I absolutely want electronics built into car! Requirements for antilock brakes, electronic fuel injection, and other electronics in vehicles has made them safer and more efficient. The other items on your list I can agree with, though.
And ECUs make it so easy to manage all of these things! I love 80s/90s Japanese sports cars, but I don't think we need to go back to the era of using a gazillion vacuum lines to control all kinds of esoteric valves and sensors. But I agree with everything else; I don't want my car to connect to the internet, I don't want my car to track my travel and driving habits, and I definitely don't want that data sent to the manufacturer to be sold.
It really just smacks of greed and nothing else... selling cars has a long history of being a profitable business on its own. You don't need to steal your customers' data to turn it into another revenue stream, but it sure looks good on a financial report.
> It really just smacks of greed and nothing else... selling cars has a long history of being a profitable business on its own. You don't need to steal your customers' data to turn it into another revenue stream, but it sure looks good on a financial report.
Its not only greed, its also a race to the bottom. If you're GM, you might prefer not doing that, but if your competition starts doing that, then you're at a competitive disadvantage, because they'll have more money to invest in engineers/production optimization, etc. So the logic then goes that you might as well do it first.
This is a case where you need government regulations to enforce mutual disarmament.
Or GM could not do it, and loudly advertise the fact that their cars are more private than their competitors, who snitch on you to insurance companies. The marketing alone would be worth far more than they gain from selling the data.
>I absolutely want electronics built into car! Requirements for antilock brakes, electronic fuel injection, and other electronics in vehicles has made them safer and more efficient.
There are car people out there who would rather drive a fully analog car without any electronics such as ABS - though that typically means a hardcore sports car such as a Caterham.
Too bad new cars are required by law to have a real time internet connection so that the police can track them and execute remote shutdown commands. There's no opting out of government law by selecting a different brand
The best way to combat this is walking and bike lanes. With no alternative to cars for most people you will see this kind of behavior continue.
Trying to pit automakers against each other on this topic and others is the misdirection. They want to distract you from wanting alternatives so that you don’t even need to have a spying car in the first place.
What about them? The roads are still there and they can still use them.
I’m suggesting that future growth can be handled better by providing alternatives to forced car ownership, and so if you don’t want your data collected by your car you can have an alternative.
There is no reasonable alternative. Public transport is unreasinable for most people when you look at suburban and rural areas for the bulk of places people live and work given how spread out everything is.
But you’re also missing the forest for the trees. There are easy wins in public transit that can reduce car usage but we refuse to fund them. Bike lanes and street cars in urban areas for example can reduce car usage (and reduce congestion for drivers) and allow us to do more with less. I’d prefer riding a bike a mile down the road to grab groceries (or just walking) but our infrastructure makes that impossible and so I have to drive a car, taking up a limited parking spot and slowing your driving down too.
Most Americans actually live in urban environments as well. We aren’t that spread out actually.
I cannot emphasize strongly enough how little public transit makes sense as a replacement for cars in most suburban and rural areas.
As in - you are asking people to sacrifice a 15 minute drive home for a 1.5 hour public transit commute with home in many cases.
Their life and their time is worth more than enough to get a car at that point.
There is also no "walking to the train or bus stop" for most people because they live spread out enough that there is no conceivable way public transit could work as a replacement for cars.
In Columbus our regional transit agency COTA built parking lots out in the suburbs.
They call it park and ride. [1]
People who live in more remote areas or even not far away in the suburbs will park their car at the parking lot and hop on the bus as it heads toward areas like downtown where a lot of jobs are or to other large employment centers. Sometimes people just meet up at these locations and carpool too so you don’t have to take the bus.
They don’t have to stress about traffic, or pay for parking (parking lots are economic outflows so this is a nice side effect), and they can work or read or do any number of more productive and interesting things instead of pay attention and drive.
This is just one example where without even making any drastic changes we can reduce reliance on cars and leverage existing infrastructure better than we are today.
As cities like Columbus and other small/medium size cities modify zoning to allow for more dense development in urban corridors instead of additional vehicles on the road, turning your 15 minute commute into 45 minutes - 1 hour, we can reduce the impact of population increase on our highways and we can do so at much lower cost in all aspects with better transit (bikes, trams, bus, sidewalks).
Socializing auto-only infrastructure is not smart and it’s way too expensive not just in terms of taxpayer dollars but also in the mandatory costs of car ownership: insurance, loans with interest, data harvesting that you won’t have a say in, gas, wars to secure gas supplies, kids dying in car crashes instead of living good lives, new windshield wipers, oil changes, etc. - these are all costs we can reduce for more people. [2]
For those living in rural areas nothing really changes (frankly not much changes for suburban areas either). They’re already on the gubmint dole and receiving large road maintenance subsidies that their tax base can’t support. They’re more than welcome to spend an hour driving and paying for parking but that’s not an excuses to not build sidewalks and other basic necessities where most of us live.
I am with you, but the power that Big Auto and Big Oil wield in this realm makes it impossible to foster change unless consumers start collectively organizing. Good luck with that. I hate to say it, but that war feels already lost in the US. There is hope elsewhere, perhaps, but sadly, the US is shackled to their cars and trucks by the civil engineering that resulted in suburbia.
I think it's still hopeful. Even in places like Columbus we have regional leaders and mayors who recognize we can't just do "cars forever". Younger people I speak with want to be able to walk to places too. It'll be a battle but I think we can make things better for everyone, including drivers.
i don't want electronics built into cars
i don't want data coming from my car
i don't need a phone to be built into my car
i don't need navigation to be built into my car
they need to stay in their lane
we need anti-enshittification laws