backtop


Print 68 comment(s) - last by hifloor.. on Nov 22 at 3:50 AM

Stupid is as stupid does...

A large number of deaths are attributed each year to distracted driving in the United States. Many drivers are too busy texting, making phone calls, or reading (among other things) while driving their cars. If you listen to some people in Washington, the answer to fixing such driving stupidity are even more safety mandates.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) wants collision-avoidance technology such as forward-collision and lane-departure warning systems, adaptive cruise control, and automatic braking on every car sold in the U.S. These technologies are already available as options on many luxury cars currently on the market.

The problem on the consumer end of things is that these safety features are included in options packages that add $1,000 or more to the price of the vehicle. Automotive manufacturers oppose the NTSB because the added costs would spread to even the most basic automobiles on the market instead of being relegated to more expensive vehicles where buyers are more willing to fork over the money.
 
However, the NTSB believes that this sort of technology can help drivers improve reaction times and avoid crashes.

According to the NHTSA, systems such as the ones it's recommending would make a significant impact on reducing the number of accidents caused by distracted drivers. Accidents caused by distracted drivers account for 60% of highway fatalities.

"We have a chance to take a big bite into that figure," NTSB board member Robert Sumwalt said.

Source: Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

DUmb
By Ammohunt on 11/15/2012 9:50:55 AM , Rating: 3
Another "safety" system to compensate for a lack of personal responsibility. How about if you cause an accident becasue you were distracted you lose your driving privledges for a year?




RE: DUmb
By Capt Caveman on 11/15/2012 9:52:52 AM , Rating: 2
Tell that to the person that you hit with your vehicle.


RE: DUmb
By invidious on 11/15/2012 11:04:56 AM , Rating: 2
No one forced them to get on the road, when they did they accepted the risks.


RE: DUmb
By FITCamaro on 11/15/2012 12:33:14 PM , Rating: 2
That's what they have insurance for.


RE: DUmb
By FITCamaro on 11/15/2012 12:34:47 PM , Rating: 2
Or do you mean an actual person?

Because these systems won't detect a person in time to avoid you hitting them. Only maybe slow you down slightly before you do.


RE: DUmb
By valkator on 11/15/2012 11:08:07 AM , Rating: 2
You really think if people lose their license that they will stop driving? What a moron!


RE: DUmb
By freedom4556 on 11/15/2012 12:11:50 PM , Rating: 3
These are the sorts of things they should focus on writing tickets for as a revenue generator, not people doing 5-10 over on the daily commute being an otherwise courteous driver. >.>


RE: DUmb
By tjcinnamon on 11/15/2012 12:16:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, for the most part people are bad drivers and it's getting worse because of 1) more people on the road and 2) more distractions (i.e. phones).

This idea that people are inherently rational and always make the right decisions under the guise personal responsibility is downright fantasy (like the gold standard).

quote:
How about if you cause an accident becasue you were distracted you lose your driving privledges for a year?


How about if you pirate music you get fined? How about if you speed you are given a monetary fine?

Are these effective detourants for perceived victimless crimes? Obviously not. People will not stop these behaviors until something goes wrong. In the case of distracted driving the consequences are severe.

I understand that there is a fine line between coddling people and legitimate safety regulation. However, I think drawing a hard-line of personal responsibility for public policy issues societal responsibility.


RE: DUmb
By boeush on 11/15/2012 1:53:15 PM , Rating: 2
The word you were looking for is "deterrents", not "detourants" (the latter isn't even a word...)


RE: DUmb
By Ammohunt on 11/15/2012 3:51:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This idea that people are inherently rational and always make the right decisions under the guise personal responsibility is downright fantasy (like the gold standard).


This is not personal responsibility; what I am advocating is people should be held accountable for negative consequences derived from poor decision making. Rather than putting in false safety nets or legislation to compensate for stupidity. The problem is the person not the car.


RE: DUmb
By boeush on 11/16/2012 1:38:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Rather than putting in false safety nets...
What are "false safety nets"? For instance which ones of seat belts, airbags, anti-lock brakes, roll cages, crumple zones, and stability control are somehow 'false'?
quote:
... or legislation to compensate for stupidity.
The type of legislation you appear to decry, usually aims to protect *other* people (i.e. innocent bystanders / prospective victims) from the actions of the stupid ones. You can't take "personal responsibility" for getting rammed from behind by an idiot -- but you'll suffer the consequences of it regardless.


RE: DUmb
By GatoRat on 11/15/2012 10:03:21 PM , Rating: 2
Except it's not getting worse. Driving is safer than ever. Moreover, many of the claims of distracted driving are greatly exaggerate--find a cell phone or smart device which is on at an accident, it's classified as a cause.

The reality is, dealing with kids, changing radio stations, simply getting bored, thinking about work and so on are all more common distractions. Even then, there are often mitigating factors such as getting blinding by the rising or setting sun, black ice and a myriad of other things.

In short, this is all really about those in power trying to justify their existence and get more in the process.


RE: DUmb
By FITCamaro on 11/15/2012 12:35:37 PM , Rating: 1
Liberals answer to everything.

More government.


RE: DUmb
By mgilbert on 11/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: DUmb
By Ammohunt on 11/15/2012 3:44:32 PM , Rating: 4
Pot...Kettle


RE: DUmb
By JediJeb on 11/15/2012 4:27:53 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I am a selfish, sexist, racist, bigot that hates everyone because I believe everyone should take responsibility for their own actions.


RE: DUmb
By Rukkian on 11/16/2012 11:33:03 AM , Rating: 2
While I would like that to happen, and don't particulary agree with what they are proposing, I would like your idea of how to get that to happen. Right now most people in the country (the world?) only care about what they can get, how will they get paid, not about anything else. There will always be distracted people, and the average person is an idiot (and 50% of people are below average).

I am not sure this will help, and will be yet another electrical component to break down and need maintenance, but I also don't think it will cost $1000. If the option right now is $1000, that means it probably costs $250 max and with max production, that number will come down. If it starts to lower the risk that some idiot will not rear end me, potentially harming my wife or kids, then great, I am all for it.


RE: DUmb
By JediJeb on 11/18/2012 3:52:28 PM , Rating: 1
I agree with what you have said, I just didn't like being called those names simply because I believe people should be held responsible for their actions.


RE: DUmb
By marvdmartian on 11/15/2012 1:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
How about, we stop making the issuance of a driver's license into a money maker for the states (licence fees, fees for auto titles, auto registrations, taxes collected for car sales, auto insurance company business taxes, etc), and turn it back into what it used to be....a reward for being a responsible and talented driver?

Seriously, if you look at the vast majority of dunderheads on the road these days, you have to wonder how they got their license!


RE: DUmb
By Ammohunt on 11/15/2012 3:56:44 PM , Rating: 2
Although I am hesitant to advocate anything the Europeans do but one thing I feel they have correct is the issuance of motor vehicle licenses. Its and expensive and laborious affair costing multiple thousands of dollars and if I remember correctly many hours of training and probation periods in Switzerland and Germany at least. I drive 130 miles a day and the fact is some people should not be driving..


RE: DUmb
By JediJeb on 11/15/2012 4:33:14 PM , Rating: 2
Finland even requires multiple driving sessions on a wet skid pad to prove you have the skills to handle a car even in those conditions before you can get your license. My dad made me drive in rain, snow and heavy traffic before he would allow me to get my license, and it was for the better. Of course I had been driving since I was 12 so I had plenty of experience before hand, most of that was driving farm trucks in fields and gravel roads, but I knew how vehicles handled before taking it on the streets.


Expense
By KITH on 11/15/2012 1:59:06 PM , Rating: 2
I think these systems are great and I'm sure they do save lives. However, requiring them on all vehicles isn't going to help avoid accidents for the people riding the bus because they could no longer afford purchasing a car.




RE: Expense
By boeush on 11/15/2012 2:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
Well actually, riding a bus is much safer than driving a car :-P


RE: Expense
By Ringold on 11/15/2012 4:11:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
because they could no longer afford purchasing a car.


Call me cynical, but I think that's the point. There's a few things hippies love in this country, and mass transportation is one of them. So I see the constant stream of new and more stringent safety and fuel economy requirements as a smoke screen to slowly boost car prices to the point where car ownership falls away. One step closer to what they imagine utopia looks like in their head.


RE: Expense
By JediJeb on 11/15/2012 4:35:22 PM , Rating: 2
Fine and good where it is practical but out where I live, there is no public transportation and it would be silly to try to implement it. That is something those people who rabidly advocate getting rid of personal vehicles never take into consideration.


RE: Expense
By Omega215D on 11/16/2012 9:37:02 AM , Rating: 2
It's not even all that practical in NYC where our transit system is heavily used 24/7. The scheduling is terrible and sometimes the bus or train gets so crowded that you end up waiting for another, only sometimes the next one won't be along for another 5 - 20 minutes. Just yesterday I was waiting for a bus on a fairly busy route in Queens, NY and the schedule stated that 3 buses were to come within 3 minutes of each other only to witness two buses arriving terribly crowded 25 minutes later.

Bloomberg is an idiot who needs to be punched as he and his cronies made driving a bit more difficult in NYC and the outer boroughs, stating that we all should be taking mass transit. Outside of Manhattan it's quite often terribly inefficient. Not to mention a transit pass will only increase in price for the privilege.

/rant


RE: Expense
By hifloor on 11/22/2012 3:50:43 AM , Rating: 2
It's not that you're cynical, it's that you're being an idiot. Where are these hippies with all this power you imagine? Odds are best this will turn out to be a dead in the water idea from the start.

You're forgetting who really runs the country - huge corporations. If we don't all have cars, if not gigantic SUVs, how are we going to run to MegaMart to buy more useless crap?

You're living in some sort of fantasy world if you think hippies (by that I mean people who are actually politically leftist, not the Democratic party we have now) have any power whatsoever.


The Real Problem
By mgilbert on 11/15/2012 1:07:15 PM , Rating: 2
All these systems are designed to combat the same thing - careless driving. Cops only care about revenue, so they run speed traps, and ignore everything else.

If you don't signal every lane change, turn, merge, and exit... If you drive with only your parking lights on... If you follow too closely... If you don't have your headlights on at dusk, dawn, and in the rain... If you creep into the crosswalk while waiting on red lights... If you don't keep right except to pass... If you don't come to a complete stop before turning right on red... Then you are a careless driver, and I want you off the road. Until cops turn off their radars, and put there holier-than-thou arrogance in their back pockets, and start going after careless drivers, 100 people a die are going to continue to die in car accidents.




RE: The Real Problem
By BioHazardous on 11/15/2012 2:12:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Cops only care about revenue, so they run speed traps, and ignore everything else.
I've actually gone down to the police station to complain about people who can't be inconvenienced to stop at a red light during rush hour and just blow through when it's red long before they enter the intersection.. That and other stuff like not yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalks like they're supposed to, signaling, etc.

The response repeatedly has been; that stuff is too difficult to prove in court so they don't waste time on it. All they need is reasonable doubt. So the light was green from my direction, that doesn't mean 100% that it was red from their direction, and how do I prove that in court.. Which only goes to further prove that cops only care about generating revenue when doing traffic patrol stuff.

I'm pretty sure if they started pulling people over, and giving tickets for all these other things that actually cause accidents, people would start driving differently. Sure you won't change everybody, but a lot of people would change, at least for a while.


RE: The Real Problem
By Rukkian on 11/16/2012 11:44:52 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that those things should be ticketed, but it is tough, and police budgets are already slim, so adding a bunch more officers to monitor for these and spend their time in court is expensive.

Another issue (that I have noticed) is that since tickets are much more punitive to those with lower income, I think tickets should be based off the value of your car. If you drive a 100k automobile, you should be fined accordingly. I see so many expensive cars driving like a-holes just because they don't care about a $50 ticket. Start giving them $5k tickets and they might start caring.

I also think that speed / red light cameras are a good way to help with this to keep the cops from needing to do this. Ramp them up, start putting them everywhere. The problem is they get fought by the very people that would get tagged all the time, and then dumped.


Making drivers dumber?
By Schrag4 on 11/16/2012 8:34:55 AM , Rating: 2
Am I the only one that thinks a barrage of warnings about potential collisions, lane departure, and the like might condition new drivers to rely on those warnings? That they might actually be much, much worse at detecting these problems on their own without the warnings once they get used to them?

I don't see this as a good thing. I think it will make drivers more dependent on some system that can fail rather than encouraging drivers to sharpen their driving skills. That and people will be sue-happy when these systems fail (or if they ignore the warnings, crash, then claim they failed) - in other words these systems work against personal resopnsibility on multiple fronts.




Blame the government
By Beenthere on 11/16/2012 9:34:14 AM , Rating: 2
There is no rational reason to provide driver's licenses to people who are braindead, can't drive or who insist on distracted driving. Yank ALL of these licenses and the world will be a safer place. They make buses for those too stupid to operate a motor vehicle.




Simple solution
By Isidore on 11/19/2012 1:19:44 PM , Rating: 2
Distracted driving usually means having one hand off the wheel fiddling with some piece of electronics (yes I know there's lots of other non electronic things to fiddle with). So why not have a system that will cut the ignition if you take a hand off the wheel for more than 5-10 seconds. No more handheld phone calls, no lunatic touch screen controls and I suppose no trying to undo your passenger's clothing either ;-). Instead it will encourage the development of useable voice activated systems and controls that work quickly by feel. Drivers with only one hand will need a different solution but I would imagine not many of them drive and hold a phone at the same time




wacky idea...
By In2Boost on 11/19/2012 6:05:11 PM , Rating: 2
Hiya kiddies,

How 'bout we outlaw automagic transmission equipped vehicles and make everyone drive a manual?

Driver. Involvement.

Now discuss amongst yaselves ;)




Automatic Braking
By BioHazardous on 11/15/12, Rating: -1
RE: Automatic Braking
By Flunk on 11/15/12, Rating: -1
RE: Automatic Braking
By Newspapercrane on 11/15/2012 9:33:11 AM , Rating: 2
Did you RTFA? They're trying to prevent distracted drivers from crashing, not aggressive drivers.


RE: Automatic Braking
By BioHazardous on 11/15/2012 9:56:47 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
People like you need to learn to cool off and drive safely, then no one would need stupid things like automatic braking.

People who drive slow in the fast lane and pace themselves with the car in the lane next to them so nobody can get around them are of course saints for making sure everybody else drives safely under the speed limit.

As a society, I suppose we should praise this kind of general jackassery, even though it's the law that you shouldn't be in the fast lane if you're going slower than the rest of the traffic behind you.

I'm clearly the problem having never been in an accident.


RE: Automatic Braking
By Dr of crap on 11/15/2012 10:06:40 AM , Rating: 2
WELL SAID!


RE: Automatic Braking
By Jeffk464 on 11/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: Automatic Braking
By BioHazardous on 11/15/2012 1:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First thing I do when I notice an impatient hot head drive is slowly start letting off the gas. Accomplishes two things pisses you off and gets you away from me.
This right here is the problem and why there are accidents. People who think they're above common courtesy who purposely slam on the brakes to prove a point, drive slower than necessary, make U-turns where they shouldn't be, dash across three lanes of traffic without looking, to get on an exit ramp they forgot they needed, not signaling, driving erratic speeds, texting, talking on the phone and not paying attention.. People who won't let the fact that other drivers are on the road stop them from doing ridiculous BS moves that completely stop the flow of traffic and/or nearly cause accidents every turn they make.

Purposely inciting road rage seems to be a great solution. Keep it up.


RE: Automatic Braking
By FITCamaro on 11/15/2012 1:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. I used to do that, but as I've gotten a little older, I've just stayed in the right lane unless I'm passing.

I've been in one accident that I didn't cause and couldn't avoid (rearended while at a complete stop). Can count on one hand the number of tickets to my name as well in 12 years.


RE: Automatic Braking
By Azethoth on 11/15/2012 7:51:17 PM , Rating: 2
Dunno how many lanes you are talking about but if its 3+ then please get the hell out of the right lane. It is the merging / exiting lane and it is where the vast majority of highway accidents occur (as in 95% iirc). Hanging out in it is truly asking for [stuff] to happen and making stuff happen just by being there.

As for rear-end while stopped, truly good drivers leave room ahead and plan a quick escape to get out of the way of rear enders. You need to be vigilant till that next car displays a readiness and ability to stop properly. Of course, if there is no escape route, then you are well and truly at their mercy and screwed if they suck at driving.


RE: Automatic Braking
By Sahrin on 11/15/2012 1:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, the myth of innocence.

You may very well have never been in an accident. This doesn't mean you haven't caused any; and it *certainly* does not mean that you are a safe driver. "Your Honor, I may have blown a .5 on the breathalyzer, but I drive that way all the time. It's not unsafe if I've never had an accident."

The poster you replied to is absolutely right; statistically speaking your driving habits are exactly what causes accidents. You drive in the same manner as a distracted driver, and for that reason the safety systems will actually make you a better driver. Sorry you don't get to keep endangering other people's lives. I'll see if I can find some sad violin music to play at the not funerals of people who don't die as a result of your minimal loss of privilege.


RE: Automatic Braking
By BioHazardous on 11/15/2012 1:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ah, the myth of innocence.
Ahh assuming too much about how I actually drive based on one comment saying I occasionally (rarely) make a move where I worry about how automatic braking would possibly make a situation worse.

Go on assuming the wrong things though, that's your right.


RE: Automatic Braking
By boeush on 11/15/2012 2:01:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
are of course saints for making sure everybody else drives safely under the speed limit
Where I drive, it's usually the case that everyone consistently goes 5-10 over the speed limit. But there's always some asshat in a beeeeemer thinking he's (it's usually a 'he') on an autobahn, and expecting everyone to scamper out of his way and crowd the middle lane just so that he can rocket merrily onward to his next speeding ticket...
quote:
it's the law that you shouldn't be in the fast lane if you're going slower than the rest of the traffic behind you
It's also the law not to significantly exceed speed limits. I believe in many states going 20 over is actually considered a felony, yet I see people do that all the time and far more frequently than going "safely under the speed limit".
quote:
I'm clearly the problem having never been in an accident.
And the guy who liked playing Russian Roulette had never blown his brains out, either. Until one day he did...


RE: Automatic Braking
By BioHazardous on 11/15/2012 2:20:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And the guy who liked playing Russian Roulette had never blown his brains out, either. Until one day he did...
Again, another person reading way too far into what I said. My only point was that there's going to be occasions where accelerating around something or getting close to something is safer than braking. In those instances, will automatic braking f*ck you over and cause an accident where you would have normally avoided one?

I never said I was speeding down the road 100% of the time going 30mph over the limit weaving in and out of traffic, tailgating, and other general jackassery that over aggressive drivers do. I said essentially and maybe the modifer of 'rare' was a necessity for people to understand my point better.. On rare occasion I make an aggressive move, be it to avoid a bottleneck, or something worse.

Braking is not the answer to avoiding all situations that could be problematic, and a car that takes that decision away from me is not something I'm in favor of. Sure 80% of the population that already drives distracted would benefit from automatic braking.. That's not my point though. My point is how beneficial is it to the driver that's actually paying attention and knows when to accelerate out of problems and when to brake.


RE: Automatic Braking
By Rukkian on 11/16/2012 12:17:44 PM , Rating: 2
It does help you since hopefully less of the idiots out there hit you/others and there should (in theory) be less traffic jams and other situations you need to go around.


RE: Automatic Braking
By Azethoth on 11/15/2012 7:55:59 PM , Rating: 2
Not in Nevada. I got clocked doing 108 mph after slowing down for a turn and was informed if I was driving much faster I would have to go to jail instead of just contributing to some town's taxes.

108 - 65 = 43 mph


RE: Automatic Braking
By drycrust3 on 11/15/2012 10:12:56 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
You understand that this sort of behaviour is exactly what causes most crashes and is exactly what they are trying to stop with systems like this.

Totally correct! One of the big causes of accidents, like breakdowns in cars, is the range of tolerance of the individual components. The tighter the tolerances used by drivers, the less the accidents and fatalities. This is why intoxicated, drugged, and "boy racer" drivers are a problem: they tend to drive outside the normal range of tolerances.
The closer everyone drives to the same speed, the better they brake and accelerate smoothly, the better they maintain their lane, and the better they drive with a safe braking distance between cars, the safer everyone is.
The silly part about this is you don't need technology to do this, you just need drivers to follow the rules.


RE: Automatic Braking
By BioHazardous on 11/15/12, Rating: -1
RE: Automatic Braking
By invidious on 11/15/2012 11:02:18 AM , Rating: 4
Better yet we could all just ride one speed bicycles on the grass while wrapped in bubble wrap.


RE: Automatic Braking
By BioHazardous on 11/15/2012 11:19:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Better yet we could all just ride one speed bicycles on the grass while wrapped in bubble wrap.

Exactly what we need! That's even better than my idea.

Though I got downrated, so somebody either really likes the idea of safety, or missed the sarcasm factor.


RE: Automatic Braking
By Dr of crap on 11/15/2012 11:51:20 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is it's all about "me".
It's always how can I get to the exit first by cutting in front of anyone else. How can I get in front of you. You need to drive slower behind me because I can't handle switching lanes, so I stay in the left lane from entrance to exit.

Slow down just a bit next time and watch the cars that pass you. It is almost rediclious. I see on a three lane road, while I'm in the middle lane, cars roaring past on the left, as they get closer to the exit they need they move to the middle and then with the blinker on ASSUME someone SHOULD let them in so that they can make their exit. And someone will let them in. Rather then taking the empty spot that was behind the car that they just cut in front of they need to be in front of that car and make an a$$ of themselves and slow traffic for no reason!

NO CONSIDERATION FOR ANYONE ELSE ON THE ROAD, it's all about ME!


RE: Automatic Braking
By Solandri on 11/15/2012 2:04:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
cars roaring past on the left, as they get closer to the exit they need they move to the middle and then with the blinker on ASSUME someone SHOULD let them in so that they can make their exit. And someone will let them in. Rather then taking the empty spot that was behind the car that they just cut in front of they need to be in front of that car and make an a$$ of themselves and slow traffic for no reason!

Your view of who is selfishly thinking "it's all about me" is a bit biased. There are slow-driving jerks just as there are fast-driving jerks. e.g. In the situation you describe, regardless of how the car in the next lane got in front of you, if a car ahead of you is signaling to get into your lane you're supposed to slow down to let them in. Yes you're correct that the guy is driving like a jerk and probably doesn't deserve to be let into your lane. But by preventing him from moving into your lane, you are slowing down everyone else behind him in his lane.

It's not about me, and it's not about you and me. It's about everyone else on the road. Just let the bastard in your lane so he can get off the road and out of everyone's hair, so traffic can return to a more consistent flow.

The problem IMHO is the U.S. lacks laws which promote gradients of speed in the different lanes. Everyone just "knows" that faster cars are supposed to be on the left, slower cars on the right. There's nothing that enforces this (other than trucks having a lower speed limit and being restricted to the two right-most lanes). Just signs without the force of law which suggest staying in the right lane except to pass. This creates a situation where some drivers feel people in their lane are going too slow, while simultaneously other drivers feel people in the exact same lane are going too fast. And the two groups start to rage against each other.

In Germany they have a couple simple laws which fix this. You are not allowed to pass on the right. And if you see a car approaching you from behind in your lane, you have to yield and move over to the right. It does a remarkably good job of keeping traffic flowing when there can be a 2:1 or greater difference in speed between the left-most and right-most lanes. That's the real goal here - keeping traffic flowing. Not who is driving too fast or too slow.


RE: Automatic Braking
By tastyratz on 11/15/2012 2:26:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In Germany they have a couple simple laws which fix this. You are not allowed to pass on the right. And if you see a car approaching you from behind in your lane, you have to yield and move over to the right. It does a remarkably good job of keeping traffic flowing when there can be a 2:1 or greater difference in speed between the left-most and right-most lanes. That's the real goal here - keeping traffic flowing. Not who is driving too fast or too slow.


In the usa passing on the right is also illegal, but not often enforced. Probably because the greater issue is we do not have laws like #2 there. The passing line is for PASSING, not the "fast" lane. If we enforced a "flash to move over law" we would have far more consistant traffic patterns. Those self righteous jerks illegally driving in the passing lane and at the same or slower speeds compared to the other lanes cause just as many accidents as the people who are forced to resort to illegal or aggressive tactics if they want to get around them. Ironically the more aggressive drivers tend to also be more attentive than the rest of the lemmings.


RE: Automatic Braking
By boeush on 11/15/2012 2:47:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The passing line is for PASSING, not the "fast" lane.

It's more complicated than that, because it varies state by state. For instance, see here:

http://jalopnik.com/5501615/left+lane-passing-laws...


RE: Automatic Braking
By Dr of crap on 11/15/2012 3:37:33 PM , Rating: 2
One problem,
I have my cruise set and I'm trying to use the least amount of gas and NOT use my brakes so that the cars behind think they have to brake as well. Causes a slow down for no reason. You see I DO CONSIDER the other drivers around me!

It is not UP to me to let the jerk in. He should have forseen the problem not waited until the very end.

I will not slam on, or use my brakes to let someone get in front of me in my lane if there is no reason for it.

You sould like one of the ones I hate that brake to let mearging traffic in. The WRONG thing to do, and has become the norm, and pisses off a LOT OF DRIVERS including myself.
Letting the guy in is just as bad as tailgating and last minute lane changes. Causes slow downs and then the guy 20 cars back seees brake lights, sees there's no reason for it gets mad and floors it around the slow down. A potention accident waiting to happen. EVERY driver has the ability to inflict an accident in the mass of cars on the road. Guess you can't se that!


RE: Automatic Braking
By JediJeb on 11/15/2012 4:48:28 PM , Rating: 2
I don't mind letting people in front of me usually. The ones that really get me hot are the ones that will pass me like I am sitting still then 100 yards ahead slam on the breaks and make a right hand turn! They could have just as easily slowed down behind and waited maybe two seconds more and made the turn with out having to make me slam on the brakes to avoid hitting them as they cut in front of me to turn.

The other people that irk me to no end are the ones where when you see a sign for road construction that clearly says, "One lane road ahead, merge now" and they run up beside a long line of vehicles and try to get people to let them in.


RE: Automatic Braking
By Rukkian on 11/16/2012 12:26:24 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, but im old age have learned to back off more, as I do not go over the speed limit for the most part, and typically leave extra room in front of me (3-4 seconds) for the idiots that feel it is daytona instead of a shared roadway.

As for the construction, some states have figured out a nice solution to this. I used to live in minnesota and they instituted the "zipper merge" several years ago, telling everybody to fill in both lanes when it is going down to one until the end, then take turns. This takes away the opportunity for the aholes to run up ahead of everybody, and actually keeps traffic flowing much better through those zones.


RE: Automatic Braking
By drycrust3 on 11/15/2012 9:34:06 PM , Rating: 1
You don't need technology to make you do this, you can do it yourself. All you need is some self discipline.
If consider a master chef or a kung fu master or an Olympic gymnast, the one thing they all demand is having control over the tiniest aspect of their craft, so why not try and show you are a master of control: stick to the speed limits!


RE: Automatic Braking
By Jeffk464 on 11/15/2012 1:17:17 PM , Rating: 2
boy racer" drivers are a problem: they tend to drive outside the normal range of tolerances.

Yup, they drive like nothing ever happens. People don't realize that things can happen so quick that its beyond their reaction time to deal with. This is how you get those 5-10 car pile ups. But as soon as they learn there is a brand new bunch of young dumb asses to take their place.


RE: Automatic Braking
By Capt Caveman on 11/15/2012 9:52:01 AM , Rating: 2
My Volvo has a feature called 'City Safety', it's supposed to stop the vehicle from rear-ending another vehicle in bumper to bumper conditions. But one night, a drunk woman walked right out in front of my vehicle and thankfully 'City Safety' kicked in and stopped the car within a couple of inches from her.


RE: Automatic Braking
By Dr of crap on 11/15/2012 10:09:57 AM , Rating: 5
TOO bad you didn't take her out.
We don't have many ways of removing the stupid from our society any longer. One less stupid person leaves more room for us.


RE: Automatic Braking
By Jeffk464 on 11/15/2012 1:18:48 PM , Rating: 2
round and round, I'm sure someone will be saying the same thing when you meat your demise.


RE: Automatic Braking
By Jeffk464 on 11/15/2012 1:19:21 PM , Rating: 2
ah meet


RE: Automatic Braking
By Dr of crap on 11/15/2012 1:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
It won't be from lack of common sense!


RE: Automatic Braking
By boeush on 11/15/2012 1:50:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, because smart people never get drunk.

And it's not as if stupid people ever feel the need to flaunt their idiocy in public fora, either...


"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki