zlacker

We have mandatory seat belts and air bags. A sensor on the hood to insure a car is not being used as a murder weapon seems minimal in comparison. Such a sensor would save many lives including the young lady involved in the incident today. We have strict gun laws, why does it make sense to let any psycho buy a cheap used car and go kill people with it? It’s a glaring inconsistency.

>>resume+(OP)
Outside of the pragmatic argument of current-tech limitations for such an implementation, cars should sometimes be a weapon.

If all cars were mandated by law to not accelerate when a person is in front of them, doesn't that give carjackers pretty much guaranteed success to confront and forcibly stop their victim before stealing their car, their belongings, or taking their life?

Why would I even bother buying a nice car if I know someone can just walk up in front of its front grill and hold me at gunpoint, and my car can't help but force me to stay there?

>>HaZeus+51
So we should have shootings like the one yesterday just because you want to drive a Lamborghini and murder carjackers? Current tech is totally sufficient to implement this. It’s already found in Waymo taxis based on news reports I’ve seen. It probably exists in teslas too, give or take software updates. It seems almost trivial: if someone is a foot in front of the car, disconnect the accelerator or drop to neutral on high acceleration. If cars can run people over from a dead stop, and if this is a common issue in law enforcement where people try to run over cops, and it clearly is, then we will have many more shootings like yesterday’s. That’s a world you want to live in? She wrote poetry.

>>resume+UG
I just watched a video where, at night in an isolated road flanked by woods, a man stops his truck in front of a woman in her car alone. He then sprints from his car toward her driver side door.

That woman would be raped and murdered in the middle of nowhere if her car disallowed her from making an executive decision for her safety.

Your idea is bad.

>>Tadpol+xO
Your reasoning is flawed. The man could have parked his truck in front of her car and her ability to ram it wouldn’t make a difference. Most car jackers and would be rapists do not approach their victim on foot at a 0 degree approach angle, from the front, they come from 270 degrees (the driver side), where the door they will open is located. They cannot jack the car or rape without that side approach.

>>resume+lr1
We're done here. If you're only going to make emotional appeals and ignore every authoritative and logical argument presented to you, there's nothing else to discuss. You're arguing in bad faith and certainly know you're wrong.

Remote start/stop of motor vehicles is dangerous. You should not be wondering at any point in your life why automotive manufacturers are ignoring your armchair design specifications.

>>resume+lr1
I'm sorry, does the gated community even let you out? Or women in? It's painfully obvious you've never in your life had to be concerned about your safety in any meaningful way.

> Criminals would never get in front of a car. Especially after you legally mandate that by doing it their victim cannot escape by any means anymore.

Like, can you even hear yourself?

>>Tadpol+qg2
What is the value of being in front of a car? The value is in opening the door, which is on the side. Sure you could have two jackers, one in front and another on the side but then running over 1 of the 2 (or more) again becomes useless as the side jacker would shoot you.

> Or women in?

You must be rolling in women. Lucky them. Maybe you can take them out to dinner and run over some car jackers on the way home.

>>resume+Lk3
You're ridiculous lol

>>resume+Lk3
Oh, that last one speaks volumes about you.