I'm not trying to start an argument, but I am curious what you guys have to say about this thought.
Recently I watched a TV item about "smart" cars, that is cars that communicate with each other to avoid collisions. The technology is here and being tried out (can't remember where they said). If we can do this with technology, why can't we use similar gadgets to control speed for our mutual safety?
I'm sure you have all had the experience of being passed, sometimes legally (except for the other cars speed) and sometimes not by a vehicle traveling significantly over the speed limit. Sometimes it's not a really big deal, sometimes it is. Sometimes the excess speed causes catastrophic results.
Why not simply require all vehicles to be equipped with a radio controlled governor and broadcast a signal over all freeways, expressways, major roads and major streets that prevents speeding? It could be set up so the vehicle responds to whatever the speed limit is for that vehicle.
What's that you say? It would interfere with your right to break the law in in doing so endanger my life and those of my family? Too bad. Impose a penalty for altering the set-up and/or driving with it not working of vehicle confiscation and drivers license revoked for at least one year. After all, what I'm suggesting is just forced compliance with existing law that should have been followed in the first place. Not only would it undoubtedly reduce highway deaths, think of the fuel it would save.
I guess I've just had it with what we have to put up with on our streets and highways every day and would be prepared to incur the problems of such a plan just to provide some level of safety to me and mine. What do you guys think?
I'm not trying to start an argument, but...
Henry, Henry,Henry don't you know that traffic citations are not about safety but generating funds for whatever state or local agency you got the ticket from look at all the "FREE" revenue they would lose do you want the cities towns and states to go broke? ;)
I would be OK if it also insisted that you also drive the speed limit, no more, no less. Oh well, there goes driving our model T's on the roads.
MY experience is politicians just love to be seen "doing something" about a perceived problem. They tend to be really good at killing flys with nuclear weapons (this is a analogy)!!
So just please really think through what you ask for. I believe there is a saying "be careful what you ask for, you just might get it"!!!
Ever used a camera that does everything for you to take a picture of someone in front of an open window on a sunny day? You get a nice picture of a dark shadow in front of the background.
Now they are wanting to make cars drive without the driver. Some day you will not know how to drive a car, write your name, read the printed word, or wipe your own a.. Look what cash registers have done for math when you go the store. They only hand you the money the machine tells them to give you. Anyone remember the day when they would count it back to you? Most people can't count past 10 any more. Progress is nice but don't take life out of living!
Glad you place so much faith in technology. Technology brought us the Challenger disaster, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island.
Both my young granddaughters can count back your change.
The game of Monopoly is a great teaching tool.
Also teaches them some money management at the same time.
Teach them to play cribbage for some mental number prowess as well.
Sneaky but it works !!!! Now if they would only let me win a few . . .
i like a tv thats just a tv, no extra buttons,last nite mine had 2 channels playing at once, never seen that before, dont know how to fix it, a phone thats just a phone, and i'll drive the car, thank you
OK, OK. Not one "That's a great idea" comment. I can take a hint.
Still, there are some drivers out there who should be locked up indefinitely for the way they drive!
Let me give you a further example. 25 years ago there was stink here about unscrupulous people repairing and selling written off cars using third rate methods. The cars in question had been bought is other jurisdictions and so did not appear in the local motor vehicle registration system. We had been through a regime of annual inspections that had proven to be a bad joke. So the system was quite wide open, but buyer beware was the philosophy. So a stink was raised and the system was changed that if a vehicle did not appear in the system it required a inspection by a licensed shop. So far OK. Of course they included ALL vehicles including our model T's etc. Take a model T(or other early car) to most shops and they don't know where to start or stop!!. It can get really awkward in a hurry. Fortunately we have been lucky in that one of our local club members has a qualified shop.
So fast forward to now. The used car lots have banded together to "license" each other and are now lobbying the government to clamp down on "curbers". Hey I am quite sure we have all sold a used car our selves (and probably bought a few privately as well). Anyway these guys will not be happy until they have "regulated" this "business". Right now the threshold seems to be 5 sales a year. But you know they won't be happy there if they can get that to be a law. The extension will be that you won't be able to privately sell (or buy privately) any car if these guys have there way. Of course it will all be for the "protection of the public interest"!!! So be happy!!!!
I agree. I've had enough of the excessive technology. There's a car ad on TV that shows a woman sitting in a car that is parking itself. She is holding her hands up and away from the steering wheel like she's afraid of it. I don't want to be on the road with someone like that. I just bought a new fridge. They had one in the store that played a video and talked to me when I pushed a button. That's nuts. I used to think the Amish were cuckoo. I don't think like that anymore.
"excessive technology"thats a good term, i just cant think of a positive use for it. henry, you are 100 percent correct, there are certainly some fools driving around, but what to do about it? more laws? that won't change any thing, drivers training? got that already. fact is some people don't care about anything but themselves, and that hasn't changed since the begining of time
Dave,We were in a Amish hardware last week and they sell large modern referidgerators [spelling opt] but they run on propane! T think they have to light a match to turn on the light when the door is oppened.Bud in Wheeler.
The fact that I drive a Model T should speak for what I think of this idea. As for the problem drivers, I refer you to the phrase, "You can't fix stupid",
I think this technology will cause many accidents for the following reasons. People will expect the car to control it's speed and they get used to it. Then something will break down without the driver's knowledge and they will crash. It could also run away like the Lexus and Toyota's which accelerated without the owners control and crashed. The idea is a good one, but I don't think it will be as safe as they think.
I'm no more interested in having a car that decides how it's supposed to be driven than I am in having a car where the 'low tire pressure' light comes on (at random), when none of the tires are low. I already have one of those.
yea, I am waiting to be I 40 1 day when a dang Toy yoda decides it wants to parallel part it's self when everyone else is doing 70 mph.
When I was in college I drew up something to help maintain a car in it's lane.But it was a passive system.A infared light would shine on the asphalt and if it reflected from the white or yellow lines back to a sensor it would sound a alarm to alert the driver to make a correction.
I think they have really messed up designing cars with active controls.I knew something like this would come along when they started installing electric power steering in cars.
Frankly in my humble opinion,you should not possess a drivers license unless you can drive column shift manual transmission vehicles.
How much safer would the roads be if they did away with all the comforts? You would have to shift gears,STEER the car, instead of finger tip it, you would have to adjust your seat with a lever.The brakes would give you a sphincter tightening experience each time you pushed down the pedal because they would be manual.
Would you be able to hold a cell phone? HUM,I doubt it
We would get safer right quick from removal of that 1 option.
remember when to change the radio, you just reach over and grab a big ol knob and turn it up, down, what ever. didnt have to take your eyes off the road, and every radio was the same. now, 37 buttons, writing so small a child would use a magnifying glass, 100 preset channels!! (i use 2), and to do any thing you have to read the inch thick manual that is at the bottom of the glove box, so either pull over and park, or just for get it. i could learn all that, really, i was fooling with gadgets at a very early age, but when every car is different how can you learn it?
The Challenger disaster was not due to too much faith in technology but due to a management decision to ignore the advice of MT engineers and go for launch. The problem is not technology but what people do with it.
Now regarding V2V systems, almost all of the currently proposed uses are a disaster in waiting and further dumbing down of the human race...
Henry Petrino - Well Henry, look at what you started, right? Ha,ha,.....not what you intended, I'm sure, however, it certainly has become an interesting discussion.
It has reminded me of some things that I wouldn't ordinarily have thought of. For instance, I remember, as a 10 year old kid, thinking how "old fashioned" my Dad was when he bought his "first ever" new car. It was a '51 Pontiac that he got an excellent deal on when the dealer was trying to get rid of the few remaining '51's when the new '52's came out. Dad couldn't pass up such a good deal, but he was very disappointed (and quite vocal about it) when he had to accept that the car was just what he wanted, except that it "DIDN'T" have a standard 3-speed transmission,.....it had that "damned hydromatic" which he absolutely hated! Wanted to shift gears when "HE" wanted to, "NOT" when the car wanted to,.....(his words). Now, we have millions of people that can't drive a stick shift car, and millions more that could, but don't want to. That's just an example, and isn't really a very important issue, but there are (in my opinion) things happening nowadays that are important.
Because of computer "technology" and things like "texting", my grandkids are not even being taught to write in cursive. One of my grandsons is absolutely brilliant,......went all thru' grade school in an "advanced" school, but now in high school, still "PRINTS" everything he writes. I'm told that writing in cursive is just not necessary anymore! Well, maybe so, but cursive still exists, and will for quite some time, but guess what,......my grandson can't read it very well either!
This compares to what someone earlier in this thread said about people that can no longer "count change" because the cash register does it for them,....another good example. But I'm becoming convinced that our society will become (is becoming) a bunch of high-tech dummies! Even this forum is an example of what's happening, if you consider the declining use of good grammar, spelling and disregard of proper punctuation. And I include myself in that too by the way........
Yeah, I know,........an ol' fashioned "fuddy-duddy", right?
Well Harold, from one ol' fashioned fuddy-duddy to another you sure hit some points that are close to home! My dad's first new car was also a '51, but a Ford not Pontiac. I too clearly remember hot words about the "damn automatic transmissions" and shifting when I want not when it wants.
My grandkids cursive skills are also limited. Texting seems to be the preferred method of communication. Unfortunately, it leaves behind spelling, grammar and sentence structure.
Counting change is one of my biggest pet peeves. It seems many store clerks can't even count much less make change. I have often had a purchase total of, say, $4.05 and handed over a $5 bill. The clerk instantly enters the $5 and the register instantly says my change is $.95, but in the mean time I found a nickel in my pocket and handed it over. It seems it's too much for them.
Oh well. As time goes by I now often find myself just quietly watching such things instead of wading in as I would have years ago.
Well then how would I do 5 over on the interstate? Seriously though, 5 over doesn't make me any less safe of a driver and the rarity of a cop pulling me over for 5 over is slim to none. Risk vs. Reward.
Also, if I could have all of the time back that was spent teaching me cursive and instead used to teach me something I would use, say... basic mechanics class, then we wouldn't all be complaining about a "throwaway society" and "These stupid kids can't fix anything" After all, the only time I use cursive is for thank you letters.
What ever happened to "If it ain't broke, why fix it?". Too often change is for change sake only. As to people who drive and disregard the safety rules would most likely be the ones who would disable the safety devises fitted to their cars to go faster. They do that now with large trucks here and the authorities are now just taking action to chase down the offenders, takes a tanker explosion and a death in the centre of Sydney to make them move. The more we become lazy, the more we try to make our lives easier. the sooner we start to reject some of the so called advances, and affect the profitability from these it will continue. But alas the new generations will only want more of this type of lifestyle and it will proceed at an alarming pace, we have only just begun to see what is to come. Laws are made to protect the ones that would otherwise hurt themselves, and those unfortunate to be in the vicinity of their stupidity, and designed for the lowest common denominator. There was a saying once " Ban low performance drivers, not high performance cars!",
no profit from that so the status quo remains. Can apply this to so many things in life.
I think us ol' fuddy-duddies" could "bore" a lot of forum folks Henry, and you could really get me started here, but I just have to add that I don't think much of "spellcheck" either!
I know of high paid executives and manager types that, because of spellcheck, (admittedly MY opinion only) they really, really look bad to their employees, clients, customers, etc. They complete some form of correspondence by hitting spellcheck, and correct a few words that "light up" and then send the document on, thinking that it's just fine because they corrected all of the highlighted words.
Only trouble is, they don't take time to consider that spellcheck doesn't care a hoot about bad grammar, punctuation, etc. It drives me crazy to see people write "your", when they mean "you're" or, "you are". And people even write as poorly as they speak, when they say "then" when they mean "than". And my all-time pet peeve is people saying or worse yet, WRITING,......"I seen this", or "I seen that", and some have become so used to this that they don't even consider it an error! That's the sad part!
Okay,....enough! And once again, I'm not really being critical, because I'm as guilty as many others, I'm just saying that we have come to rely so much on technology that we are "loosing" in other areas,.......harold
P.S. According to spell check, I spelled it wrong in my "rant" as it's not one word, it's two! Ahhhh,.....so what!
No one ever says how much this stuff will cost...and who will pay for it. The "nanny state' requires lots of resources to regiment our existence properly. Just open that wallet a little wider.
One last thing,John B.Cheshire started as a cub reporter for the Bradenton Harold and before he died had his own column. I remember as a young boy he would give I and my younger brother a copy of the Sunday paper and tell us something like there are two grammatical errors on the front page I'll give you 25 cents apiece if you can find them! I would go broke if I tried that with any of today's papers and that includes NYT.
Cars have no personality nowadays and are just another kitchen appliance...this'll help that along.
My point on the reliance on technology was to point out it works fine until the weak link is identified. That weak link may be human interference, material failure, or any number of other things. What I was trying to point out on my 'excessive reliance on technology' was this, there will be failures and often the cost is human life.
I don't see how speed control will work out just by mandating it. Heck, we just just declare cancer as illegal and that problem would be solved. It is rarely if ever that simple.
As long as the cars and the law were applicable to California only, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Better yet, take all the cars off the road out there and it would be safer, cleaner and greener.
G.R. - You owe me 25 cents – It’s “my younger brother and I”
The temperature is minus 4º F today – Excessive maybe but hurray for heated seats!!!
Art - Maybe you're both wrong,.....it might just be my younger brother and me.
Hmmm - an online grammar checker shows my way and then other acceptable use.
Guess I’ll stick with finding patents. <@^@>
I have a neighbor who is in favor of anything the government wants to do for us. All controls on our lives are for the better is how he feels. Our state passed a law that you would be ticketed if you turn on your windshield wipers and not your lights too. This is what our state legislators think is more important to work on than the bankruptcy we are approaching because they refuse to reduce spending or address our state worker pension issues. I explained to my neighbor that I knew of a device that could easily be placed in a car that could tell the exact amount of rain currently hitting the windshield. It could also tell the exact amount of ambient light currently available on the road and also the number of cars in the immediate vicinity. It also knows the condition of the tires of the host vehicle and it had input as to how long the rain was likely to persist. It knows the current terrain as well as the inclination of the road ahead being uphill or downhill. It could quickly process all of the information and make a decision as to whether or not the windshield wipers and/or the headlights needed to be turned on. He was excited about it all and wanted to know more and he stated that if such a device was available it should be forced into production on all cars. I told him no need since every car already had the feature - its called a "human brain" and it dwarfs ALL of the electronic gizmos that claim to be smarter than it is. The reality of these silly controls is that they are basically stupid since if a driver doesn't have the ability to know when to turn on the windshield wipers or headlights then they are way too stupid to have a driver's license. I have had 2 near misses in my life caused directly because some stupid anti-lock brakes would not allow me to stop my vehicle when 2 of its wheels were on dry pavement and 2 were in the snow. I was only going about 15 MPH but 1/4 block ahead of me was a stop sign at the entrance intersection to a major highway and cars were going by at 45 MPH+. I pressed on the brake and the brake pedal pushed back and the car continued nice and straight toward that intersection and my eventual "T-BONE" accident. My only option was to drive my car directly into the ditch on the side of the road to stop it rather than simply drive directly straight ahead into the traffic. I hate antilock brakes as do most people who live in cold climates where there is patchy snow. There is no "over ride" button that allows me to disable them at any time. I have to just let them control the vehicle into certain peril. No way you can convince me that a human over ride button is not necessary. I don't want to drive a car that thinks it has more brain capacity than my brain. It doesn't. We have enough train wrecks around here to make anybody doubt that if rail cars can't stop hitting each other with their anti-crash technology, how in the world are regular cars gonna work when they can change lanes at will. It will work about as well as anti-lock brakes but it WILL be required - no doubt. We have lost all common sense with lawmakers out of control trying to "save us".
"I remember as a young boy he would give I and my younger brother a copy of the Sunday paper and tell us something like there are two grammatical errors on the front page I'll give you 25 cents apiece if you can find them!"
I was taught that the sentence should be written so that if you left out "and my younger brother" in which case "me" is the correct pronoun to use.
But then there are two things I hated in school: diagramming sentences and math word problems. I'm not perfect either. <grin>
John Regan - amen!
and now I remember why I rarely read OT posts...
Art If you come to Jacksonville Fl. (High Today 57F) I will be glad to give you the 25 cents anyway.
I fully agree with you on the anti-locks. They can however be disabled by pulling the fuse. This will likely give you three warning lights (ABS, Brake, and service Vehicle). I place post it notes over mine.
To further the great explanation you gave, imagine pulling trailer equipped with electric brakes. Once the pendulum swings back neutral because it no longer senses you are trying to stop it will release all effort on the trailer as well. This will then push you along nicely to the location you are trying to avoid.
I drove my last car (Buick Park Avenue) for 135K with a failed brake module that I had to pull the fuse for. On that vehicle it was sending a signal to the LF not to release. I was quoted $2500 to fix it which is why I pulled the fuse to disable it. Those post it notes that covered the lights can also be used to remind you of errands and such (or so I've been told).
I know I'm coming to the party late but it's all about what GR Cheshire said near the top: unless you want to see your property taxes go through the roof then you better just hope they keep ticketing stupid people.
Anti lock brakes: You don't have to live where there's ice & snow for antilock brakes to be potentially dangerous.
I live in the south and ran into a situation similar to John's while stopping on a road with a pea gravel surface over a hard substrate.
Perhaps on a slippery surface with an inexperienced driver they may provide an advantage when considered statistically (that is for all cars, and all situations combined). But to me, they're dangerous.
Don't try to drive a vehicle with traction control in mud either. The more the wheels need to spin, the slower the engine will run. Dave
My wife's pickup has anti lock and on dry pavement at any time it decided it would fight me and just keep going. It did this on a Sat. when we were going to town. I pulled the fuse as soon as I got out of it and will never replace it as long as I own the truck! I could not stop at ANY speed. At the stop light I was under 2 MPH and had to put it in park to stop. Now with all the snow and ice around here it drives like it should but the horn must have been in with that fuse. I guess with anti lock brakes they knew you would need a good horn to drive it.
The other thing that I don't like is the air bag in my face. I feel like its a loaded 12 gage pointed at me when I drive. I wear my set belt so why do I need this thing that could blow up at any time without warning? I like the feel of a new car but not the toys that count on China made sending units and relays to make the car idiot proof.
Like I tell anyone who is running for office, I will consider voting for you if you promise to remove 2 regulations for every one you want to try and pass.
And the first time a government "approved" governor on my vehicle keeps me from getting to a hospital in a hurry is the first time I stalk a legislator.
Most of the airbag sending units are made by Morton in Ogden,Utah or they used to be.
Back to Henry's original post about speeding drivers:
I have a slightly different solution to the problem of people driving dangerously. I believe it would work very well and save money on law enforcement as well.
Provide a number such as 911 where other drivers could report speeders or reckless drivers. Five calls on one particular car in one day and the registered owner gets a friendly call from the police department.
Five more calls on a subsequent day (same car) and the registered owner loses his license for a year.
Another five calls in a single day and the owner loses the car.
So you say you are the registered owner but somebody else was driving ? That's your problem. Not having your license for a year will give you plenty of time to exert some supervision (or wrath) on whoever you let drive your car.
Guilty till proven innocent. That's not the concept this country was built upon. However, if you don't like someone, just make five call per day and in less than a week they have no car or license.