this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2025
415 points (96.8% liked)

Not The Onion

18741 readers
879 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Aljernon@lemmy.today 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

To be fair, Automatic Emergency Braking sounds like it has enormous potential for things to go wrong but I say that out of concern for safety, not expense.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 1 points 43 minutes ago

I agree completely. In snowy/icy conditions, it could result in more accidents because I know my car's ABS isn't tuned for slippery roads because my braking distance is noticeably shorter when I pump the brakes any time I feel the ABS kicking in instead of just letting ABS do its thing.

Pay attention to what is in front of you and leave enough distance to be able to react calmly in time. AEB sounds like "feature to make it safer for bad drivers". Which, ok, I can get that, but personally, I'd rather see things changed such that bad drivers either get removed from the road or don't get a license in the first place.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 2 points 5 minutes ago

Cars can never be too safe. What I want is a car with no computers or telemetry whatsoever. I want a car that is private with how I use it. Like what they were pre 2000s. Just a hunk of metal to go from point A to point B.

[–] hardcoreufo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

The mandatory safety features are required because the mandatory fuel economy features mean more aero dynamic cars with worse visibility. We have mandatory fuel economy on cars so dumb big ass trucks can just guzzle gas like there's no tomorrow. We can't have regular sized trucks that get decent fuel economy for some reason that has to do with chickens.

[–] Soleos@lemmy.world 0 points 12 minutes ago

I don't know, the Crolloa, RAV4, and CR-V are among the most common cars have good fuel economy without sacrificing visibility.

If you want not so big trucks, there's the Maverick, Ridgeline, and Santa Cruz that can all get decent fuel economy.

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 minutes ago

If you want cheaper cars, that's easy: drop the tariffs on Chinese cars and let them flood the market. Now you have cheap cars and your car makers are dead.

Or you can just announce that if the car average price has not dropped by N % by 202x, you will drop the tariff, and see that your local carmaker are perfectly capable of proposing cheaper vehicles.

And in parallel, given you figure people can no longer afford cars due to salary crunch by inflation, you can develop public transportation.

Oh well… except if the whole thing is just an excuse to deregulate for the benefits of your rich and powerful CEO pals and their shareholders…

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›