Bright headlights and combined brake/turn signals too please
Comment on China Is Banning Tesla-Style Retractable Door Handles Over Safety Concerns
xeekei@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
EU next, please.
zipzoopaboop@lemmynsfw.com 2 weeks ago
sefra1@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Don’t get me started on that, stupid direct led brakes lights should be outright illegal. They literally blind every following car behind, specially if the windshield is dirty or foggy.
How those damn things got approved in the first place is
beyond my understandingcorruption.
not_me@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Clean your windows 🤔
xeekei@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
I’ve heard complaints about led highbeams plenty of times, but this is the first time I’ve heard it about rear breaking lights. I personally have never been blinded by those.
AA5B@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The glaring headlights have the opposite solution here: more technology. While auto-high beams are becoming common, we need the next step of active matrix headlights. They really are marvelous!
For me the active matrix headlights are still new enough that every time I’m amazed watching the dark spot in my headlight beams move to keep the oncoming traffic out of the glare.
Yeah this is kind of expensive but it’s getting the point that we really need it everywhere
zipzoopaboop@lemmynsfw.com 2 weeks ago
Banning the root cause seems a lot simpler and cheaper
AA5B@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
But the root cause is banned. People are already supposed to click off their high beams for nearby traffic. Those LED replacement bulbs do say “not for headlights” because they’re not allowed in standard projector housings, lifted truck are required to point their headlights down. But the problem continues to get worse despite each scenario being banned.
The problem is how do you make the bans effective? Or how do you get people to do the right thing no matter how self_centered they are?
But tech solutions work over years
- fixtures made for LEDs may be insanely bright but also better focussed to reduce glare
- auto-dimming means you’re not relying on some idiot to pay attention and do the right thing
- active matrix takes that a step further
In the meantime I’m thinking of getting those yellow lenses polarized driving glasses to see if it makes a difference
Quazatron@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Should not have allowed them in the first place.
Anarch157a@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Thus is the old debate between Allow list versus Deny list.
On an Allow list system, everything is forbiden exceot what’s explicitly allowed, while on a Deny list, everything is allowed except what’s explicitly forbidden.
Aviation companies work mostly on Allow list system, meaning even small changes and improvements require certification before it’s approved for use. If this system was in use by car companies, the consequences would be similar, only 2 or 3 companies worldwide, making a few models each, all of them much more expensive than what they are now.
I’m glad that the automotive industry works mostly on a Deny list system. It keeps the barrier to entry lower for new manufacturers, innovation is faster and competition keeps prices reasonable.
Occasionally, issues like this pop up, requiring a ban, but in this industry I prefer this than the alternative.
applebusch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
This is kind of a bad faith black and white argument. No one is arguing for a draconian regulation of car designs. There’s already a system of regulations and review in place for certifying new car designs are safe and compliant with regulations, and the danger this design introduces in the event of an emergency should have prevented it from being certified safe for use. Any idiot can see with 30 seconds of thought that a car door you need power to open is inherently unsafe and will get people killed in situations where a manual door wouldn’t. It’s like arguing car manufacturers should be allowed to install a gun in the middle of every airbag that shoots the passenger in the event of a crash just because there’s no regulation specifically banning them from doing it. That’s not how the law works and it’s not how safety regulations work.
drmoose@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Honest question - why do you prefer this?
There’s nothing bleeding edge in cars these days except for security and drive train features. I have 2 cars - new EV and 15 year old economy Toyota and honestly aside from drive train itself there’s nothing I can find in the new car that makes me feel like my old car is missing something important.
Car technology has stagnated so bad that “deny list” approach makes no sense since the innovation potential is so incredibly poor. We lose safety and uniform UX for what? Fashion? It’s kinda stupid.
CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Almost like we’ve already pretty much optimized the design and trying to fix what isn’t broken just leads to stupid consiquences?
vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 2 weeks ago
And, as it happens, those 2 or 3 companies not really following the regulations, practically employing inspectors instead. Like Boeing.
bstix@feddit.dk 2 weeks ago
EU has an allow system, which is the reason the CyberTrucks is not on the EU market. It would not be able to pass the safety requirements if they attempted.
On a similar note, the EU also has an allow system for all vehicles already on the road. Every single vehicle is inspected every two years, with the first check for new cars being after 4 years. This system keeps older rusty cars away from the roads.
Tesla’s other models have an issue passing even the first test. It’s the brand with the highest failing rate of all car brands.