The "Dutch Reach" and parallel parking safety!

[JCERRN]

This would be an excellent use-case for the FSD computer: if it predicts that opening a door will likely result in a collision, it can refuse to obey the button, while sounding an alert and displaying the reason on the main screen.

Uhh. I don’t believe that a car should be able to tell me when I can, and cannot get out of my car…

 

[Bill837]

Uhh. I don’t believe that a car should be able to tell me when I can, and cannot get out of my car…

Like lane departure, I agree with the driver having ultimate control, but I don't mind it giving me a nudge to make sure I've thought it through.

I'm reminded of a part of a Heinlein book, when one character finds out another has disabled the safety interlocks on the windows on a vehicle. Paraphrasing below...

"If I tell Gay (the vehicle) to close the window and someone has a hand inside, you can assume I think they'll look better without it"

 

[Gurule92]

I thought "dutch reach" meant something completely different

That would require the word "around" be appended

 

[hridge2020]

This would be an excellent use-case for the FSD computer: if it predicts that opening a door will likely result in a collision, it can refuse to obey the button, while sounding an alert and displaying the reason on the main screen.

Regular reach?



Double Dutch?

 

[Crissa]

Uhh. I don’t believe that a car should be able to tell me when I can, and cannot get out of my car…

Sure, sure, next you'll be saying the car shouldn't warn you when doors open at speed.

-Crissa

 

[Rutrow]

Sure, sure, next you'll be saying the car shouldn't warn you when doors open at speed.

-Crissa

I don't want my car telling me i can't shift to reverse at freeway speeds.
'Merica!!! Freedumb!!!

 

[JCERRN]

Sure, sure, next you'll be saying the car shouldn't warn you when doors open at speed.

-Crissa

Well,

theres a difference between a warning and literally not letting you open the door. If i want to open my door while moving at any speed, i should be able to. (Think hostage trying to bail out of a car)

 

[Crissa]

Well,

theres a difference between a warning and literally not letting you open the door. If i want to open my door while moving at any speed, i should be able to. (Think hostage trying to bail out of a car)

Think child trying to bail out of a car. Which is more common a situation?

It stopping you for a moment is different than it stopping you entirely, though.

-Crissa

 

[JCERRN]

Think child trying to bail out of a car. Which is more common a situation?

It stopping you for a moment is different than it stopping you entirely, though.

-Crissa

Children don’t usually sit in the driver seat… Rear child locks have been a safety feature in cars for years… Just not on the front doors. I think of warning would be fine, but I don’t agree that there should be any limitation on the opening or closing the front door.

 

[Dutch]

Like lane departure, I agree with the driver having ultimate control, but I don't mind it giving me a nudge to make sure I've thought it through.

I'm reminded of a part of a Heinlein book, when one character finds out another has disabled the safety interlocks on the windows on a vehicle. Paraphrasing below...

"If I tell Gay (the vehicle) to close the window and someone has a hand inside, you can assume I think they'll look better without it"

Lane departure can get tricky :
A sudden lane change ..

 

[CyberGus]

? And yet you still added words that werent there, and are still arguing with me about something i didnt say, and about a sentiment that i did not express. You are literally a Karen.
Seethe harder.

My exact words:

if it predicts that opening a door will likely result in a collision, it can refuse to obey the button, while sounding an alert and displaying the reason on the main screen.

You disagreed with:

Uhh. I don’t believe that a car should be able to tell me when I can, and cannot get out of my car…

Therefore, you were expressing the desire to risk causing a collision, even though you never actually used that word, because that’s how logic works.

?‍

 

[Rutrow]

You are describing flawed logic. In fact, there are several logical fallacies that apply to what your argument, you should educate yourself on logic before trying to describe it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

"No True Scotsman"?!?

 

[JCERRN]

"No True Scotsman"?!?

Usually that applies to universal claims that were proven false by evidence, which are then modified to make it seem like the evidence doesnt apply.

he added words that i did not say, additionally, his statements and associated image were grossly inflammatory, unnecessarily graphic, and were intended to be assaultive on my character. That undermines the whole purpose of discourse, which is to share opinions in a reasonably civil forum.

 

[PilotPete]

Usually that applies to universal claims that were proven false by evidence, which are then modified to make it seem like the evidence doesnt apply.

he added words that i did not say, additionally, his statements and associated image were grossly inflammatory, unnecessarily graphic, and were intended to be assaultive on my character. That undermines the whole purpose of discourse, which is to share opinions in a reasonably civil forum.

IF I put my referee hat on, and look at this as objectively as I can, I think Gus took a step out of bounds and there needs to be a flag on the play.

I’ve driven cars since I was 15-1/2. I’m in my 5th decade of driving. I’ve been on a bicycle and was hit by a car. I’ve ridden thousands of miles on bikes on roads shared with cars. I have never injured, much less killed a cyclist. I don’t believe you have to have an automated system to prevent killing a cyclist. You have to be observant and have awareness. This is why we have child locks on back doors, because little kids don’t have the ability to think about what could happen if they swing the door open. And if you’re honest, the #1 reason for child safety locks is for the safety of the child, not the random cyclist. Statistically, I’m going to bet that oncoming cars are a far greater threat to the kids than are the kids to oncoming cyclists.

Now, would this proposed system improve safety for both kids and cyclists? Probably. Would it improve safety for the average moron who slings his door open without thinking? Yep. Would it be a valuable back up for those moments when we lose our situational awareness for a moment and get distracted? Sure. Does not wanting it to PREVENT you from opening the door mean or imply that you are fine with killing a cyclist? No, that’s not really a logical stretch. Thus the flag on the play. Ineligible conclusion downfield. 5 posts, repeat 2nd down. This isn’t an all or nothing option. There is a middle ground. You could stop the back doors from opening, and require you press the open button twice for the front doors. Or press, get a buzz and then press again, or press and hold. Or whatever. The point it, to go from 0-1,000 so quickly is a bit of too far. Does it seem a bit too defensive or macho to say “I’m not lettin’ no dead-gum VEE-hidkle tell me what I can and can’t do!” Yeah, maybe. Maybe the better response would have been, “I’d rather it not prevent me from getting out, I see some safety implications there, maybe just a warning or buzz is good enough.” But we all don’t always say the perfect thing in our sometimes quick responses and I’m right up there with the worst of them.

I really like me some CyberGus on here. I have agreed and disagreed with him. But I’ve never found him beyond reason. John is from Mass, and as I’m sure he knows, that makes him a masshole. That has nothing to do with this conversation, I just laugh when I get to call my friend that. John didn’t suggest the massacre of everyone on 2 wheels, so I think he is probably an ok guy. After all, he wants a CT just like the rest of us.

Gents, can we agree on this part of it all??? Can we just go back to bagging on Fords and Toyotas???

 

[JCERRN]

IF I put my referee hat on, and look at this as objectively as I can, I think Gus took a step out of bounds and there needs to be a flag on the play.

I’ve driven cars since I was 15-1/2. I’m in my 5th decade of driving. I’ve been on a bicycle and was hit by a car. I’ve ridden thousands of miles on bikes on roads shared with cars. I have never injured, much less killed a cyclist. I don’t believe you have to have an automated system to prevent killing a cyclist. You have to be observant and have awareness. This is why we have child locks on back doors, because little kids don’t have the ability to think about what could happen if they swing the door open. And if you’re honest, the #1 reason for child safety locks is for the safety of the child, not the random cyclist. Statistically, I’m going to bet that oncoming cars are a far greater threat to the kids than are the kids to oncoming cyclists.

Now, would this proposed system improve safety for both kids and cyclists? Probably. Would it improve safety for the average moron who slings his door open without thinking? Yep. Would it be a valuable back up for those moments when we lose our situational awareness for a moment and get distracted? Sure. Does not wanting it to PREVENT you from opening the door mean or imply that you are fine with killing a cyclist? No, that’s not really a logical stretch. Thus the flag on the play. Ineligible conclusion downfield. 5 posts, repeat 2nd down. This isn’t an all or nothing option. There is a middle ground. You could stop the back doors from opening, and require you press the open button twice for the front doors. Or press, get a buzz and then press again, or press and hold. Or whatever. The point it, to go from 0-1,000 so quickly is a bit of too far. Does it seem a bit too defensive or macho to say “I’m not lettin’ no dead-gum VEE-hidkle tell me what I can and can’t do!” Yeah, maybe. Maybe the better response would have been, “I’d rather it not prevent me from getting out, I see some safety implications there, maybe just a warning or buzz is good enough.” But we all don’t always say the perfect thing in our sometimes quick responses and I’m right up there with the worst of them.

I really like me some CyberGus on here. I have agreed and disagreed with him. But I’ve never found him beyond reason. John is from Mass, and as I’m sure he knows, that makes him a masshole. That has nothing to do with this conversation, I just laugh when I get to call my friend that. John didn’t suggest the massacre of everyone on 2 wheels, so I think he is probably an ok guy. After all, he wants a CT just like the rest of us.

Gents, can we agree on this part of it all??? Can we just go back to bagging on Fords and Toyotas???

I know im a Masshole. Comes with the territory. Another part of that is that I will not back down from an assault on my character.

that being said, i agree- sometimes things said in writing are perceived differently than when spoken. I meant no ill intent; i simply wanted to to input my opinion that i do not personally want or need that “safety feature” in my car…granted… it wouldn't stop me from buying a cybertruck

I hope Gus can back down from his undue rage and understand this.

.