New car production laws
Debate Rounds (3)
1. Every new car should come with automatic lighting (light should always be on, without requiring user input to do so)
2. Automobile manufacturers are forced to design their headlamps, in a way that makes it easy for the every day person to replace the bulbs.
3. All cars need to be fitted with sensory equipment, allowing the car to always stop the driver from making a deadly mistake.
4. Automatic and complete take-over of the driver, by an autonomous system, is a mandatory safety feature in all cars, within 5 years after this law goes into practice.
This means that all new cars coming out of the factory, can take over from the driver, if said driver is posing a risk to himself or others (either by being drunk, falling asleep or just being a genuine idiot).
1- What do you purpose for the already circulating vehicles? Should the owners be forced to "update" their cars immediately? Do they have a certain time to do it? Will they be fined if they don't? How much would be the fine? Would the vehicles be apprehended?
2-What if some companies, don't agree with these terms and just stop export to the US? What alternatives have the consumers that bought this brands' cars, that don't have access to any kind of updates?
4- What if some companies don't manage to develop this autonomous systems? Would they be forbidden in US? What if they are american brands? Are you going to close them anyway? Or will american factories have special deals?
5- How will accidents with this autonomous systems be dealt? Will the owner or the company be responsible? Or will the blame fall upon you? After all, you we're the one to force everyone driving with this technology. Or do you ingenuously believe that there won't be any accidents? Even with autonomous and not autonomous vehicles circulating at the same time?
I will stay with this for now. I completely understand if you decline to answer, since this wasn't probably the debate you wanted to have... I don't know.
However, the issues you raise are not real world issues (in my view), since the technology to do so exists and is easily available.
1. It is in fact easier to build headlights that are always on, this way you don need a knob in between the wiring.
Mazda has (at least in past models) already done this, there is no financial or technical reason, for other companies not to.
Also, older cars don't require to have this, the sole purpose of these laws, is to improve road safety which will happen over time.
Perhaps a small financial benefit for the owners of older cars, could persuade them to update their cars.
2. Well, i did propose to get this in on a world-wide scale, but foreseeing that this might not be possible, do you think car manufacturers would pull out of such a huge market, over something as small as this?
4. Most car manufacturers already have this technology, the only thing stopping them from fully implementing it, is a financial one.
A car manufacturer building cars with these systems in place, might lose market-share, because customers might prefer not to have these systems, therefore, making it mandatory for all manufacturers removes this issue.
For the manufacturers that do not posses these systems, there will be specialist companies, who can supply them (Google for example, or MIT).
5. You raise a very good point here, however, The amount of accidents prevented, have more importance than the amount of accidents that are (unlikely) to happen because of these systems.
By only making some agreements between the US government and the manufactures I believe you could already change many things. After all, all the car companies are trying to improve their cars security, while diminishing their foot print. I agree that they are taking away too long! And maybe the government should try to interfere... but than it would be colliding with lots of personal interests and capitalistic ideals. And after crossing this line, where should they stop? Why only implementing those measures? Why not forcing the manufactures to produce complete electrical vehicles, with renewable materials? And why stop in the auto industry?
And let's keep us in US, because implementing this in a world scale is too ideological.
1- To be honest, I don't understand the point of this. What's the problem with the knob? I guess it's to prevent the lamp burning out? But then why not just make the manufactures use only LEDs headlights? This way you would also prevent a minor consumption of your battery.
2- I completely messed up the number of the topics --' I apologize. But here I was referring to the development of the autonomous vehicles. If the companies don't have the financial funds to develop them and they are forbidden in the US, I would guess they would stop exporting any kind of products (updates) too. Focusing in other markets and leaving their american costumers burning.
4- Do you think, if everyone was force to have this autonomous cars, the companies would have easier access to that financing?
But wouldn't it make the price of the vehicles increase a lot? And if people didn't want them anyway and weren't actual force to change to the new ones, it would probably take a while till they got really sick of their actual cars. Do you think the companies would survive this break? (And again... this completely goes against the market rules... you're putting the companies with this technology in a serious advantageous position).
And assuming this could happen, and google could actual support this autonomous systems.. Don't you think, that they would basically take over the world? They already have complete access to your computer and smartphone. Do you want to give them your car too? ;)
5- I completely agree with you. But you ended up by not answering this topic. Who would be the one to blame? If you're presenting this as laws, probably the american government right? This would be probably the best scenario, but the opposite party wouldn't make this easy.
PS. You had some serious problems with you car's headlamps, right? I don't relate with this, because, though I've only driven really old cars so far, I never had any problems with the lights. But I'm sorry for your annoyances! ;)
Reason for the head-light rule, is because of safety.
Always having your head-lights on, increases your visibility to others, which can only be a good thing.
Also, many idiots don't turn on their head-lights, until it's absolutely pitch dark.
On the legal and financial issues.
The state is there for a reason, it can use force to get things done faster, if it were up to the manufacturers or customers alone, change (the one we need) will happen very slowly.
Solar panels are a good example of this.
The industry does not want people to produce their own power at home, since that kills their profit.
Look at a country like Germany though and you see almost no houses without solar panels on their roofs.
Yes, it will indeed lead to a few bankruptcy's here and there, but this is not a problem at all, would you rather have brand x go bankrupt, while fatal traffic accidents drop by 50%, or would you rather have brand x survive and not reduce the amount of fatal traffic accidents?
The government (as it was intended at leas) in my opinion, is there to try to remove some of the negative aspects of the system a society lives in (in our case capitalism).
The odds of an automated vehicle crashing while driving in automatic mode, are far lower than the odds of a regular person crashing a regular car.
This ultimately means, that the risk attached to these rules are quite minor in a legal sense and any government should be able to easily cover for any issues financially.
On a more technical note.
Modern cars already have electronically controlled brakes, electronic steering and an electronic acceleration system.
Most cars also have GPS on board, so you wouldn't really need much more, in order to get at least the automatic intervention part working.
You need sensors to detect distance and relative speed compared to anything in front of the car and the back of the car and a small (cheap) computer to handle the data.
If the front sensors notice an object coming close rapidly, it can apply the brakes in case the driver isn't responding (many cars actually already have this).
If the driver wants to pass another car, but the sensors notice it can not possibly pass the object in front of it, without crashing into oncoming traffic, the car will refuse to steer in that direction and refuse to accelerate, until the danger is gone.
Just this simple change, can already save thousands of lives every year and it only requires about 300 dollars worth of sensors, to be added to the car.
On a side-note, i actually think the government should be there to slowly kill capitalism in the first place, but that is an issue for another day.
I will try to go direct to the point. I agree that the governments, not only in the US, but all over the world, should address these problems in regard of car's safety. I also don't believe in capitalism and I believe that the governments should intervene much more often in the economy and not only as a last resort. It was many times proven that capitalism is not reliable and not even the principles of modern economy are reasonable or sustainable.
But back to the debate.
My only problem is establishing these suggestions as laws. In an ideal world, where everyone' safety is a priority and where governments main interests is people' safety and the assurance of their survival, as the survival of the next generations, this laws would not even need to be passed, because the car manufactures would apply those measures anyway. And in our real world, establishing these laws is not plausible, because there are too many interests and negative consequences.
About the car companies bankruptcy, I doubt that Brand X would be the only one to go down. Too many people wouldn't appreciate these impositions and wouldn't buy new cars, putting all the manufactures in very fragile positions.
In the US we have the great example of all that stupidity about the guns. If the government isn't able to pass laws in regard of this matter, imagine the chaos it would be, if they forced people to drive autonomous vehicles. There would be a revolution and the car companies would join it!
To conclude, I really appreciate my opponent views, I probably wasn't the best opponent, since I agree with him in almost everything. But despite my agreement on the improvements purposed, I just believe that there are better ways to apply them, than through imposing laws, like dialogue and financial support.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.