a quick search suggests that's just for municipal elections. As I understand the football internet blackouts are national government policy not municipal?
That's quite the leap. Not that it's relevant but I have no issue with european boycott or sanctions of Israel, though warcrimes accusations are pretty toothless. Almost no leaders past or present charged with war crimes were ever arrested.
The irony is cars got screens largely due to the backup camera mandate which was intended to be a safety feature. Governments are very bad at understanding unintended consequences.
- The mandate is for rear visibility. Car manufacturers choose to implement it with the back-up camera. Beyond that, it's obviously safer to be able to see everything behind the vehicle.
- My vehicle has a backup camera with a screen, but has physical buttons for all controls (A/C, audio system). There's no reason cars can't have both.
Specifically, 10 feet by 20 feet directly behind the vehicle. I'm actually curious how this could be achieved with only mirrors. That's a pretty big swath for anything with a viewpoint where the driver is sitting.
> My vehicle has a backup camera with a screen
Early implementations just used a screen in the rearview mirror. No need for any kind of infotainment screen.
Nah, it was relatively common on base models that did not have a head unit with a screen, and that definitely includes Hondas and Toyotas, for example. The most common type of vehicle to use such a setup were pickups. For Toyota, the Taco and Tundra are the only vehicles I can think of which used an in-mirror screen. Honda did it in the base model CR-Z. Ford, Chevy, and RAM did it on their trucks.
my 2011 F150 has a rear view mirror backup display, and it's quite nice.
It's there when the truck is in reverse and otherwise just a normal mirror.
Early 2010s actually seems like a sweet spot for a lot of automotive tech - it's decent enough, but "mobile" wasn't really a thing yet, and bandwidth was expensive, so there's no assumption that everything should be an app phoning home yet (iPhone was still brand new).
When it already has a screen it's much cheaper to get rid of the buttons then. The screen as a requirement is priced in whereas the buttons are not and thus cut.
I last had that on a (rented) Fiat 500: the "standard" controls (including the monochrome LCD in the instrument panel) looked really clunky and old-fashioned, and all the advanced features (audio, navigation, mobile phone connectivity, not sure if it had a backup camera) were via the (third party, Pioneer) entertainment system which was state-of-the-art with a nice high-res touchscreen. That's probably because this was the more expensive version of the car, I guess the "basic" version only has a radio - no navigation, no backup camera, no nothing. Not sure if it's the same principle at work at Toyota, I haven't driven one in a while?
I tried a 2025 Ford Maverick for a year before I traded it for the Tacoma. All the AC/Heat/Etc controls were on the screen. Couldn't stand it. Put me off of ever considering a new Ford again.
Not all screens are touchscreens. Manufacturers complied with those regs without touchscreens for years. My 2012 mitsubishi's reverse camera is displayed in the rear view mirror; the head unit is a dead simple dot matrix display which I adore.
It's the regulations (or lack thereof) that allow touchscreens in cars as they are that should be the target of ire. Reverse camera regulations or not, the current state of touchscreen car rubbish was inevitable without the existence and enforcement of regulations addressing it.
The backup camera mandate is associated with a 78% (!) reduction in fatalities in children in backover incidents. That’s a pretty high bar to cross to prove that the camera is more harmful the it is helpful, especially since, as others have said, you don’t have to use the screen for anything else.
I was pretty curious as I have a kid who's not very aware about cars. That appears to be an extrapolation from a pretty biased source [1]. It's probably more honest to say "the aforementioned systems are expected to save 58 to 69 lives each year" after they are fully rolled out to the entire fleet.
That's not counting injuries or property damage, but it is still an already low number
The EPA push for fuel efficiency made it easier to hit targets by selling huge trucks instead of small cars.
There is a value in safety regulation but the incentives as legislated have led to negative results. It needs to be fixed or repealed. Not sure there's a clean solution here.
That won't work. The issue is a fundamental power imbalance being exploited by the seller. An individual will never have the time, money, or energy to be on an equal footing with companies that do this. So giving people a bunch of algorithms and data does nothing. It's just like giving people EULAs and pretending that because they have the stated terms, it somehow makes them an equal party. The solution is to ban situations where these power imbalances exist. Too bad capitalism is inherently based on them....
Does anyone have reliable data on the number locations selling avgas in say, the U.S. compared to the number of locations selling automobile grade gasoline?
It's cheaper to purchase new bike/used car, tax and insure it, service and fuel, than to use train to ride to work.
Annual train ticket form my small town (25 miles from the Zone 1 of London) is over £5,500. Five GRAND. For the pleasure of standing every time and a much higher risk of getting mugged.
£15k will give you REALLY nice bike or pretty new car. After third year you're saving thousands. Of course if you decided to buy something old and used, you're saving from the second quarter of the first year on.
It's only functional because not everyone can afford another car to work.
It can be, depends on a lot of factors. Obviously flying ryanair will often be the cheapest way to go, but if you do any sort of other regular airline trains will quickly start to win out.
And it's not as if you can fly everywhere in england. As soon as you start looking at more oddball flights (for example, london to birmingham) ryanair goes away as an option and all the flights end up super expensive.
Trains, on the other hand, remain cheap for pretty much the entire nation. You can basically go anywhere by train for under £60. A lot cheaper if you book in advance.
That is because of the cost structure of trains vs planes. Trains require a huge amount of infrastructure, and have higher labour costs because they are slower (so the same journey means people work for longer).
What is actually the realistic cost. Covering infra, the charger and the maintenance of everything involved. Power and transfer included, with transfer including any standing charges. And after that you probably want decent margin to well run the business.
I don't expect 10 thousands of the fast chargers in my town.
I'd love to have slow chargers built into the street lights. Not everyone owns a house, and the public charging usually meets or exceeds the petrol price per mile.
If you're referring to DC charging it's going to be pretty expensive. The construction and power electronics for a DC station is going to be in the millions.
For AC the rectifier is inside the car and the L2 chargers is just a fancy plug. Price should just be the base electricity cost.
Governments would do better to try to fix the bureaucracy around installing L2 chargers in shared living spaces. It's a problem they created and it should be on them to fix. But it guess that's harder than impossible mandates and high EV taxes.
reply