specify "dumb-cars" is ridiculous. You can still use a reasonably dumb-car today and probably 10 years into the future. But in the 30's, 40's, and onward, what will we do? The only way forward I see is building custom cars.

I usually get to like 20-25 years before I replace the car. There's plenty of 30-40 year old cars cruising around here in Aus, most you could daily without much trouble, I can still buy a 'dumb' car today and with current build quality you should be able to get 30 years out of the damn thing. 

 

Now when they tell me I can't drive my 77 year old tractor on the road, then I'm fucked...but that's another story. 

[Zodiark1593]

At least in the US, I don’t anticipate that continued grandfathering in of old vehicles won’t be done. In California (generally one of the more restrictive states), you can legally drive without seat belts, if your vehicle did not originally come with them (I believe anything before 1964). 
 

Motorcycles are a thing that exists as well. Though motorcycling would probably be significantly safer if the worst-performing 10% of drivers were replaced by self-driving cars. 

[8tg]

18 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Motorcycles are a thing that exists as well. Though motorcycling would probably be significantly safer if the worst-performing 10% of drivers were replaced by self-driving cars. 

Motorcycles in the context of future emissions laws I imagine would do pretty good, as they’re a lot more viable for alternative fuels since doing anything like that to a motorcycle is way cheaper. 
There’s already people modding 4 stroke bikes to run E100 with ease. 

I don’t think self driving cars are the answer to anything with vehicle safety or emissions. Lowering emissions in the full stream means we need less cars in general. Doing that is it’s own massive discussion for a different thread.

Increasing vehicle safety for all means reducing vehicle safety for some. What I mean by that is while the gigantic modern American pickup trucks are safe for the occupants, they’re deadly to everyone else, especially bikes. All vehicles should be mandated to be smaller without special licensing. When someone is driving a vehicle with less visibility than an American semi truck, they should be bound to the same licensing conditions as the semi trucks.

That alongside other things such as stricter repercussions for distracted driving and speeding, and better infrastructure in general is the only way to make motorcycles safer.

1) reduce the amount of people in large vehicles to a minimum

2) train people to be better drivers by having strict road laws and severe penalties for breaking them

3) design roads with motorcycles in mind

3 has a double benefit of encouraging more people to use motorcycles if there’s a dedicated place and treatment for them. Much like how bike lanes in cities work, if you have dedicated infrastructure it gives people confidence in using it. 
 

[BrandonLatzig]

I see it more likely that cars (and tvs) will branch off into two lanes, cheaper and (dumb) cars that still follow the rules and regulations and smart ones that have bunch of fancy additions for a higher price tag

[Beerzerker]

4 hours ago, Zodiark1593 said:

At least in the US, I don’t anticipate that continued grandfathering in of old vehicles won’t be done. In California (generally one of the more restrictive states), you can legally drive without seat belts, if your vehicle did not originally come with them (I believe anything before 1964). 
 

Motorcycles are a thing that exists as well. Though motorcycling would probably be significantly safer if the worst-performing 10% of drivers were replaced by self-driving cars. 

That would have to be before 65 because up until 64, seat belts were optional but from 65 onward they were mandatory per federal law.
It has to do with federal regs of the time they were manufactured and yes, many 64's didn't have seat belts because of that - I had one (64 Falcon) that had them listed on the options/build sheet as a "Deleted" option. 
 

18 hours ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

Yeah, it's a shame when you can't even go for drive without your car spying on you and selling your routines and whereabouts to the highest bidder. 

Riding around with your phone on you/in the vehicle is the same thing regardless of what year the vehicle was made.

[LloydLynx]

9 minutes ago, Beerzerker said:

Riding around with your phone on you/in the vehicle is the same thing regardless of what year the vehicle was made.

This exactly. I only carry a cellphone when I have a reason to.

[8tg]

15 minutes ago, LloydLynx said:

This exactly. I only carry a cellphone when I have a reason to.

We existed before cell phones and we can still exist now without them.

it’s just a matter of breaking the addiction 

[RasmusDC]

22 hours ago, 8tg said:

Motorcycles in the context of future emissions laws I imagine would do pretty good, as they’re a lot more viable for alternative fuels since doing anything like that to a motorcycle is way cheaper. 
There’s already people modding 4 stroke bikes to run E100 with ease. 

I don’t think self driving cars are the answer to anything with vehicle safety or emissions. Lowering emissions in the full stream means we need less cars in general. Doing that is it’s own massive discussion for a different thread.

Increasing vehicle safety for all means reducing vehicle safety for some. What I mean by that is while the gigantic modern American pickup trucks are safe for the occupants, they’re deadly to everyone else, especially bikes. All vehicles should be mandated to be smaller without special licensing. When someone is driving a vehicle with less visibility than an American semi truck, they should be bound to the same licensing conditions as the semi trucks.

That alongside other things such as stricter repercussions for distracted driving and speeding, and better infrastructure in general is the only way to make motorcycles safer.

1) reduce the amount of people in large vehicles to a minimum

2) train people to be better drivers by having strict road laws and severe penalties for breaking them

3) design roads with motorcycles in mind

3 has a double benefit of encouraging more people to use motorcycles if there’s a dedicated place and treatment for them. Much like how bike lanes in cities work, if you have dedicated infrastructure it gives people confidence in using it. 
 

Mass transit is still far from moving from a 4-5 person car to a 1 person Motorcycle, but the solution is either, you need to ensure that we can have free movement, without compromises, or else it will destroy freedom of life..

 

We are 2 people that work in my family , and with our living and house, and kid and sports and shopping we need 2 cars.. that is just a fact of it..

 

i Care about obsolescence based on aging software, i don´t care about tracking to be honest, on a car, you have a phone today, WHAT more can be tracked, a people run around with that recording device in their pocked 24/7.. with a GPS chip...

 

in a car i see it as potential value, as long as it is done correct, Traffic patterns, can be a GIANT value add for how we build infrastructure, also just for navigation of roads... also simple things like using metrics from temperature sensors wind sensors, and lidar as a collaborative HIVE from multiple cars..

 

the thing i would hate is that my car became a driving commercial like a TV is today, where you still pay and own the product, but they just think they can use the cars frontend and sell the ad-space.

 

Or that subscriptions just becomes a thing, on every little element...

 

But listning to Louis Rossman talking about Tesla´s carseats as like it is "NEW"... a friend of mine had a OLD OLD OLD Mazda 3, the first model of the Mazda 3, his was a BASE model, no cruise, no nothing. we removed the blank plates from the steering wheels where the wheel "controls" of stereo was, and it had connectors, so we bought the sparepart of the controls, and SUDDENLY we had "remote control" of the stereo on the wheel, but the fun part was, it had the cruise symbol, so we went to a Mazda Dealer asked him if he would try and enable it with their computer, he said IT WOULD NEVER work, he tried, and suddenly the car had cruise control..

 

so it has always been a matter of how to build a car cheapest, so most car has had the options, on some it might just not be enabled.. that is not a new thing..  Most cars also had like a base model with maybe 170hp and a "faster" with 210hp where the only thing was the software on the chip..

 

again not a new thing..

 

My Polo GTI 2.0 has the same engine as a VW Golf GTI with 210-230hp mine has 200hp... i know the R and the newer version has a different turbo. but not the old 210-230hp one.

[VirusDumb]

I'm from India and in some states including the capital city,if your car is petrol and older than 15 years or Diesel and older than 10 years then licence isn't renewed, instead they're asked to scrap it at a junkyard, get a certificate and then show the certificate while buying a New car, and in some places the government is seizing perfectly running cars to have them scrapped, all this cuz of "reducing pollution",

 

How is destroying a perfectly fine old car and buying an entirely new car like every 15 years (10 if you get a Diesel again).

 

 

This is clearly a work of the industrial lobbyists forcing the government to do that with stupid reasons like environment, I mean they already force the government to put a 110% tax on imported cars and they sell 160hp cars for as much as what the base level mustang costs in the USA.

 

 

 

Thankfully, I am too poor to afford a car, and I'll just use a Royal Enfield as my daily driver

 

 

[LAwLz]

59 minutes ago, VirusDumb said:

This is clearly a work of the industrial lobbyists forcing the government to do that with stupid reasons like environment

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't India imposing very high import fees in pretty much everything in an attempt to make companies build factories in India?

I can't find anything that indicates that they are doing this for environmental reasons, and since they are doing the same thing for things like smartphones, which has the same effect on the environment regardless of where it's built, I strongly doubt that's the reason.

[VirusDumb]

30 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't India imposing very high import fees in pretty much everything in an attempt to make companies build factories in India?

They have been doing it for a long time ever since India opened it's market but somehow some select "Indian" Companies which usually sell rebadged Chinese Electric Mopeds and tech accessories like Smart watches, earphones, keyboards, keyboards, mouse,even motherboards and Shitty PSUs are getting a green light to bring them here from China and rebadged them here, while only foreign well known companies like Logitech, Lenovo, HP, MSI, etc are facing those import fees while selling their stuff here,

 

recently Jio (which is run by the richest family in the country and ofcourse has good ties with politicians) started selling rebadged chromebooks in India as "the most affordable value of money laptops in the market"

 

And suspiciously government announced they'll ban the import of laptops right after it's launch

 

Leading to the conspiracy theory all over social media, that the Ambani family made them do it

 

 

So the general consensus is that it's really not about environment or local manufacturing, but it's just industrialists lobbying and forcing the government to do all this stuff

[thrasher_565]

9 hours ago, VirusDumb said:

I'm from India and in some states including the capital city,if your car is petrol and older than 15 years or Diesel and older than 10 years then licence isn't renewed, instead they're asked to scrap it at a junkyard, get a certificate and then show the certificate while buying a New car, and in some places the government is seizing perfectly running cars to have them scrapped, all this cuz of "reducing pollution",

 

How is destroying a perfectly fine old car and buying an entirely new car like every 15 years (10 if you get a Diesel again).

 

 

This is clearly a work of the industrial lobbyists forcing the government to do that with stupid reasons like environment, I mean they already force the government to put a 110% tax on imported cars and they sell 160hp cars for as much as what the base level mustang costs in the USA.

 

 

 

Thankfully, I am too poor to afford a car, and I'll just use a Royal Enfield as my daily driver

 

 

India is also a 3 world country and has lot of problem... so make sense to go green...in order to advance things have to change...

i guess i watch too many documentary haha

[VirusDumb]

6 hours ago, thrasher_565 said:

India is also a 3 world country and has lot of problem... so make sense to go green...in order to advance things have to change...

i guess i watch too many documentary haha

How is buying a new car every 10-15 years going green, the manufacturing to make those cars nulls out any significant pollution advantage, it's not about going green but only to serve corporate interests

[thrasher_565]

10 hours ago, VirusDumb said:

How is buying a new car every 10-15 years going green, the manufacturing to make those cars nulls out any significant pollution advantage, it's not about going green but only to serve corporate interests

always has been...

[Beerzerker]

11 hours ago, thrasher_565 said:

always has been...

Always will be.

[Thepyrodex]

As the owner of a 1998 Oldsmobile, 1999 Chrysler Sebring, 2003 Mustang GT and a 2013 Chevy sonic, guess which one died first and was sold for scrap?

 

yup, the sonic. 
 

I’m driving those cars into the ground. The Olds has 212,000 on it as is!

[Dedayog]

On 9/17/2023 at 6:11 AM, it_dont_work said:

I usually get to like 20-25 years before I replace the car. There's plenty of 30-40 year old cars cruising around here in Aus, most you could daily without much trouble, I can still buy a 'dumb' car today and with current build quality you should be able to get 30 years out of the damn thing. 

 

Now when they tell me I can't drive my 77 year old tractor on the road, then I'm fucked...but that's another story. 

Who makes the cars you drive?  Because Ford, Chevy and Dodge can't make a reliable 20 year car for shit in the US.  Sure, the engine make get 500k miles, but the rest of the car falls apart around you.

 

I do find it interesting you're on a tech site but refuse to let tech enter your car.  Do you not enjoy new features and creature comforts?  I've done 14 years in a 2007 Infiniti G35 and I do love the car but they simply don't last.

 

is there a reason you don't want GPS, Sirius XM, better shocks/suspension, driving aids, autopilot, more raw fucking power?  

 

Just curious, as my coworker drives a 2000 Pontiac Firebird daily so I'm not ignorant about it, just curious of your reasoning.

[Thepyrodex]

2 hours ago, Dedayog said:

Who makes the cars you drive?  Because Ford, Chevy and Dodge can't make a reliable 20 year car for shit in the US.  Sure, the engine make get 500k miles, but the rest of the car falls apart around you.

 

I do find it interesting you're on a tech site but refuse to let tech enter your car.  Do you not enjoy new features and creature comforts?  I've done 14 years in a 2007 Infiniti G35 and I do love the car but they simply don't last.

 

is there a reason you don't want GPS, Sirius XM, better shocks/suspension, driving aids, autopilot, more raw fucking power?  

 

Just curious, as my coworker drives a 2000 Pontiac Firebird daily so I'm not ignorant about it, just curious of your reasoning.

1996 Chevy Tahoe with 308,000

1998 Oldsmobile eighty eight with 211,000 on it

1999 Chrysler Sebring 160,000 

2003 mustang GT with 145,000 and auto crossed for 50,000 miles of its life.

They are much easier to fix.

 

they don’t have model specific tech like touch screens that will be impossible to find in 5-7 years or need OTA updates.  If I want a GPS I have my phone, and it isn’t permanently attached to the car, I can upgrade it easily.   Their  sound systems are great, the AC blows cold, the ride is smooth and nice, good gas mileage 24-27mpg highway (minus mustang at 18) 

 

they are much cheaper to buy and insure.

 

Most modern cars use turbos to make that extra power which lowers the life of the engine.  ANY forced induction system on a gasoline engine will do this.  turbos have a lot of other issues especially if you’re not perfect with the oil changes as most of them use the engine oil for the turbo also.

 

I find it interesting that you believe being into tech means you have to want it in all your things.  To me being into tech has shown me that only thing you can afford to replace at a very regular interval will be “up to date”, and I don’t know of many people that can afford to replace their car as often as their phones.

 

what creature comforts are to talking about?  “Auto pilot”?  Driver assists?  Heated seats?  
 

as for the power part.  A 2023 Honda civic makes 158 HP 138 ft/lbs, My 1998 Oldsmobile makes 205 and 230.  My 99 Sebring  makes 163 hp and 170 ft/lbs torque.

 

if you are talking about “top of the line” models of cars, made today, yes they are more powerful but again, daily driving isn’t a race track, who is actually trying to hit the listed 0-60 times at a red light in morning traffic?  If you are talking about your average family car, no they really aren’t as they are not trying to make a Honda odyssey get to 60 in under 5 seconds.

 

 

[it_dont_work]

11 hours ago, Dedayog said:

Who makes the cars you drive? 

 

I do find it interesting you're on a tech site but refuse to let tech enter your car.  Do you not enjoy new features and creature comforts?  I've done 14 years in a 2007 Infiniti G35 and I do love the car but they simply don't last.

 

is there a reason you don't want GPS, Sirius XM, better shocks/suspension, driving aids, autopilot, more raw fucking power?  

 

Just curious, as my coworker drives a 2000 Pontiac Firebird daily so I'm not ignorant about it, just curious of your reasoning.

Wow there's a load of assumptions there. 

 

-Who makes the cars you drive?  Nissan, Suzuki,Toyota, Subaru

 

-is there a reason you don't want GPS, Sirius XM, better shocks/suspension, driving aids, autopilot, more raw fucking power? Yea got gps, decent suspension, I've no idea what Sirius XM is, Driving aids, esc, traction,abs, parking sensors, autopilot is questionably illegal in my country. 

 

-raw fucking power? Used to race mate, there was a shit tonne of tech in my track cars. Roads not a race track no one needs a load of power above a point unless there's an actual purpose.

 

-I do find it interesting you're on a tech site but refuse to let tech enter your car? Look up a straw man argument 

 

-Do you not enjoy new features and creature comforts?  I do enjoy some new features

[Dedayog]

15 minutes ago, it_dont_work said:

Wow there's a load of assumptions there. 

 

-Who makes the cars you drive?  Nissan, Suzuki,Toyota, Subaru

 

-is there a reason you don't want GPS, Sirius XM, better shocks/suspension, driving aids, autopilot, more raw fucking power? Yea got gps, decent suspension, I've no idea what Sirius XM is, Driving aids, esc, traction,abs, parking sensors, autopilot is questionably illegal in my country. 

 

-raw fucking power? Used to race mate, there was a shit tonne of tech in my track cars. Roads not a race track no one needs a load of power above a point unless there's an actual purpose.

 

-I do find it interesting you're on a tech site but refuse to let tech enter your car? Look up a straw man argument 

 

-Do you not enjoy new features and creature comforts?  I do enjoy some new features

Good answers in a way.  Mostly very vague and defensive.

 

Not a big deal if you don't like new stuff, was more curious than anything.

 

Sorry about that. 

[ThousandBlade]

If it comes to a day when they are coming to take your dumb car away.

 

The only thing you can do is to fight for your freedom

by becoming a freedom fighter XD