My crapty Toyota Corolla rental has BlueCruise

[Mirak]

Yeah, it was a stretch, more of a joke

Ok. We agree so far.

If you want to use the weights, fine. But don’t post about it in the internet and expect people NOT to tell you it’s a dumb idea.

If I’m watching the road, which I have to do anyway with the eye nanny, why is it a dumb idea to bypass the overly sensitive hand-nanny rather than pay $800/yr?

If I started a thread telling people the best way to speed, or roll through stop signs, or lane change without signaling or how to have a couple drinks and still drive (things people here probably do), I would expect a lot of comments on how dumb the above things are.

All those things are against the law. Bypassing a torque sensor while still driving attentively is not. There is no law I’m aware of which expressly require hands on the wheel to constitute attentive driving.

Sponsored

 

[Mach1E]

Ok. We agree so far.



If I’m watching the road, which I have to do anyway with the eye nanny, why is it a dumb idea to bypass the overly sensitive hand-nanny rather than pay $800/yr?



All those things are against the law. Bypassing a torque sensor while still driving attentively is not. There is no law I’m aware of which expressly require hands on the wheel to constitute attentive driving.

Not legal-

https://money.cnn.com/2018/06/19/technology/tesla-autopilot-buddy-dangerous/index.html


https://www.thatteslachannel.com/the-tesla-autopilot-hack-that-could-land-you-in-jail/

And even if it were, there are plenty of “legal AND stupid” things.

Those two things aren’t mutually exclusive.

FWIW, driving after a drink or two is legal…..also stupid.

 

[Jimrpa]

That hasn’t happened in the 70+ years we’ve had cruise control, has it? Also comparing a torque sensor bypass to a brick on the go-pedal seems like a stretch.

I would point out that pearl-clutchers already want to “regulate ‘AI’” (and call me old school, but until it can pass the true, original Turing Test, it ain’t “AI” in my book ). You really don’t think a couple of high-profile accidents won’t catch the attention of legislators desperate for an easy win?

 

[Mirak]

Not legal-

https://money.cnn.com/2018/06/19/technology/tesla-autopilot-buddy-dangerous/index.html


https://www.thatteslachannel.com/the-tesla-autopilot-hack-that-could-land-you-in-jail/

Did you read those articles? The NHTSA banned the sale of a product specifically marketed at bypassing the safety feature - but not the use of such product (which they cannot), and the second article lists one state out of 50 - Arizona - which has updated its laws. There may be one or two more - I have not done a 50 states survey - but the vast majority of jurisdictions still have no specific laws on this issue other than to require attentive driving.

The Tesla examples often cited are always the egregious examples of somebody hopping in the back of their car, or setting up a laptop, or taking a nap. None of which I am suggesting. Just because some people will use a tool irresponsibly does not make it wrong or stupid to use a tool responsibly.

And even if it were legal

It is pretty much everywhere.

there are plenty of “legal AND stupid” things.

You still have not articulated how bypassing a torque sensor while keeping your eyes on the road and hands at the ready, just like you have to do when using the eye nanny but sans $800 annual subscription, is stupid.

FWIW, driving after a drink or two is legal…..also stupid.

That isn’t stupid. That’s just more ridiculous hyperbole. You’re telling me you’ve never hopped into the car an hour after drinking a beer at a picnic? That’s why our laws have BAC limits.

 

[Mirak]

I would point out that pearl-clutchers already want to “regulate ‘AI’” (and call me old school, but until it can pass the true, original Turing Test, it ain’t “AI” in my book ). You really don’t think a couple of high-profile accidents won’t catch the attention of legislators desperate for an easy win?

Sure, probably. Let’s see how the laws play out.

 

[Mach1E]

Did you read those articles? The NHTSA banned the sale of a product specifically marketed at bypassing the safety feature - but not the use of such product (which they cannot), and the second article lists one state out of 50 - Arizona - which has updated its laws. There may be one or two more - I have not done a 50 states survey - but the vast majority of jurisdictions still have no specific laws on this issue other than to require attentive driving.

The Tesla examples often cited are always the egregious examples of somebody hopping in the back of their car, or setting up a laptop, or taking a nap. None of which I am suggesting. Just because some people will use a tool irresponsibly does not make it wrong or stupid to use a tool responsibly.



It is pretty much everywhere.



You still have not articulated how bypassing a torque sensor while keeping your eyes on the road and hands at the ready, just like you have to do when using the eye nanny but sans $800 annual subscription, is stupid.



That isn’t stupid. That’s just more ridiculous hyperbole. You’re telling me you’ve never hopped into the car an hour after drinking a beer at a picnic? That’s why our laws have BAC limits.

We are arguing about “wise and stupid.”

And if you think that bypassing safety equipment and using products that the government has outlawed the sale and distribution of is “wise,” then I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

I don’t mind articulating why it’s stupid.

It’s pretty simple- people are doing it so they DON’T have to pay as much attention.

The whole point of the hand nanny and eye Nannies (the latter that most cars don’t have) is to force you to pay attention.

Bypassing this safety equipment is……..unsafe. Thus- not wise. And oh yeah….. not legal. When the government bans the sale and distribution of a product that bypasses safety equipment, that DOES NOT make it legal to make your own at home and use it.

Want to test that theory? Get into a wreck with the weight on your wheel and find out if they add “reckless driving” to the list of tickets.

But again, if you think it’s wise, agree to disagree.

And sure, I’ll answer the drink or two question as well. Yes it’s legal,
Yes I’ve done it, yes it’s stupid. I don’t mind admitting I do stupid things from time to time. But I don’t have any good excuses nor try to pretend it’s wise.

 

[Mirak]

We are arguing about “wise and stupid.”

And if you think that bypassing safety equipment and using products that the government has outlawed the sale and distribution of is “wise,” then I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

Well, yes, if you refuse to articulate a reason, then all we can do is disagree

I don’t mind articulating why it’s stupid.

It’s pretty simple- people are doing it so they DON’T have to pay as much attention.

I agree that that’s a very simple argument, but also completely baseless. I would do it avoid paying $800/yr. In either instance I would be keeping my eyes on the road because I’m not stupid enough to ever put my life in the hands of Ford engineers.

Bypassing this safety equipment is……..unsafe. Thus- not wise.

That is an oversimplified, pedantic argument which ignores individual use cases.

And oh yeah….. not legal. When the government bans the sale and distribution of a product that bypasses safety equipment, that DOES NOT make it legal to make your own at home and use it.

It does not make it illegal, either, which is the actual issue. If more states like AZ pass actual laws, then you’ll have a stronger point. But at this point that is very much the exception to the rule.

 

[Mirak]

If I were playing devil’s advocate against my own position, I think the strongest argument is that the problem with my suggested bypass is that it allows the use of hands free driving on roads for which is was never intended. Non-divided highways versus divided highways, for instance. Less margin for error if the car suddenly decides to lurch across the centerline. But, again, that’s an individual use case, so I don’t think it is strong support for a general condemnation of the bypass.

 

[Mach1E]

Well, yes, if you refuse to articulate a reason, then all we can do is disagree

I agree that that’s a very simple argument, but also completely baseless. I would do it avoid paying $800/yr. In either instance I would be keeping my eyes on the road because I’m not stupid enough to ever put my life in the hands of Ford engineers.

Seems you’re choosing to ignore the legality aspect too.

See how that turns out if you get into a wreck or get pulled over. When the NHTSA bans a product as “unsafe,” it’s pretty easy for an officer to give you a reckless driving ticket when you use the unsafe product.

You think it’s just coincidence that Tesla now monitors the cars for the weights and instructs you to remove them?

But yeah, if you think that the NHTSA outlawing the product, the manufacturers putting in extra safety measures specifically against the product, legislators proposing bills to create a special fine for that product, and people going to jail when they abuse the product equals a “baseless argument,” I’m not sure what else I can say.

 

[Mach1E]

If I were playing devil’s advocate against my own position, I think the strongest argument is that the problem with my suggested bypass is that it allows the use of hands free driving on roads for which is was never intended. Non-divided highways versus divided highways, for instance. Less margin for error if the car suddenly decides to lurch across the centerline. But, again, that’s an individual use case, so I don’t think it is strong support for a general condemnation of the bypass.

Even though it’s a more specific example, that would just pile on for reasons not to use it- no distinction on when it is really safe to use.

I can play devils advocate as well- you’re arguing that you can use this product safely.

And honestly, yeah, if you’re paying attention, hands at the ready, eyes on the road, it could be used safely on certain circumstances.

But the NHTSA disagrees. Enough so to ban the product.

Tesla disagrees, enough so to update the software to detect and defeat the product.

Although Ford hasn’t taken an official stance, let’s go ahead and assume they’d disagree if you asked.

 

[Mach1E]

I thought a little more about your devils advocate argument and think you nailed it for why specifically not to use it on the Mach E.

While I was arguing against all cars in general, the Mach E is a special case.

Why? Because the eye nanny doesn’t work safely by itself. It works in conjunction with the hand nanny.

Anyone who’s used BC hands free knows that the eye nanny will tell you to put your hands on the wheel at times.

But if you trick the hand nanny into thinking your hands are on the wheel, the car won’t tell you to put your hands on the wheel, when you should.

I wouldn’t trust the eye nanny by itself without the hand nanny.

 

[Jimrpa]

If I were playing devil’s advocate against my own position, I think the strongest argument is that the problem with my suggested bypass is that it allows the use of hands free driving on roads for which is was never intended. Non-divided highways versus divided highways, for instance. Less margin for error if the car suddenly decides to lurch across the centerline. But, again, that’s an individual use case, so I don’t think it is strong support for a general condemnation of the bypass.

May I offer a (possibly better) “Devil’s Advocate” argument? When the system is in “hands-on” mode, that means that, for a variety of reasons, not all of which we know or understand, the manufacturer has determined they don’t believe the system to be safe enough to operate in “hands-free” mode in those circumstances. If I understand the counter argument correctly, it’s that the operator understands the details of how and why the system operates the way it does and is in a better position to judge how to override the system to have it behave the way they want it to, not the way the manufacturer intended it to. For example, hands-free won’t engage above 80 MPH. Would you use your device to override the intended purpose of the system in those conditions? Hands-free won’t engage in heavy precipitation, including snowy, unplowed roads. Would you use your device to override the intended purpose of the system then?

 

[Mirak]

To answer you both, because I think you’re both making the same basic point, I’ve tested the lane centering plenty both in “hands on” and “hands free” mode, and there is absolutely zero difference that I’ve ever been able to discern. My LC continues to work perfectly even on relatively tight highway curves when BC tells me to put my hands back on the wheel.

There are plenty of times when LC craps the bed because the angle of the sun is blinding the camera or because the road marking are obscured, but this doesn’t seem to have much correlation with BC’s decision-making as to when I need to put my hand back on.

 

[Mach1E]

To answer you both, because I think you’re both making the same basic point, I’ve tested the lane centering plenty both in “hands on” and “hands free” mode, and there is absolutely zero difference that I’ve ever been able to discern. My LC continues to work perfectly even on relatively tight highway curves when BC tells me to put my hands back on the wheel.

There are plenty of times when LC craps the bed because the angle of the sun is blinding the camera or because the road marking are obscured, but this doesn’t seem to have much correlation with BC’s decision-making as to when I need to put my hand back on.

Yes, but will BC tell you to “put your hands on the wheel” when the weight makes the car think your hands are already on the wheel?

 

[Mirak]

Yes, but will BC tell you to “put your hands on the wheel” when the weight makes the car think your hands are already on the wheel?

No. And that’s why the weight helps. Because as a great many can attest, the biggest shortcoming of BC is nagging you to put hands back on the wheel when LC is working perfectly fine.

If LC actually fails, that’s why you’re watching the road. For the 63rd time, you have to watch the road regardless - the only question is whether you’re doing it with an overly sensitive torque sensor, an cheap ankle weight, or an $800 annual subscription.

Sponsored