I bet this technology will be implemented in our lifetime,

[danny86]

Its already starting....

I always thought to myself. Id the Police and the Government were all about safety. Then why not have sensor on every road that send a signal to the car saying this is the speed limit on this road. And your car CANNOT exceed this speed.

I am 100% AGAINST this idea however I always play the Devil's advocate whenever.

But now parents can limit the speed the vehicle they own can travel at for their kids. Wonder if this will move its way into motorcycles ?

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/29/tech...dex.htm?hpt=T2

[Turbocharged]

I'd be glad to disable any speed restricting devices, for a fee. This might just create a new market for those of us with mechanical know-how and a dislike of the government telling us what to do.

[e30addict]

Feeding the fallacy that speed kills

I hate Big Brother with a passion.

[dhuze]

This will work great in the event of an emergency.

[Fitz]

Doubt they'd do it. They'd say that it's too oppressive but what they mean is that they'd lose too much revenue per year.

Fitz

[G21forme]

Doubt they'd do it. They'd say that it's too oppressive but what they mean is that they'd lose too much revenue per year.

Fitz

bingo

[SVRACER01]

Wirelessly posted (HTC EVO "DROID" : Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.2; en-us; Sprint APA9292KT Build/FRF91) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

I still don't understand seatbelt and helmet laws. The seatbelt and helmet are designed to protect the occupants of the vehicle. Shouldn't it be your choice if you want to be protected?

[e30addict]

Wirelessly posted (HTC EVO "DROID" : Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.2; en-us; Sprint APA9292KT Build/FRF91) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

I still don't understand seatbelt and helmet laws. The seatbelt and helmet are designed to protect the occupants of the vehicle. Shouldn't it be your choice if you want to be protected?

Society seems to want to protect the stupid from themselves.

Similar examples:

Tire pressure monitoring systems
Lane Departure Warnings
Stability Control

The list goes on and on.

I say let Darwin sort them out, but them again I'm told I can be an asshole.

[Mr. Kurtz]

Society seems to want to protect the stupid from themselves.

Similar examples:

Tire pressure monitoring systems
Lane Departure Warnings
Stability Control

The list goes on and on.

I say let Darwin sort them out, but them again I'm told I can be an asshole.

That's sort of backwards, because for those three systems which you hold to "protect the stupid from themselves," I see:

chronic low tire pressure leading to failure at speed, causing that car to lose control and hit another(TPMS)

driver drifts off to sleep, veers out of their lane and into another, causing another car to be pushed off the road or get into an accident(lane departure warning)

driver loses control of vehicle(ice/wet/etc) and spins out, directly into oncoming traffic, causing a multio car accident(stability control)

I'm not saying these types of safety features will always prevent these types of accidents, but they can certainly help prevent them in some cases. Do you really not see how the 3 above mentioned safety feature can have a positive impact on not just the drivers of the cars that have them, but the cars around those?

Perhaps a better way to view it would be "protecting the stupid from each other?"

[Turbocharged]

Wirelessly posted (HTC EVO "DROID" : Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.2; en-us; Sprint APA9292KT Build/FRF91) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

I still don't understand seatbelt and helmet laws. The seatbelt and helmet are designed to protect the occupants of the vehicle. Shouldn't it be your choice if you want to be protected?

Next thing you know they'll require you to wear a condom unless you fill out the proper conception paperwork.
For your protection...

[e30addict]

That's sort of backwards, because for those three systems which you hold to "protect the stupid from themselves," I see:

chronic low tire pressure leading to failure at speed, causing that car to lose control and hit another(TPMS)

driver drifts off to sleep, veers out of their lane and into another, causing another car to be pushed off the road or get into an accident(lane departure warning)

driver loses control of vehicle(ice/wet/etc) and spins out, directly into oncoming traffic, causing a multio car accident(stability control)

I'm not saying these types of safety features will always prevent these types of accidents, but they can certainly help prevent them in some cases. Do you really not see how the 3 above mentioned safety feature can have a positive impact on not just the drivers of the cars that have them, but the cars around those?

Perhaps a better way to view it would be "protecting the stupid from each other?"

I like the stupid from each other line. I'm kinda jaded so I view it as:

1. TPMS - People are too lazy bother to check the tire pressure of what they're operating (reference Ford Explorer). Then they suffer the consequences and the government mandates an annoying and costly system to compensate for common sense.

2. Lane Departure - Know your limitations and stay within them. Pay attention to what the fuck you're doing. If you're too tired to drive and fall asleep, or have to text someone etc.... you should live with the consequences of those actions.

3. Stability control and other electronic aids - Costly, heavy and complex systems to compensate for the simple fact that people can't drive for shit.

Yes, I can see the advantages to above, but at what cost? Ironically, everyone wants lighter weight cars that get better fuel economy. All these things make that more and more difficult to accomplish. We pay over and over again for these systems. We pay in fuel costs, acquisition costs and maintenance/repair costs. If we invested a small fraction of that money in ACTUAL driver training, not the watered down rubber stamp process we have now, everyone would be much better off overall. It even ties in with less loss of life due to people choosing not to use seatbelts/helmets. Lower the risk of a crash in the first place and you lower the chances of being injured because you chose no protection.

We're treating the symptom and not the disease.

[e30addict]

Next thing you know they'll require you to wear a condom unless you fill out the proper conception paperwork.
For your protection...

License to conceive and reproduce?














Actually not that bad an idea

[gadget]

imho...these systems are an important step in implementing the autopilot feature that I can't wait for. I would love to have a car that could drive itself so I could nap/read/text etc I just can't see that happenning unless these other systems aren't proven first.

[e30addict]

imho...these systems are an important step in implementing the autopilot feature that I can't wait for. I would love to have a car that could drive itself so I could nap/read/text etc I just can't see that happenning unless these other systems aren't proven first.

What happens when the recreational aspect of transportation disappears along with these developments? Ride a bike for fun? No more..... We'll all step into pods and be whisked away to our destinations

The other side to autopilots is that there is still the risk of "user error". Look at aviation accidents for examples. Someone needs to monitor things. ATC on the ground now?

[Mr. Kurtz]

,,, they suffer the consequences...

... you should live with the consequences of those actions...

...to compensate for the simple fact that people can't drive for shit....

I hear your point, but in the above I also see that others will suffer the consequences of those accidents, too. If these systems keep me safer from other people's driving errors/inattention, I can't say they're bad thing. Just saying people should "learn to drive" unfortunately isn't a feasible replacement.

imho...these systems are an important step in implementing the autopilot feature that I can't wait for. I would love to have a car that could drive itself so I could nap/read/text etc I just can't see that happenning unless these other systems aren't proven first.

I want the autopilot thing so I can have a built in designated driver.

[e30addict]

If these systems keep me safer from other people's driving errors/inattention, I can't say they're bad thing.

I don't think they're necessarily a bad thing; they cost to much though.

Just saying people should "learn to drive" unfortunately isn't a feasible replacement.

I'm not. I'm saying it's a much better return on the investment if we spent the money on driver training (and had realistic licensing) rather than devices to compensate for the lack of it.

Driving is viewed as a right not a privelege. It should be the other way around.

[Mr. Kurtz]

I'm not. I'm saying it's a much better return on the investment if we spent the money on driver training (and had realistic licensing) rather than devices to compensate for the lack of it.

Driving is viewed as a right not a privelege. It should be the other way around.

I agree, in a perfect world, everyone would be taught to drive skillfully, in control, and within reasonable limits.

In the real world, you barely have to drive around the block to get a license, tons of people drive intoxicated/distracted, and everyone thinks they're a great driver and capable of driving faster than everyone else.

These technologies are all market driven. If you can invent a new technological aid that will make a car safer, you can sell it. People will buy that, just like they did with airbags, ABS, etc. It's easy to see the benefit.

Create a new type of instructional program to teach realistic driving skills to people who lack them...your business will fail. People won't buy it, because it that would require them to first recognize that they need it.

[e30addict]

These technologies are all market driven. If you can invent a new technological aid that will make a car safer, you can sell it. People will buy that, just like they did with airbags, ABS, etc. It's easy to see the benefit.

Create a new type of instructional program to teach realistic driving skills to people who lack them...your business will fail. People won't buy it, because it that would require them to first recognize that they need it.

I see where you're coming from and agree on the business side of things.

Airbags, TPMS and stability control are all government mandates though; not really market driven. It may be a selling feature for people now, but it all started with the government.

Airbags started as a half ass solution to minimize damage to people who refused to wear a seatbelt.

TPMS is a direct result of the Ford/Firestone fiasco.

Stability control is mandated for cars starting in 2012.

If we must have the government involved I'd rather have them make drastic changes to the training and licensing programs. I'll acknowledge it will never happen because it would cause public uproar and upset the manufacturing industry a bit. Political suicide, but I can dream.

As an interesting side note: ABS isn't mandatory in cars but there is a proposal to make it mandatory on motorcycles?

[Mr. Kurtz]

I see where you're coming from and agree on the business side of things.

Airbags, TPMS and stability control are all government mandates though; not really market driven. It may be a selling feature for people now, but it all started with the government.

Other than TPMS, they actually all started as selling features, and then became mandated. Airbags were in use 20 years before the US mandated them specifically(1997). TPMS systems were driven mainly by the Ford/Firestone tire recall, but people's uproar pushed the TREAD Act. Stability control was around for 10 years before it became mandated in the US(it's older brother traction control for 10 before that).

[Mr. Kurtz]

As an interesting side note: ABS isn't mandatory in cars but there is a proposal to make it mandatory on motorcycles?

I didn't specifically look into ABS regulation, but since the basic sensors and actuators for ABS are necessary for stability control, I'm assuming there is no need to regulate it separately.

[e30addict]

Started was perhaps the wrong word.

Airbags weren't mandated until the 90's but the Joan Claybrook's of the world hastened their development.

I understand where you're coming from, but the traction control/stability systems were mostly on high end vehicles. Now, because of the government, whether or not you want them is not consumer choice anymore. They took the freedom of letting the market decide what it wanted away

[e30addict]

I didn't specifically look into ABS regulation, but since the basic sensors and actuators for ABS are necessary for stability control, I'm assuming there is no need to regulate it separately.

Dunno, never really got into it either. Mostly venting and killing time on a slow winters day

[bryco13]

They can either go the route of keeping the cars speed regulated, or just keep hiking up gas prices, keeping less cars on the road. I'm buyin' a scooter.

[r6rammy]

wow, this thread is interesting, i'll rest it at that.

[e30addict]

wow, this thread is interesting, i'll rest it at that.

Dive in. Water is warm