I'm bringing this here from the 'Anyone in AZ looking to sell a 100-series?' thread so as to more fully explore this topic with people I can put faces to (hence not in 'General Chat').
Amen. Now you're speaking my language. Don't price cars out of the range of the common person to protect the public from themselves. Educate them. Require them to demonstrate adequate driving skills- i.e; test them. Revoke their driving privilege if they drive irresponsibly.
I'm not speaking against only those add-ons specific to the 100. I'm against government-mandated systems over and above those required to control a vehicle. This includes seat belts, air bags, air curtains, doors, windshields, ABS, traction control, roofs, crush zones, GPS tracking, steering or brake override systems, aerodynamic requirements, and anything else they think of to make my car 'safer'.
Before you freak: read on. I said 'government mandated'. I acknowledge the market for these car supplements. Allow the buyer to make the decision on how much he wants to spend to keep himself and his family safe. Let the manufacturers be regulated by demand. Don't make driving a car a rich man's privilege. Don't force your beliefs on every driver in America.
I personally usually wear a seatbelt. Besides the obvious reasons, I believe it might help allow me to retain control of my car in a bad situation. My choice. I don't see why my car should be required to fold like an accordion on impact. While I believe air bags make cars safer, I would not, given the choice, have one in my car as an option for an extra $2000. I personally know how to control a skid, and how to avoid one where possible, so I would not have the ABS option on my new car for an extra $1500, nor the traction control for another thousand. I sure as hell don't want a computer deciding that I don't know what I'm doing and taking control of the steering and/or braking/acceleration, but I'm sure that's in the future, along with my car sending signals to Big Brother as to where I am, where I've been, and what I'm doing.
I believe we are headed in this direction: All cars will be required by the government to have full restraint systems, i.e; full body 'airbags' for lack of a better word. Full 3-dimensional protective cages will be required (Most cars offer this now, I'm not talking about roll bars), meaning all cars will have to have roofs and doors (say goodbye to convertibles and Jeeps, not to mention motorcycles). All vehicles will have matching bumper heights- no modifications of vehicle height will be allowed (say goodbye to the daily driver modified 4x4, although some allowance might be made so you could transport your 4x4 off road). No modifications to impact absorption systems will be allowed (ARB bumper? I think not.) Safer? Hell yeah. Probably save many lives.
Would most of the country protest if this plan was suggested tomorrow? I doubt it. Would personal liberties be quashed? Yup. Is it worth any price to save one life? If you answer 'yes', you better not have a modified bumper on your truck. That thing is a killer. Imagine some compact car losing control at speed and sliding side-first into your path. See the little girl in the back seat? She's dead. Maybe she wouldn't be if your truck's front end had crumpled the way it was designed to, and dispersed the impact forces across the whole front of the truck as well as down the hood and fenders. Of course, your truck would be totalled, but hey, you saved a life. If you have a modified bumper, you run the risk of killing a little girl every single time you drive your vehicle. Bad man. Very bad man. (Sorry for the sexism, but 'bad woman' just doesn't convey, know what I mean?)
The 'cost' of that life is not the cost of the totalled vehicle. The cost is your liberty to do what you want. What's that worth to you? Obviously, if you do have that bumper, or lift, or worn tires, etc., your liberty is worth more to you than that little girl's life. There's a reality check for you.
Eventually cars will most likely be controlled externally, by computer, taking all enjoyment out of driving but making everyone completely safe. Imagine a public transport system, with rides on demand in small computer-driven cars on a huge network, all syncronized, speed and path regulated so there were no accidents, no stops, no slowing for traffic, no need for space between, the fastest and most convenient possible movement from place to place- at least until they perfect that whole 'teleport' thing.
I don't know how I will respond to that- it might be a good thing. Until then, give me my freedom.
The only option I can see for people who are determined to live as safely as possible is this: Get together. Go build a city, call it SafeCity. Govern it how you see fit. No open ponds, no second stories, no pollutants, elevated sidewalks, all cars must be equipped with VSC, whatever. As long as everyone who lives there agrees, you're golden. If they don't agree, they can GTFO. Likewise, if someone in my neighborhood (Phoenix) doesn't like me not having ABS, they have the choice to GTFO. "Why don't you move to SafeCity", I would tell him. And he could.
A more realistic approach might be as I stated earlier: Drivers are trained. (We spend 13 years teaching children to read and write, and perhaps one semester teaching them to drive. Maybe.) Drivers are tested. Those who cannot control a vehicle in adverse conditions, cannot be in control of a vehicle. Those who are licensed, and show disregard for other people's lives by breaking the law (moving violations) lose their license. Take the billions of government dollars spent on crash testing, studies, and the like and spend them on more officers. Get enough officers on the road (in visible vehicles) to make enforcement feasible. Also, while you're there, allow the officers to serve the public in more ways, such as helping stranded motorists, answering questions, and being available to assist in whatever capacity you might like from a public servant. Instead of dreading the sight of a patrol car in your mirror, he could be the guy you're glad to have around, making your like easier and safer.
-Spike
goodtimes said:
Amen. Now you're speaking my language. Don't price cars out of the range of the common person to protect the public from themselves. Educate them. Require them to demonstrate adequate driving skills- i.e; test them. Revoke their driving privilege if they drive irresponsibly.
I'm not speaking against only those add-ons specific to the 100. I'm against government-mandated systems over and above those required to control a vehicle. This includes seat belts, air bags, air curtains, doors, windshields, ABS, traction control, roofs, crush zones, GPS tracking, steering or brake override systems, aerodynamic requirements, and anything else they think of to make my car 'safer'.
Before you freak: read on. I said 'government mandated'. I acknowledge the market for these car supplements. Allow the buyer to make the decision on how much he wants to spend to keep himself and his family safe. Let the manufacturers be regulated by demand. Don't make driving a car a rich man's privilege. Don't force your beliefs on every driver in America.
I personally usually wear a seatbelt. Besides the obvious reasons, I believe it might help allow me to retain control of my car in a bad situation. My choice. I don't see why my car should be required to fold like an accordion on impact. While I believe air bags make cars safer, I would not, given the choice, have one in my car as an option for an extra $2000. I personally know how to control a skid, and how to avoid one where possible, so I would not have the ABS option on my new car for an extra $1500, nor the traction control for another thousand. I sure as hell don't want a computer deciding that I don't know what I'm doing and taking control of the steering and/or braking/acceleration, but I'm sure that's in the future, along with my car sending signals to Big Brother as to where I am, where I've been, and what I'm doing.
I believe we are headed in this direction: All cars will be required by the government to have full restraint systems, i.e; full body 'airbags' for lack of a better word. Full 3-dimensional protective cages will be required (Most cars offer this now, I'm not talking about roll bars), meaning all cars will have to have roofs and doors (say goodbye to convertibles and Jeeps, not to mention motorcycles). All vehicles will have matching bumper heights- no modifications of vehicle height will be allowed (say goodbye to the daily driver modified 4x4, although some allowance might be made so you could transport your 4x4 off road). No modifications to impact absorption systems will be allowed (ARB bumper? I think not.) Safer? Hell yeah. Probably save many lives.
Would most of the country protest if this plan was suggested tomorrow? I doubt it. Would personal liberties be quashed? Yup. Is it worth any price to save one life? If you answer 'yes', you better not have a modified bumper on your truck. That thing is a killer. Imagine some compact car losing control at speed and sliding side-first into your path. See the little girl in the back seat? She's dead. Maybe she wouldn't be if your truck's front end had crumpled the way it was designed to, and dispersed the impact forces across the whole front of the truck as well as down the hood and fenders. Of course, your truck would be totalled, but hey, you saved a life. If you have a modified bumper, you run the risk of killing a little girl every single time you drive your vehicle. Bad man. Very bad man. (Sorry for the sexism, but 'bad woman' just doesn't convey, know what I mean?)
The 'cost' of that life is not the cost of the totalled vehicle. The cost is your liberty to do what you want. What's that worth to you? Obviously, if you do have that bumper, or lift, or worn tires, etc., your liberty is worth more to you than that little girl's life. There's a reality check for you.
Eventually cars will most likely be controlled externally, by computer, taking all enjoyment out of driving but making everyone completely safe. Imagine a public transport system, with rides on demand in small computer-driven cars on a huge network, all syncronized, speed and path regulated so there were no accidents, no stops, no slowing for traffic, no need for space between, the fastest and most convenient possible movement from place to place- at least until they perfect that whole 'teleport' thing.
I don't know how I will respond to that- it might be a good thing. Until then, give me my freedom.
The only option I can see for people who are determined to live as safely as possible is this: Get together. Go build a city, call it SafeCity. Govern it how you see fit. No open ponds, no second stories, no pollutants, elevated sidewalks, all cars must be equipped with VSC, whatever. As long as everyone who lives there agrees, you're golden. If they don't agree, they can GTFO. Likewise, if someone in my neighborhood (Phoenix) doesn't like me not having ABS, they have the choice to GTFO. "Why don't you move to SafeCity", I would tell him. And he could.
A more realistic approach might be as I stated earlier: Drivers are trained. (We spend 13 years teaching children to read and write, and perhaps one semester teaching them to drive. Maybe.) Drivers are tested. Those who cannot control a vehicle in adverse conditions, cannot be in control of a vehicle. Those who are licensed, and show disregard for other people's lives by breaking the law (moving violations) lose their license. Take the billions of government dollars spent on crash testing, studies, and the like and spend them on more officers. Get enough officers on the road (in visible vehicles) to make enforcement feasible. Also, while you're there, allow the officers to serve the public in more ways, such as helping stranded motorists, answering questions, and being available to assist in whatever capacity you might like from a public servant. Instead of dreading the sight of a patrol car in your mirror, he could be the guy you're glad to have around, making your like easier and safer.
-Spike
Last edited:
), but it'll just never fly.
