My car makes it slightly difficult to change lanes if I don’t signal, some resistance on the steering wheel and a warning beep beep beep that I’m “drifting.” There are some terrible roads around here that confuse the sensors so I do a bit of steering wheel arm wrestling now and then just to keep going straight.
That is why I turned lane assist off after a dozen false positives that felt like the car was going to steer me into danger with no benefits.
Parking assist got turned off when parking in a garage set off a cacophony.
It was when I was holding leftmost lane position passing a semi and it beeped and tried to steer me into said semi that I decided it can fuck off for ever lol
In my experience, lane assist is pretty good on the highways, and actively terrible everywhere else.
The only “feature” I hated more than lane assist was hill start assist. Chirped my tires, or stalled completely, on every fucking hill.
Do you have trouble staying in your lane on the highway?
That’s the easiest place to stay in a lane.
How strong is the lane assist in your car? If I was weak enough to even be bothered by the lane assist in my car, I’d figure it was time to stop driving. It certainly has never come close to overriding my steering.
Ever drive on a construction zone where they’ve started to rip up pavement and half the lane is an inch higher than the other half? Ever change lanes into that lane, and feel the steering fight you or lurch as you cross that lip?
The problem isn’t the strength needed to overcome the lane assist. It’s easy to fight it. The problem comes when you know you are well centered in the lane. But, all the sudden, you’re being pushed left or right, and you have to quickly determine whether you’re feeling uneven pavement. Or maybe a tie rod end or a ball joint has some slop in it. Maybe the power steering pump is leaking and running dry. Or, maybe the fucking lane assist thinks a strip of tar in the middle of the lane is a lane marker, and it wants me to cross the centerline.
The problem isn’t whether or not I can take it in a fair fight. The problem is that it throws a punch.
Motherboard front panel connectors should be officially standardized. These fucking things have been basically the same since the 90s, but we still have to line up all the individual wires instead of having one plug.
Oh, and fix RGB headers while we’re at it. They’re the flimseist fucking thing, and you shouldn’t be able to use a 4 pin plug on a three pin header.
Make the manufacturers comply with standard rgb headers. I’ve got several accessories that came with rgb headers that I have no idea what the hell they were supposed to connect to other than maybe some proprietary controller. Absurd when most any decent common mobo all use the same connector type.
Also modular power supplies while we’re at it thanks. 20 years and the cables still can’t be reused/you have to remanage the whole damn case when doing a swap
That’s already a thing? I have several power supplies that have completely detachable cables allowing the psu to be swapped directly. Not sure how standardised the psu side of the cable is between manufacturers, but this does exist in some form.
This is probably the best thing about lane assist on modern cars.
When changing lanes without a turn signal, the wheel resists a bit.
I have actually seen people I drove with be annoyed by it. I absolutely love it, because it is only annoying if you don’t use your turn signals.
This is probably the best thing about lane assist on modern cars.
Absolutely not. It’s fucking dangerous. The one time I drove a rental like that, I went through a construction area downtown, and it tried to steer me right into a construction fence when I was following the yellow temporary construction lane markers that were going around the fenced off area.
If you know it’s there & how to disengage it, yes. As I said, this was a rental with a dangerous system enabled & no warning. I disengaged it right after this incident.
You’re just a shit driver. It does not prevent you from steering the vehicle.
A car nudging you towards an accident is dangerous, even if it’s not forcing you into an accident.
An unnecessary distraction that needs active attention in a chaotic situation is a bad thing, bad driver or not. And yeah, there are many bad drivers out there. Cars should be designed to be driven by bad drivers, not armchair experts.
What if their arms are just really weak, you do have to turn the wheel slightly more than normal.
I disagree, it’s annoying in general.
If I need to go around, say, a mail truck parked on the side of the road, the steering assist in our work van starts to rumble or shake or whatever it does. If there’s construction, you guessed it, it doesn’t understand that I have to cross over the line to continue driving, and if I have a turn signal on, the cop/worker directing traffic is going to expect me to go that way.
If a car is driving in the opposite direction and starts to ride/cross the double yellow lines, me moving over causes the vehicle to resist and fight me, potentially putting me into an accident because I didn’t think to put my turn signal on in a split-second situation.
My car should not be able to, idk what word I’m looking for, override me? People need to take driving more seriously and stop handing off their responsibilities to a computer system/sensor that can not only fail, but also doesn’t understand real world applications.
I love the lane assist on my car. It does resist me a little bit in the situations you describe, but it’s not a strong resistance. Just enough to get my attention if i do it by accident, but not enough to hinder me going where i need to go.
Now i’m curious what the lane assist parameters look like for different makes and models…
Mine works like yours, it’ll jottle me a bit but if I want the car to go there it goes there, I don’t need special efforts to make it happen. It also has the auto-brake thing in case you’re about to rear end someone and I’ve set it to high to see it working but even that I only managed to make it beep and flash but not actually brake yet, looks like it would only do it pretty late. I think most people complaining about this are having an “back in my days” moment tbh, but maybe there are indeed cars out there where the implementation is more invasive.
Anecdotally, I’ve heard people say they almost got into a crash because of lane assist, especially with the white/yellow temporary lines. But that does depend a ton on the car.
I have to agree that if you have to turn, you should be able to turn, lane assist be damned - we’re not yet at the level where a car can accurately judge 100% of the road situations. But it’s probably a good thing we’re moving into a future where crossing lanes without turn signals feels like a virtual bump on the road.
On a Hyundai, there’s a very annoying beeping pretty much coinciding with the wheels hitting the lane markings - which IMHO is too little too late, and besides around here most lane markings are made to rumble so it’s not like an additional audio signal is needed.
On my ex’es brand new car, that feature got turned off after very few kilometres, and has stayed off ever since.
Suicide assist is horrible. Around here there is no middle of the road separator, to narrow road. So it tries to hit head first the traffic in the opposite way.
The more properties you own, the more tax you pay on the price of the next one - excluding if you only own one, but escalating quickly after like 3 or 4.
Possible formula: Tax for n-th house = n-th Fibonacci number + 5 * max(0, n - 2). So low numbers like three get penalized by that linear part, and high numbers grow exponentially due to the Fibonacci number.
Texas is that way to a point. Your primary residence gets enormous tax breaks. Any property after that, fuck you, pay up. The downside to that is that it contributes to the high cost of rent as the owner passes it along to the tenant.
Does it increase per property owned though? They can’t keep passing on the tax increase to the tenant if at a certain point they own 1000 houses and now their tax on the last one is 7 times higher than the rent on it.
That’s what we should be doing any house after your second gets increased a ton per house. Make it untenable for people to own rental properties. I don’t mind someone having a vacation house or two if they can afford it. But nobody needs 10 vacation houses, they’re rental or investment properties at that point so fuck them.
Are you talking about a homestead exemption? I think most places have something like that but it’s just a discount on the house you live in so not an increase on the other properties. They would just get normal tax rates for any additional properties. I think making it an exponential tax would make a huge difference.
Yes homestead. I’m not sure how other states do it.
Texas increased from ten thousand to twenty five thousand to forty thousand to a hundred thousand in a short period.
So semantics. I say increase for other houses, you say discount for primary house. Either way you choose to phrase it, you pay less for your primary residence and more for other properties.
My city somewhat does this. You get a significant tax break on your primary residence, so if you rent out your house you pay more.
Serious question, couldn’t you bypass this by just setting up different LLCs that only have one or two properties under them?
If you own a house with nobody living in it, you gotta pay rent to the state each month for the privilege of keeping it empty.
After a while, it’s just part of the cost.
Not much of an expense imo. Like giving a speeding ticket to a billionaire, it doesn’t actually mean much if you’re rich enough.
Id rather make the initial purchase cost extraordinarily expensive after buying more than two houses. Third house is 5x the cost. Fourth house is 50x the cost. Nobody needs four houses so it’s a fuck you tax.
And at scale it will eat into investor returns, making holding them empty a less profitable endeavor. They would suddenly go from having a neutral MRR asset turned into a negative MRR if they choose not to rent out. You can bet your sweet bippy that the bean counters are going to notice the difference and argue to sell or rent them to cut the expenses.
It’s not just another cost of doing business though, it’s specifically a cost of not doing business.
So imagine someone has been buying up homes to rent them. Market rate for rent is $1000 and they own 1000 units (just to make the math easy). That means they would profit $1 million every month with every unit filled, and lose $1 million every month for leaving every unit empty.
Now imagine they have half the units filled, so they are getting $0 each month. They could try and raise the rent over market rate to cover the cost, but that would make it harder to fill the empty units and encourage their tenants to leave. If they lower the rent a bit though, they could fill the empty units and erase the cost entirely. Now imagine every landlord is in this dilemma; it puts the pressure onto them to appeal to prospective tenants. They could even increase profit by housing people for free, just filling units with the homeless to reduce costs.
If they don’t change behavior and just eat the cost, then that’s more money for the state to invest in housing programs.
But they mean specifically a vacancy tax. So anyone who owned vacant property would have a large additional payment or get it rented
I don’t see this working. Not only the property owners would transfer this cost to your monthly payments, the government would need an enormous bureaucracy to actually control and enforce this law. I don’t believe this is technically possible to achieve.
No, like market rate for the property. Everyone pays property tax, regardless of whether the property is vacant or occupied.
My dad inherited my grandma’s ancient house recently and is practically forced to find a way to remodel it to be rentable because there is a imputed rental value tax where I’m from.