Ha! This will never sell to drivers in Boston!

[bvibert]

if I could afford a limo to take me everywhere I'd certainly do that.

No way. If I had the money I'd have a limo drive my wife everywhere while I showed up in my overpowered sports car. That way she wouldn't complain about how fast I was driving. :beer:

 

[SkiDork]

No way. If I had the money I'd have a limo drive my wife everywhere while I showed up in my overpowered sports car. That way she wouldn't complain about how fast I was driving. :beer:

you got a point there Norton...

 

[speden]

I seriously hope not. What's next, cars that steer themselves? No thanks. Might as well ride the bus.

How much is all this fancy technology going to cost and weigh? What happens when the computer that everyone becomes accustomed to stops working properly? Will the car just stop in the middle of the road? Will the zombie drivers be able to figure out how to operate the vehicle without HAL there to help?

I'm all for technology, but I'm not at all a fan of the pussification of the driving experience (or life in general).

Have you ever watched Demolition Man? That's where we're heading with your stream of thought. I guess I'll be hanging out in the sewers with Dennis Leary...

Emergency braking would be like an extension of air bags. Air bags go off after a crash is detected by the car. But if the car can see that a crash is imminent, it could first warn you, and if you do not react, then it could brake to prevent the crash.

This isn't that different than aircraft all having transponder signals so other pilots can see where everyone is. If two airlines are on a collision course, the computer will tell one plane to climb and the other to dive to avoid the crash. There is some debate in aviation that automation is making pilots lose their flying skills, and yet the accident rate among aircraft keeps going down as automation increases. Basically the odds of an unassisted human making a fatal error are a lot higher than the odds of both the computer failing and then the pilot also failing.

Safety features in cars are not causing a pussification of driving. You think Porsche/Audi/BMW are going to design cars that aren't fun to drive? Give them some credit. These features are going to be very unobtrusive and will only jump in if the driver screws up or is about to be screwed by someone else. Other things like smart cruise control are just convenience features. There's nothing manly about alternating between the brake and gas pedal in a traffic jam. If someone wants the computer to take care of that boring chore, then why not.

I did see demolition man many years ago, but as best I can remember it took things to a silly level. Didn't they outlaw sex in that movie? Somehow I don't think people would stand for that. So I think you're being a little paranoid there.

 

[ctenidae]

Safety features in cars are not causing a pussification of driving. You think Porsche/Audi/BMW are going to design cars that aren't fun to drive? Give them some credit. These features are going to be very unobtrusive and will only jump in if the driver screws up or is about to be screwed by someone else. Other things like smart cruise control are just convenience features. There's nothing manly about alternating between the brake and gas pedal in a traffic jam. If someone wants the computer to take care of that boring chore, then why not.

I disagree- my MB's nanny comes on far too often. I often turn it off.

As for driving in traffic- there is a certain enjoyment (albeit small compared to the annoyance of the jam in teh first place) in being able to drive at just the right speed to not need the brakes. It takes a lot of technique (technique which, if employed by drivers who actually drive their cars would eliminate the jam in the first place) and forethought (another hting that would reduce or elimiante jams) to accomplish. It may take me an hour to get home, but I can rest easy knowing that my brake lights aren't going to burn out.

 

[bvibert]

Safety features in cars are not causing a pussification of driving. You think Porsche/Audi/BMW are going to design cars that aren't fun to drive?

I think the shit that gets mandated in the name of safety weighs down cars and over complicates them, making them less fun to drive. It's not a matter of what Porsche, Audi, BMW, etc.. want to, or can, make, it's a matter of what they're forced to make to adhere to the mandated BS.

 

[Glenn]

Safety adds weight too.

An interesting topic came up on a podcast I listen to: "Would people drive safer if cars were more dangerous?"

 

[speden]

I think the shit that gets mandated in the name of safety weighs down cars and over complicates them, making them less fun to drive. It's not a matter of what Porsche, Audi, BMW, etc.. want to, or can, make, it's a matter of what they're forced to make to adhere to the mandated BS.

Cars are getting lighter due to mandated fuel economy standards. There are plenty of fun to drive cars. If you're a speed freak, you should be on a motorcycle anyway, as there are plenty of them that will flatten your eyeballs.

What safety features would you like to see removed? Air bags, side impact reinforcements, anti-lock brakes, seat belts? All of those things are proven to save lives and reduce injuries. You shouldn't let your hatred for the government cloud your judgement so much. You should judge each safety feature on its own merits.

 

[ctenidae]

Unfortunately, the most dangerous element in a car is the driver. Better drivers equal safer cars.

 

[ALLSKIING]

If you're a speed freak, you should be on a motorcycle anyway, as there are plenty of them that will flatten your eyeballs.

Thats a pretty stupid statement..

 

[ALLSKIING]

Unfortunately, the most dangerous element in a car is the driver. Better drivers equal safer cars.

Post of the day!

 

[bvibert]

Cars are getting lighter due to mandated fuel economy standards. There are plenty of fun to drive cars. If you're a speed freak, you should be on a motorcycle anyway, as there are plenty of them that will flatten your eyeballs.

What safety features would you like to see removed? Air bags, side impact reinforcements, anti-lock brakes, seat belts? All of those things are proven to save lives and reduce injuries. You shouldn't let your hatred for the government cloud your judgement so much. You should judge each safety feature on its own merits.

I don't have a hated for government. I don't like other people forcing their need to feel all safe and cozy in every aspect of their lives onto me.

I always wear a seat belt, and I don't mind ABS in most cases, but those are my choices. Side impact reinforcements? Extra weight in my opinion. Air bags? Not convinced the pluses outweigh the minuses.

I'm not saying that there aren't fun cars to drive now, what I'm saying is that the trend is leading away from fun cars to 'safe' cars.

It's not just the driving experience that I'm concerned about, it's also the cost, both up front and in maintenance down the road. I don't mind paying for something that I actually want, but I have a problem when prices are inflated to include unnecessary nonsense.

 

[bvibert]

Unfortunately, the most dangerous element in a car is the driver. Better drivers equal safer cars.

I absolutely agree with you... But in his scenario he's taking the driver out of the equation...

 

[bvibert]

Thats a pretty stupid statement..

All motorcycles should have airbags and side impact protection...

 

[ctenidae]

I absolutely agree with you... But in his scenario he's taking the driver out of the equation...

Just imagine how efficient a car that's not weighed down with addiitonal passive safety equipment could be. Especially if it were unencumbered with a slow reacting, unthoughtful operator. I bet training drivers better is a whole lot cheaper than building heavier cars.

As someone else said, if you want to take the drivers out, take the bus.

/or get a limo. I'd go for a bazooka.

 

[ALLSKIING]

Just imagine how efficient a car that's not weighed down with addiitonal passive safety equipment could be. Especially if it were unencumbered with a slow reacting, unthoughtful operator. I bet training drivers better is a whole lot cheaper than building heavier cars.

As someone else said, if you want to take the drivers out, take the bus.

/or get a limo. I'd go for a bazooka.

Thats just it....Half the drivers on the road should have never passed there drivers test. The system is garbage.

 

[bvibert]

Thats just it....Half the drivers on the road should have never passed there drivers test. The system is garbage.

Agreed. More and stricter training is needed which would be much better than dumbing down cars more than they already are.

 

[speden]

Thats a pretty stupid statement..

Why do you say that? Most bikes can leave a car in the dust. When I used to ride, cars often seemed like non-moving objects.

 

[ctenidae]

Why do you say that? Most bikes can leave a car in the dust. When I used to ride, cars often seemed like non-moving objects.

Why is "Knowing how to drive and wishing others did, too" always equated with being a speed freak? Speed is secondary- without control, all speed does is get you killed. It is possible to drive quickly, utilizing a decent portion of your vehicle's capabilities, while being perfectly safe and within earshot of the speed limits. I have a 90 degre kink in the road out of my neighborhood. Posted sped limit is 25, but it's tough to go more than 20 aroudn the turn. Pushing it is enjoyable, legal, and if you know what you're doing, safe.

Though, Darwin would argue that people who just want to go fast should drive donorcycles. Can't say I entirely disagree.

 

[speden]

I absolutely agree with you... But in his scenario he's taking the driver out of the equation...

If you agree that the driver is the most dangerous element, then it doesn't make sense that would wouldn't want to stop the driver from doing something dangerous, like flying into a pileup.

In the scenario I laid out, the driver is about to collide with something. Imagine you're the passenger and see a car about to t-bone you from the side if you don't stop. You yell at the driver, "Look out! Stop now!" But the driver does nothing and sits there like a statue. You are probably going to die if you don't get the car stopped. If you had a brake pedal in the passenger seat, would you press it to save your life, or would you be worried about offending the driver and taking away his fun of driving?

Well the computer is the passenger, and computers are so much faster than humans that we look like statues to them. They can see when a crash is imminent and that the driver isn't doing anything about it. Why wouldn't you want the computer to apply the brake and prevent the accident? Because you think the computer is too heavy and costs too much money and that the government may one day mandate it so therefore it must be bad? Stuff like this is usually pioneered on high end luxury cars, so if you don't want it, don't buy it. It wouldn't be mandated unless it was proven to save lives and the cost became reasonable enough for the mainstream.

 

[ctenidae]

If you agree that the driver is the most dangerous element, then it doesn't make sense that would wouldn't want to stop the driver from doing something dangerous, like flying into a pileup.

In the scenario I laid out, the driver is about to collide with something. Imagine you're the passenger and see a car about to t-bone you from the side if you don't stop. You yell at the driver, "Look out! Stop now!" But the driver does nothing and sits there like a statue. You are probably going to die if you don't get the car stopped. If you had a brake pedal in the passenger seat, would you press it to save your life, or would you be worried about offending the driver and taking away his fun of driving?

Well the computer is the passenger, and computers are so much faster than humans that we look like statues to them. They can see when a crash is imminent and that the driver isn't doing anything about it. Why wouldn't you want the computer to apply the brake and prevent the accident? Because you think the computer is too heavy and costs too much money and that the government may one day mandate it so therefore it must be bad? Stuff like this is usually pioneered on high end luxury cars, so if you don't want it, don't buy it. It wouldn't be mandated unless it was proven to save lives and the cost became reasonable enough for the mainstream.

Wouldn't it be better still to train drivers to avoid getting into those situations to begin with? All of your examples are the result of operator error. The vast majority of crashes are the result of operator error. An "accident" is rarely truly an accident- someone did something that was incorrect. There are very few other reasons for crashes. The Fins have a solid driver's ed program, and very low accident rates.