[furyg3]

It's kind of crazy to me that we focus on things like this, which would only work for the most modern of new cars, but don't focus on other, simple things.

In many European countries all cars need to undergo a yearly road worthiness check. So not just the emissions checks, but also the lights, tires, brakes, seatbelts, shocks, steering, and other basic things. It seems like such a system (even every 2 or 5 years) would result in major reductions in accidents and injuries and be applicable across all cars.

[justin66]

> It seems like such a system (even every 2 or 5 years) would result in major reductions in accidents and injuries

I bet such a system's impact would be vanishingly small and the money would be better spent elsewhere. Certainly not "major reductions." I'm not sure it's a terrible idea - we're bringing cars in for emissions checks anyway so sure, check the seatbelts for some reason - but let's not pretend it's going to do much.

It would be strange but weirdly reassuring to learn that almost all auto accidents are not caused by carelessness, recklessness, drunkenness, impatience and general incompetence. That they are caused by... neglect of routine maintenance. That would be very far from the world we are living in.

[darkwizard42]

I actually think it would have an astonishingly high effect. It would reduce the number of cars on the road without proper maintenance, which would generally correlate with drivers who don't care enough to prioritize their vehicle's condition (and therefore other's safety).

The second order effect might be very strong.

That being said, this will never happen because in America without a car you (avg. american) lose nearly all your ability to contribute to the economy and navigate your surroundings. We can barely align on taking licenses away from people who kill pedestrians in direct fault accidents [1]

1. https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/friends-identify-v...

[justin66]

Even in some scenario where crappy-car owners are some kind of especially pernicious safety menace (a claim for which I would demand actual evidence, since I don't believe it for a minute), I can't imagine what it would be like to live in a place in the United States where there are so many cars on the road that are legally undrivable for safety reasons that their removal would make any kind of significant difference. I read "astonishingly high effect" above and wonder if you even drive in the United States.

[mcgrath_sh]

Some states already require annual inspections, Pennsylvania being one of them.

[justin66]

Yeah. My state includes an OBDII emissions check which catches a lot of non-emissions related things.

[snapcaster]

Some states in the US (comparable to countries in europe) do do this (my state included)

[iAMkenough]

Seems "simple" until you start thinking about the logistics of an equitable federal mandate and the US (not European) legal and political challenges it would have to find a way to work around.

We can't even do something as "simple" as make election day a national holiday to make sure everyone has time to participate.

[bluGill]

The average car on the road is 12 years old. So if we make a change today the average car will have it in 12 years, and the majority a few years latter. This isn't instant, but it is fast enough if the change is good.

[Wissenschafter]

Yes, let's just focus on small stuff we already do instead of the big elephant in the room of automated cars with less human error...

Sometimes I can't even on this website with supposedly some of the smartest folks.

[AlexandrB]

Yes, why bother with incremental change that's already possible and well understood when we can go all-in on a technology that's not yet proven and will require cars to get even more expensive and complicated.

This is the same thinking that got everyone chasing "Hyperloop" pixie dust instead of just putting in the work to build high speed rail.

[oneplane]

> Yes, let's just focus on small stuff we already do

No, you don't

> automated cars with less human error.

The comment you replied to already noted that this has no effect on existing cars, of which many magnitudes more exist than automated cars (those do not exist on the road, not to the degree that is proposed).

> Sometimes I can't even on this website with supposedly some of the smartest folks.

Oh, the irony.

[Wissenschafter]

>Oh, the irony.

Yes, quite funny. The claim is absurd. Cars communicating with each other is feasible even for older vehicles.

[idiotsecant]

Very interested in how you would suppose this works.

[Diti]

Wild guess, but probably with a transponder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder

[Wissenschafter]

Every driver has a cellphone in their pocket, I'm sure it's more than possible to integrate people with modern vehicles in a mesh net to older vehicles by using an app or something. It's not hard to think about, c'mon now. What website am I on ffs?

[nuancebydefault]

The problem is reliability. The cellphone is not constantly connected to a network, depending on its location, battery, age of electronics, software updates,... You would need a system that works with a mesh with holes. Not much better than today's situation i would guess.