Jump to content
  • Drew Dowdell
    Drew Dowdell

    NHTSA Testing Mirrorless Cars

      ...New tech to replace old tech...

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has begun testing vehicles that have cameras in place of real mirrors.  The request to test such devices goes back to March of 2014 when the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers along with Tesla filed a petition with the NHTSA to get approval to install based rear or side vision cameras and screens  in their vehicles.  Daimler filed a similar petition in 2015 for their heavy duty trucks. Japan and Europe have already approved the technology. 

    The first car with cameras replacing the side mirrors was the Lexus ES sold in Japan, followed by the Audi e-tron in Europe back in December.  Both vehicles are sold in the U.S. with standard mirrors instead of the cameras.  Honda's coming Honda e will have the technology standard when it goes on sale in Europe later this year.

    Mirrorless systems are an area where the legislation has not yet caught up with the technology according to Mark Dahncke of Audi.

    • Upvote 1


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    12 minutes ago, balthazar said:

    Is the tesla semi concept really a 1-seater??

    There are two more seats behind the center seated driver.

    See the source image

    4 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

    Appears to be only one seat in this pic of a prototype from 2018..they've been road testing them for a while.

     

    tesla-semi-1-e1539187374903.jpg

    Robert you can actually see the fold up seat behind the drivers seat.

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Pretty sucky seating spot for passenger, back in the cave, but at least the capability is there.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    3 minutes ago, balthazar said:

    Pretty sucky seating spot for passenger, back in the cave, but at least the capability is there.

    Total of 3 people, not sure why 3 compared to the traditional 2 but that is how Tesla went.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    On 8/29/2019 at 12:19 PM, ccap41 said:

    What was the need

    There are two things that make an economy when you boil it down to the basic elements. The flow of money and the flow of goods/services.  Roads and cars make that flow much faster and cheaper than horse and buggy.  Trains are good for long distance, but suck for the "last mile".

    Without the road network we have to day (and are letting crumble to bits) is why we have the economy we have today... which even in a recession is still better than 4th world economies. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    On 8/30/2019 at 3:27 PM, dfelt said:

    Total of 3 people, not sure why 3 compared to the traditional 2 but that is how Tesla went.

    The seating is like how McLaren did with the F1.   

    • Like 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    On 9/1/2019 at 2:54 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

    There are two things that make an economy when you boil it down to the basic elements. The flow of money and the flow of goods/services.  Roads and cars make that flow much faster and cheaper than horse and buggy.  Trains are good for long distance, but suck for the "last mile".

    Without the road network we have to day (and are letting crumble to bits) is why we have the economy we have today... which even in a recession is still better than 4th world economies. 

    I know it was an improvement but it was still never a NEED. Everybody wanted to expand and grow but they never needed to. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    12 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

    I know it was an improvement but it was still never a NEED. Everybody wanted to expand and grow but they never needed to. 

    That's pretty Amish of you.. 

    • Haha 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    59 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    That's pretty Amish of you.. 

    Well, when one throws out the word "need" and you go back to the roots of it... It quickly becomes a "want". 

    At this point of the economy and life automobiles are absolutely a need in one fashion or another. But, when they first became a thing and everybody was used to not using them, they were a luxury and everybody was okay and used to using horse and buggy for transportation. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    6 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

    Well, when one throws out the word "need" and you go back to the roots of it... It quickly becomes a "want". 

    At this point of the economy and life automobiles are absolutely a need in one fashion or another. But, when they first became a thing and everybody was used to not using them, they were a luxury and everybody was okay and used to using horse and buggy for transportation. 

    Plus the Methan gas smell of Horse farts. 🤣

    • Haha 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    29 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

    Well, when one throws out the word "need" and you go back to the roots of it... It quickly becomes a "want". 

    At this point of the economy and life automobiles are absolutely a need in one fashion or another. But, when they first became a thing and everybody was used to not using them, they were a luxury and everybody was okay and used to using horse and buggy for transportation. 

    We needed the advancements to keep up with the rest of the world. Germany and England weren't going to sit still and not produce.  We would have been at a disastrous disadvantage in WWI and WWII if we had just stayed Amish back in 1895. 

    • Upvote 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    25 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    We needed the advancements to keep up with the rest of the world. Germany and England weren't going to sit still and not produce.  We would have been at a disastrous disadvantage in WWI and WWII if we had just stayed Amish back in 1895. 

    Wouldn't those then be the first automobiles? If they weren't creating them then there would be no catch-up needed. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    IMO early automobiles in the U.S. (1900- say 1915) were primarily a 'want'. Lifestyles were not hugely changed as they came on scene; people primarily stayed in the same locations and farming was prevail ant. Most early cars (including Chevrolet) were quite expensive. After that, professions and even personal lifestyles started to change / embrace the automobile. The second lifestyle change was the widespread improvement of roads, but aside from the interstate highways, this was piecemeal.

    Also keep in mind there was very very little in the way of 'global competition' during the beginning of the 20th century, countries were largely autonomous. I think it wasn't until WWI that most people began to evaluate just that.

    • Thanks 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

    • By Drew Dowdell
      Back in 2017, the NHTSA released a report on the safety of Tesla's Autopilot system after the fatal crash of a Tesla owner in 2016. That report claimed that the use of Autopilot, or more precisely the lane-keeping function called Autosteer, reduced crash rates by 40%. 
      In that original crash, the owner repeatedly ignored warnings to resume manual control of the vehicle.  Critics questioned whether Autopilot was encouraging drivers to pay less attention to the road.  The NHTSA report appeared to put those concerns to rest.
      Later, when a second driver died in an Autopilot related accident, Tesla CEO Elon Musk pointed to the NHTSA study and the 40% increase in safety claim. Now, 2 years after the original report. According to a report by Arstechnica, a third party has analyzed the data and found the 40% claim to be bogus.
      Originally the NHTSA data on Autopilot crashes was not publically available when Quality Control Systems, a research and consulting firm, requested it under a Freedom of Information Act request. The NHTSA claimed the data from Tesla was confidential and would cause the company harm if released.  QCS sued the NHTSA and in September of last year, a federal judge granted the FOI request.
      What QCS found was that missing data and poor math caused the NHTSA report to be grossly inaccurate.  The period in question covered vehicle both before and after Autopilot was installed, however, a significant number of the vehicles in the data set provided by Telsa have large gaps between the last recorded mileage before Autopilot was installed and the first recorded mileage after installation.  The result is a gray area where it is unknown if Autopilot was active or not.  In spite of this deficiency, the NHTSA used the data anyway.
      In the data provided only 5,714 vehicles have no gap between the pre and post Autopilot mileage readings.  When QCS ran calculations again, they found that crashes per mile actually increased 59% after Autopilot was installed.
      Does that mean that a Tesla using Autopilot makes a crash 59% more likely?  The answer to that is no for a number of reasons.  First is that the sample size QCS had to work with is a very small percentage of Tesla’s total sales.  Secondly, the data is only representative of vehicles with version 1 of Tesla’s Autopilot, a version that Tesla hasn’t sold since 2016.
      Tesla stopped quoting the NHTSA report around May of 2018, possibly realizing something was fishy with the data. They have since taken to their own report stating that cars with Autopilot engaged have fewer accidents per mile than cars without it engaged.  This has some statistical fishiness to it as well.  Autopilot is only meant to be engaged on the highway and due to the higher rate of speed all vehicles have a lower rate of accidents per mile.
      We may just have to wait until more data is available to find out if Tesla Autopilot and systems similar to it make crashed that much less likely.

      View full article
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Back in 2017, the NHTSA released a report on the safety of Tesla's Autopilot system after the fatal crash of a Tesla owner in 2016. That report claimed that the use of Autopilot, or more precisely the lane-keeping function called Autosteer, reduced crash rates by 40%. 
      In that original crash, the owner repeatedly ignored warnings to resume manual control of the vehicle.  Critics questioned whether Autopilot was encouraging drivers to pay less attention to the road.  The NHTSA report appeared to put those concerns to rest.
      Later, when a second driver died in an Autopilot related accident, Tesla CEO Elon Musk pointed to the NHTSA study and the 40% increase in safety claim. Now, 2 years after the original report. According to a report by Arstechnica, a third party has analyzed the data and found the 40% claim to be bogus.
      Originally the NHTSA data on Autopilot crashes was not publically available when Quality Control Systems, a research and consulting firm, requested it under a Freedom of Information Act request. The NHTSA claimed the data from Tesla was confidential and would cause the company harm if released.  QCS sued the NHTSA and in September of last year, a federal judge granted the FOI request.
      What QCS found was that missing data and poor math caused the NHTSA report to be grossly inaccurate.  The period in question covered vehicle both before and after Autopilot was installed, however, a significant number of the vehicles in the data set provided by Telsa have large gaps between the last recorded mileage before Autopilot was installed and the first recorded mileage after installation.  The result is a gray area where it is unknown if Autopilot was active or not.  In spite of this deficiency, the NHTSA used the data anyway.
      In the data provided only 5,714 vehicles have no gap between the pre and post Autopilot mileage readings.  When QCS ran calculations again, they found that crashes per mile actually increased 59% after Autopilot was installed.
      Does that mean that a Tesla using Autopilot makes a crash 59% more likely?  The answer to that is no for a number of reasons.  First is that the sample size QCS had to work with is a very small percentage of Tesla’s total sales.  Secondly, the data is only representative of vehicles with version 1 of Tesla’s Autopilot, a version that Tesla hasn’t sold since 2016.
      Tesla stopped quoting the NHTSA report around May of 2018, possibly realizing something was fishy with the data. They have since taken to their own report stating that cars with Autopilot engaged have fewer accidents per mile than cars without it engaged.  This has some statistical fishiness to it as well.  Autopilot is only meant to be engaged on the highway and due to the higher rate of speed all vehicles have a lower rate of accidents per mile.
      We may just have to wait until more data is available to find out if Tesla Autopilot and systems similar to it make crashed that much less likely.
    • By William Maley
      When the EPA and NHTSA unveiled the proposal for revised fuel economy standards, there was a key part that brought up a lot of debate: The claim that the new regulations would reduce the number of fatalities and crashes. As we pointed out in our story, there were a number of holes in that argument. It seems we were not the only ones questioning this.
      Yesterday, the review of the proposal done by the White House's Information and Regulatory Affairs was made public. In it are hundred of pages of correspondence, analysis, and drafts. Bloomberg went through the documents and found that EPA officials were questioning the rationale put forth by NHTSA on reducing crashes.
      The “proposed standards are detrimental to safety, rather than beneficial,” wrote EPA staff in a memo dated June 18th.
      Their basis for this was analysis done by the agency after making a number of corrections to a Transportation Department model. It showed that freezing fuel economy standards "would lead to an increase in traffic fatalities and boost the overall fatality rate."
      The EPA questioned the validity of the Obama administration standards “coincided with an increase in highway fatalities” claim.
      “What data supports the implication that the standards to date have led to fatality increases?” said the EPA in feedback on June 29th.
      Also, the EPA questioned NHTSA's model that overestimates the number of old and unsafe vehicles on the road if the new regulations go into effect.
      How the EPA and NHTSA came to an agreement is unclear at the moment. What it does reveal is that the dispute between the two agencies could affect plans to try and create a comprise that would appease both automakers and California regulators.
      “These emails are but a fraction of the robust dialogue that occurred during interagency deliberations for the proposed rule. EPA is currently soliciting comments on eight different alternative standards and we look forward to reviewing any new data and information,” said EPA spokesman John Konkus.
      Irene Gutierrez, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council sees it a bit differently.
      "...that even the EPA had deep reservations about the bogus safety arguments being pushed by the Department of Transportation. We know that automakers can make cars both more fuel efficient and safer; it’s heartening to find out EPA’s technical experts agree.”
      Source: Bloomberg

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      When the EPA and NHTSA unveiled the proposal for revised fuel economy standards, there was a key part that brought up a lot of debate: The claim that the new regulations would reduce the number of fatalities and crashes. As we pointed out in our story, there were a number of holes in that argument. It seems we were not the only ones questioning this.
      Yesterday, the review of the proposal done by the White House's Information and Regulatory Affairs was made public. In it are hundred of pages of correspondence, analysis, and drafts. Bloomberg went through the documents and found that EPA officials were questioning the rationale put forth by NHTSA on reducing crashes.
      The “proposed standards are detrimental to safety, rather than beneficial,” wrote EPA staff in a memo dated June 18th.
      Their basis for this was analysis done by the agency after making a number of corrections to a Transportation Department model. It showed that freezing fuel economy standards "would lead to an increase in traffic fatalities and boost the overall fatality rate."
      The EPA questioned the validity of the Obama administration standards “coincided with an increase in highway fatalities” claim.
      “What data supports the implication that the standards to date have led to fatality increases?” said the EPA in feedback on June 29th.
      Also, the EPA questioned NHTSA's model that overestimates the number of old and unsafe vehicles on the road if the new regulations go into effect.
      How the EPA and NHTSA came to an agreement is unclear at the moment. What it does reveal is that the dispute between the two agencies could affect plans to try and create a comprise that would appease both automakers and California regulators.
      “These emails are but a fraction of the robust dialogue that occurred during interagency deliberations for the proposed rule. EPA is currently soliciting comments on eight different alternative standards and we look forward to reviewing any new data and information,” said EPA spokesman John Konkus.
      Irene Gutierrez, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council sees it a bit differently.
      "...that even the EPA had deep reservations about the bogus safety arguments being pushed by the Department of Transportation. We know that automakers can make cars both more fuel efficient and safer; it’s heartening to find out EPA’s technical experts agree.”
      Source: Bloomberg
    • By William Maley
      A new audit released by the U.S. Transportation Department’s Office of Inspector General rips the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) over its handling of the Takata airbag recall.
      In the report, the Inspector General says NHTSA's recall monitoring process "does not ensure that remedies are reported completely and in a timely manner," nor does it "verify recall completion rates, although it has the authority to do so." Other issues the audit found included the long time it took the agency to determine the scope of the Takata recall and missing documents due to limited monitoring and inadequate procedures.
      "In June 2014, RMD [NHTSA's Recall Management Division] received a recall notification for Takata airbag inflators in over 140,000 vehicles. The notification stated that the manufacturer planned to tell owners to take their vehicles to dealerships for repairs in February 2015. However, as of February 2018, RMD had not received the manufacturer's remedy documents, and [the Office of Defects Investigation's] recall recordkeeping system does not indicate that RMD staff requested those documents," the report said.
      The Inspector General makes six recommendations including better training for staff, creating a system to handle missing documents and communications, and documenting various lessons from the Takata recall.
      NHTSA in a letter said it "did not endorse all of the report’s findings," but did agree to some of the recommendations.
      The agency has come under fire for a number of years due to its poor handling of various auto safety issues, including Toyota's unattended acceleration crisis and GM's ignition switch mess. This latest audit is fourth since 2011 by the inspector general. The last audit done in 2015 said NTHSA failed to investigate safety issues carefully, hold automakers accountable, and adequately train their staff which resulted in “significant safety concerns being overlooked.”
      Source: Reuters
  • Posts

  • Social Stream

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. lauren
      lauren
      (35 years old)
    2. The Burg
      The Burg
      (55 years old)
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...