Honestly, why doesn’t your car automatically engage the turn signal after the wheel turns more than a certain number of degrees from center?
Because you’re supposed to signal before you start turning, not when it’s already obvious that you’re turning.
Well for one, it should turn on before your turn. Two, roads sometimes bend without an actual turn.
Because then it would turn on when driving on a windy road
My city has started putting in a lot of these figure-8-shaped double roundabouts at overpass entries/exits. Automatic signals would be real fun there, it’d look like Christmas every day.
Some new MG cars do this, but it’s super annoying because the tolerance level set by them is super low. It engages with the slightest turn, much lesser than a lane shift also, and it confuses drivers behind you. If you’re taking a uturn, if you do a wider arch for a second, the guy behind you thinks you’re going the other way and have suddenly changed your mind. While parking it’s a nightmare as it keeps going on left and right every second. People behind me must think I’m an asshole. It’s a good idea, but really badly implemented by them. But then again they’re not really selling a car. They’re selling a mid range android tablet with a car accessory attached.
I still like to think the thing from Fight Club where they blow up all the central banks would be cool.
That movie is wilder than I remember….
We don’t talk about it…
The idea of “destroy the banks and free everyone” is in so many movies and shows. Sneakers, Mr. Robot, Fight Club. Hell, even Tuvok had a gang of teenage hackers “ethically distribute” money in SeaQuest.
I’m destroying war, corruption. I’m ripping the heart out of greed! [as they both battle to hack into and out of the world bank]
It does have some historical precedent. In the ancient Near East it was common for all debts to be destroyed every decade or so.
Mr Robot definitely had my favorite execution of the idea. Destroying the tape backups with their own environmental control system was just the best. I still feel bad about the nice security guard guy though :(
Imagine a kid runs out on the road suddenly… What a dumb fucking idea!
Correct. A dumb idea is exactly what she was asked to produce.
They also asked for ideas that would make the world a better place, which this wouldn’t. So it’s just a dumb idea with mainly negative side effects.
I think they weren’t asking for an idea that would actually make the world a better place but rather one that somebody on some level believes would make the world a better place. Hence it still being a stupid idea.
If it were somehow magically possible to force people to use turn signals but only when they turn at intersections or change lanes, I think it would, in fact, make the world a better place. Because it would mean less car crashes.
But it’s not possible, which is why it’s a dumb idea.
The smarter version of this idea is the turn signal comes on automatically in the direction you turn.
It’s not. The point of a turning signal is to give a warning to fellow drivers in advance. Turning it on right when you’re turning is way too late. Just learn to drive properly for fucks sake!
The smarter version of a dumb idea is still a dumb idea. No one is advocating seriously for any of this because of the obvious flaws.
Or a road with a bend in it… 😅
haha imagine… cars having brakes! LOL wtf amirite?
The blood of children must be sacrificed if we want to live in a world with good driving etiquette
What about parallel parking or just readjusting while parking in general?
You don’t use a turn signal when parallel parking?
I do use the blinkers to show that I’m backing in, but I would still have to turn the wheel to reposition.
My blinkers would go right, then left, then right again, and maybe left once more if I’m parking facing towards the top of a hill.
Just throw on the hazard lights. Double turn signals, do whatever you want.
Make me your leader and I will solve all problems big and small.
Any and all type of marketing completely banned.
I think you should be allowed one sign on the building itself and a listing in some sort of directory and that’s it.
Yea as much as we hate marketing it’s necessary to some degree for us to even know that things exist. How do you think new medications for yet untreated diseases get spread? Those companies pay a ton in marketing to get the meds out into the world and in the hands of doctors. Lots more people would be dying of stuff we have the cure for if they couldn’t advertise meds.
Directories for specific products would be good though. If I need a kitchen gadget I can go to a directory of kitchen or food goods and look around. Between that and word of mouth we would be covered.
you get one research paper too but the sample size of the study should be in the title.
Is reading the abstract at the very beginning really that much of a burden?
Making it easier to sort them is something we need to consider. Also, it would make disinformation harder.
Yes please
If you need other cars to use turn signals you shouldn’t be driving.
Because people are supposed to have the psychic ability to predict what the driver in front of them is going to do?
Yeah it’s really not hard to read what a car is going to do. It’s clear that many people cannot do it and to that end should not be driving.
I hope I am never behind you in traffic.
Cars are not animals, they don’t have subtle body movements that you could read. If you can see what the car is doing, it is already too late. The idea of turn signals is that you let other drivers know in advance. Even if they are “stupid” and can’t “read” your car. Even if you are stupid and you are doing something really stupid, signals give people around you time to notice you and avoid you. We drive to get from point A to point B, and different rules and mechanisms are there to make the whole process safer. Go feel superiority somewhere else.
In the majority of cases you can anticipate what other drivers are doing based of subtle changes in speed or lane position. If someone is slowing and moving further to one side of the lane than they have been, it’s a pretty good indication they are preparing to turn.
It would be nice if people could explicitly signal that by using their indicators, but most people are fairly predictable, and the subtle movements are there if you watch for long enough.
What a silly thing to say. Crashes don’t happen the majority of the time. It’s the minority of cases that are the problem.
By majority it’s 100%, physics exists and the time required to maneuver in being capable of turning or lane changing is plenty to clearly signal what it will do. The reality is that if you need turn signals you are bad at driving and should not drive. Most humans are not capable and cars should not be how the majority of people get around.
Why exactly do you think cars have turn signals? Was it on a whim? Did people think it looked nice?
I’m sorry that you’re not good at driving but please stop using cars and putting others at risk.
Ok Beemer.
Get off the road, asshole.
I bet your car insurance is astronomical
It’s really funny to watch people cope with the reality that they are not skilled at using a car. People should not drive cars, cars killed tens of thousands of people.
This is probably the best thing about lane assist on modern cars.
When changing lanes without a turn signal, the wheel resists a bit.
I have actually seen people I drove with be annoyed by it. I absolutely love it, because it is only annoying if you don’t use your turn signals.
Suicide assist is horrible. Around here there is no middle of the road separator, to narrow road. So it tries to hit head first the traffic in the opposite way.
Country roads here are like that.
I just turn it off.
Like a light switch
Just go click
It’s a cool little Mormon trick
This is probably the best thing about lane assist on modern cars.
Absolutely not. It’s fucking dangerous. The one time I drove a rental like that, I went through a construction area downtown, and it tried to steer me right into a construction fence when I was following the yellow temporary construction lane markers that were going around the fenced off area.
You’re just a shit driver. It does not prevent you from steering the vehicle.
A car nudging you towards an accident is dangerous, even if it’s not forcing you into an accident.
An unnecessary distraction that needs active attention in a chaotic situation is a bad thing, bad driver or not. And yeah, there are many bad drivers out there. Cars should be designed to be driven by bad drivers, not armchair experts.
Why not just have expert bus drivers and as few cars as possible by having proper driving tests. (looking at the US)
Yeah, but that’s a whole 'nother topic.
I live in a country with proper driving tests, but most drivers (myself included) are still shit at driving. Even professional bus drivers are limited humans.
I agree, but still fewer drivers should be an improvement for safety and climate and one day maybe most roads could be replaced by train tracks with bike lanes on either side.
I agree, I just really want to insert my non-relevant ideas into the discussion
What if their arms are just really weak, you do have to turn the wheel slightly more than normal.
If their arms are so weak as to be unable to overpower the lane-assist nudge, I really hope for everyone’s sake, that they are not behind the wheel of a moving vehicle. The ‘nudge’ isn’t strong in any sense of the word. You can overpower it with two fingers if squeezed tight. My semi truck had lane and steer assist, which nudged a little harder to steer the truck back into the lane, but that, too, could be overcome with a tight two-fingers grip.
Surely you can disengage it when the markings are bad, right?
If you know it’s there & how to disengage it, yes. As I said, this was a rental with a dangerous system enabled & no warning. I disengaged it right after this incident.
Fair enough.
I disagree, it’s annoying in general.
If I need to go around, say, a mail truck parked on the side of the road, the steering assist in our work van starts to rumble or shake or whatever it does. If there’s construction, you guessed it, it doesn’t understand that I have to cross over the line to continue driving, and if I have a turn signal on, the cop/worker directing traffic is going to expect me to go that way.
If a car is driving in the opposite direction and starts to ride/cross the double yellow lines, me moving over causes the vehicle to resist and fight me, potentially putting me into an accident because I didn’t think to put my turn signal on in a split-second situation.
My car should not be able to, idk what word I’m looking for, override me? People need to take driving more seriously and stop handing off their responsibilities to a computer system/sensor that can not only fail, but also doesn’t understand real world applications.
I love the lane assist on my car. It does resist me a little bit in the situations you describe, but it’s not a strong resistance. Just enough to get my attention if i do it by accident, but not enough to hinder me going where i need to go.
Now i’m curious what the lane assist parameters look like for different makes and models…
On a Hyundai, there’s a very annoying beeping pretty much coinciding with the wheels hitting the lane markings - which IMHO is too little too late, and besides around here most lane markings are made to rumble so it’s not like an additional audio signal is needed.
On my ex’es brand new car, that feature got turned off after very few kilometres, and has stayed off ever since.
Anecdotally, I’ve heard people say they almost got into a crash because of lane assist, especially with the white/yellow temporary lines. But that does depend a ton on the car.
I have to agree that if you have to turn, you should be able to turn, lane assist be damned - we’re not yet at the level where a car can accurately judge 100% of the road situations. But it’s probably a good thing we’re moving into a future where crossing lanes without turn signals feels like a virtual bump on the road.
Mine works like yours, it’ll jottle me a bit but if I want the car to go there it goes there, I don’t need special efforts to make it happen. It also has the auto-brake thing in case you’re about to rear end someone and I’ve set it to high to see it working but even that I only managed to make it beep and flash but not actually brake yet, looks like it would only do it pretty late. I think most people complaining about this are having an “back in my days” moment tbh, but maybe there are indeed cars out there where the implementation is more invasive.
I drove a Honda Pilot with lane assist, and I hated how it jottled the steering wheel. It felt dangerous to me how much it resisted, even if it’s not really that much.
I currently drive a Honda Fit with lane assist, and I love it. Literally use the lane assist every time. It beeps and has a warning on the dash about leaving the lane, and maybe it even has the same amount of resistance, but it feels a lot safer/natural
I think I just don’t like the steering wheel “rumbling/jottling” or whatever, because it’s like a false tactile feedback. I’m sure I could adjust to it, but it’s not the best implementation imo
Also, the auto-brake thing (is amazing and should be standard) doesn’t come on until you are wildly close (and the distance that it engages, seems to be speed dependent). So you’ll really only see it engage if you’re about to be in a wreck, or you’re really ballsy trying to “test it”
Lane assist fucking hates narrow and or curved roads, too. I turn that shit off when I’m driving my parents’ car. I really hate the steering wheel trying to decide what’s best for me.
Texas would come to a grinding halt.
Audi gets reduced to a drag car manufacturer
drag car
I imagined a car dressed in drag and it reminded me of this Family Guy clip.
Slight disagreement:
This will give assholes who thinks a turn signal gives them the right of way more ammo to be jackasses in traffic.
What about just needing to steer along a windy road?
I’m thinking more likely accidents are going to occur when people try to avoid road hazards or go around corners and they don’t remember to turn on their turn signal and the car just goes straight and barrels into something…or someone.
They’re already assholes though at least this way we know what they’re doing.
Instantaneous, lifelong driving bans for any driver who is found to be texting or intoxicated behind the wheel.
I respectfully disagree. People, who depend on cars for their job would lose the license and their job, making them drink more.
Respectfully, so what? If you drive for your livelihood then it’s your own damn fault if you get banned from it for doing something illegal.
I respectfully disagree. People that cannot bring up the discipline to drive sober and keep their attention on the road, even if their jobs would depend on it, shouldn’t have the privilege of being allowed to operate a machine that can easily kill when making a mistake or misjudgment.
You spectacularly missed the point of DUI law. Society couldn’t give two shits if someone is drinking themselves to an early grave. It’s when they endanger other people that it becomes an issue. That’s why it’s driving under the influence, not existing.
Many countries will judge a DUI induced kill a murder, because the person who chooses to drink and drive knows that killing someone is a probable outcome and chose to do it anyway.
Agreed, and I respectfully disagree with everyone else replying to you.
Relying on your car for your job is a much wider criterion than driving as your job. In car-centric places like the US (outside of the big cities) that’s probably 99% of the population. Couple that with the piss poor social safety net and losing your license literally means starvation.
This still doesn’t mean I endorse or agree with people driving distracted in any way. If revoking someone’s license meant removing them from the road but not destroying their life, I would do that in a heartbeat.
Realistically, they still drive. They just don’t have insurance so the second person they hit is fucked.
If you own a house with nobody living in it, you gotta pay rent to the state each month for the privilege of keeping it empty.
After a while, it’s just part of the cost.
Not much of an expense imo. Like giving a speeding ticket to a billionaire, it doesn’t actually mean much if you’re rich enough.
Id rather make the initial purchase cost extraordinarily expensive after buying more than two houses. Third house is 5x the cost. Fourth house is 50x the cost. Nobody needs four houses so it’s a fuck you tax.
The issue then is that all the investors that have already bought a ton of places can still leave them empty.
And at scale it will eat into investor returns, making holding them empty a less profitable endeavor. They would suddenly go from having a neutral MRR asset turned into a negative MRR if they choose not to rent out. You can bet your sweet bippy that the bean counters are going to notice the difference and argue to sell or rent them to cut the expenses.
It’s not just another cost of doing business though, it’s specifically a cost of not doing business.
So imagine someone has been buying up homes to rent them. Market rate for rent is $1000 and they own 1000 units (just to make the math easy). That means they would profit $1 million every month with every unit filled, and lose $1 million every month for leaving every unit empty.
Now imagine they have half the units filled, so they are getting $0 each month. They could try and raise the rent over market rate to cover the cost, but that would make it harder to fill the empty units and encourage their tenants to leave. If they lower the rent a bit though, they could fill the empty units and erase the cost entirely. Now imagine every landlord is in this dilemma; it puts the pressure onto them to appeal to prospective tenants. They could even increase profit by housing people for free, just filling units with the homeless to reduce costs.
If they don’t change behavior and just eat the cost, then that’s more money for the state to invest in housing programs.
They do this in India. You’re allowed 2 homes, 3rd onwards you have to pay Income tax for deemed rent received if it’s empty.
You do, it’s called property taxes.
No, like market rate for the property. Everyone pays property tax, regardless of whether the property is vacant or occupied.
My dad inherited my grandma’s ancient house recently and is practically forced to find a way to remodel it to be rentable because there is a imputed rental value tax where I’m from.
What’s the alternative, just leave it empty?
I would think it could also be acceptable to transfer ownership to a relative who doesn’t already own a home. It just seems like a waste to have a house with nobody living in it while so many people are unhoused.
I guess he could sell it but then its pretty likely that it’s brought by a property developer, as we can’t afford to buy it off him. As it stands, the house isn’t really suitable to live in
But they mean specifically a vacancy tax. So anyone who owned vacant property would have a large additional payment or get it rented
I don’t see this working. Not only the property owners would transfer this cost to your monthly payments, the government would need an enormous bureaucracy to actually control and enforce this law. I don’t believe this is technically possible to achieve.
They pass on a tax that doesn’t apply if you’re renting it?
Eventually somebody will rent it, and the monthly price will be higher to recoup the tax.
The more properties you own, the more tax you pay on the price of the next one - excluding if you only own one, but escalating quickly after like 3 or 4.
This is so obviously what needs to happen. The fact that it hasn’t says everything you need to know about current governments.
Linear housing, quadratic taxes
My city somewhat does this. You get a significant tax break on your primary residence, so if you rent out your house you pay more.
But if you rent out 1000 houses you pay the same tax rate and if you were to rent 3. Op was saying that it should go up per house. So by the time you have like 3 or 4 you can’t afford more.
Texas is that way to a point. Your primary residence gets enormous tax breaks. Any property after that, fuck you, pay up. The downside to that is that it contributes to the high cost of rent as the owner passes it along to the tenant.
Are you talking about a homestead exemption? I think most places have something like that but it’s just a discount on the house you live in so not an increase on the other properties. They would just get normal tax rates for any additional properties. I think making it an exponential tax would make a huge difference.
Yes homestead. I’m not sure how other states do it.
Texas increased from ten thousand to twenty five thousand to forty thousand to a hundred thousand in a short period.
So semantics. I say increase for other houses, you say discount for primary house. Either way you choose to phrase it, you pay less for your primary residence and more for other properties.
Does it increase per property owned though? They can’t keep passing on the tax increase to the tenant if at a certain point they own 1000 houses and now their tax on the last one is 7 times higher than the rent on it.
That’s what we should be doing any house after your second gets increased a ton per house. Make it untenable for people to own rental properties. I don’t mind someone having a vacation house or two if they can afford it. But nobody needs 10 vacation houses, they’re rental or investment properties at that point so fuck them.
Serious question, couldn’t you bypass this by just setting up different LLCs that only have one or two properties under them?
They already do this. In my old job, the boss had 0 properties, he just used company money, company cars etc and had multiple of them
Possible formula: Tax for n-th house = n-th Fibonacci number + 5 * max(0, n - 2). So low numbers like three get penalized by that linear part, and high numbers grow exponentially due to the Fibonacci number.
Ok now it’s starting to get confusing enough to fit into our tax system. Can we add more variables? Lol
Star Trek should be required viewing for all world leaders.
That type of person will arrive at the conclusion “see, it’s okay to do eugenics and have nuclear wars, since humanity will turn out okay anyways”.
That sounds like it would be a good idea, but there is a strange but significant cadre of right-wing Star Trek fans. I think they just pay attention to the pew pew space battles and ignore everything else or something.
IMO conservatives are either Klingons, Ferengi, or deluded enough to think they’d be chosen to join the Q Continuum. And Libertarians think they’re Romulans or Cardassians but aren’t actually that organized or clever.
Even worse, I’ve run into fans who think the Terrans had the right idea.
Considering the Terran Empire ended up being conquered, this tracks with them idolizing other losers, like Nazis and the Confederacy.
I honestly see why. While I love star trek, it has a very strong power structure “with the right people in power”, as if power itself wouldn’t corrupt people. The admirals may not always be right in the beginning but they accept their wrongs and have no bad intentions and the heroes are always celebrated by the establishment.
This can be understood as “this is the perfect world where even authorities are good” or as “I told you, authorities are the good guys”. I, as a left libertarian, prefer Farscape (and still watch every star trek show)
I never thought of it that way, but you do have a point. I still think it’s more pew pew than anything else though.
Steve Shives (I hope I got the spelling correct) made a video why conservatives like star trek and a part of it is they see it as stories of other worlds and by doing so ignore all the allegorical implications. “A planet where people have the false gender assigned to them at birth? How truly alien!”
And to be fair: escapism is a legitimate goal of scifi and media in general. You watch scifi to enter a different world, for at least an hour a week be free of all your problems in the here and now.
I, as a left libertarian, would probably end up in the Maquis
What’'s left liberterian even means?
What’'s left liberterian even means?
They’re the OG libertarians. The right explicitly stole the term and celebrated doing so.
In short, they’re a branch of anarchism.
deleted by creator
So neo liberal economic is just a right wing spinoff of libertarianism?
I wouldn’t call it a spinoff but rather a ripoff. There might be few parallels but basically left Libertarians are against all hierarchies, including the state. Right Libertarian are against the state and want to build state like structures but privatized.
Anarchist or anarchist adjacent
Exactly! The TOS/TNG era are “benevolent authoritarianism” and conservatives, of course, see themselves as the good guys. “If things only went our way, our society would be perfect, just like Star Trek!”
I think Edington said it best. Paraphrasing, “[The Federation] are even worse than the Borg. At least they tell you about their plans for assimilation. You’re more insidious you assimilate people I think they don’t even know.”
I can’t help bit notice all these “debate me” chuds talk exactly like Gene Roddenberry’s writting style. Why does every conversation or discussion devlove into “the logic of your argument” “you misunderstood the logic of what i am saying”.
Khan-accerationists?
Sure, but I still genuinely believe the Gospel of Picard would have a net positive effect. Far moreso than the bible, which a good portion already have read.
