1 posted on
09/14/2006 6:01:18 AM PDT by
Cagey
A test vehicle with its electronic stability control turned off slides over cones during a test in Auburn Hills, Mich., in this July 16, 2003 file photo. The government, impressed by the promise of anti-rollover technology, is planning to require automakers to include electronic stability control devices on all new vehicles in the coming years. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is set to unveil proposed rules for stability control on Thursday, Sept. 14, 2006 that also will include testing standards for auto manufacturers. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio)
2 posted on
09/14/2006 6:02:03 AM PDT by
Cagey
To: Cagey
As long as it has an override switch...
3 posted on
09/14/2006 6:02:34 AM PDT by
Petronski
(Living His life abundantly.)
To: Cagey
They need to have anti-roll over systems on those up-armored Humvees. Those things will roll over if you even sneeze at them. One of the bad side affects of adding the armor was to shift the CG much higher.
4 posted on
09/14/2006 6:04:00 AM PDT by
scooter2
To: Cagey
SUVs and other vehicles with high centers of gravity have been susceptible to rollovers. Is it possible that the "high center of gravity" actually has something to do with the tendency to roll over?
What can we as a nation do about the rising center of gravity of automobiles?
Maybe we could ENGINEER THEM DIFFERENTLY?
7 posted on
09/14/2006 6:05:49 AM PDT by
Izzy Dunne
(Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
To: Cagey
12 posted on
09/14/2006 6:11:07 AM PDT by
LIConFem
(Just opened a new seafood restaurant in Great Britain, called "Squid Pro Quid")
To: Cagey
So how much more will this make autos cost? How much of the vehicle's discretionary power will this use (will a hybrid or electic car have enough power for the system)? What are the effects on fuel economy? What is the rest of the story?
Living in Michigan, I know why most accidents are caused: Bad Drivers!!!!!!!
-Driving too fast for conditions or driver skill
-Not using turn signals (I *think* they come standard on cars.)
-Not checking blind spots, over aggressive driving, cutting across 3 lanes at once without looking (and no turn signals)
-Yapping on a cell phone or looking at something else while driving
-Not taking care of vehicles (all those years of command maintenance in the Army taught me that at least)
-Driving Drunk/Stoned
-Racing on the roads
-Cutting off semi-trucks
Yesterday, a rain storm contributed to an accident involving almost 30 cars and at least one truck on I-696, northwest of Detroit. "Contributed" because I know that many people were probably driving like maniacs.
I'm dreading winter..... It only gets worse. Making an "idiot proof" car only causes the idiots to prove you wrong.
13 posted on
09/14/2006 6:13:09 AM PDT by
M1Tanker
(Proven Daily: Modern "progressive" liberalism is just National Socialism without the "twisted cross")
To: Cagey
Wouldn't it be easier to simply slow down and drive defensively instead of mandating a new and expensive technology?
15 posted on
09/14/2006 6:13:32 AM PDT by
Sarajevo
(120 degrees at BIAP and no relief in sight!)
To: Cagey
Now people can drive with even less care.
21 posted on
09/14/2006 6:22:50 AM PDT by
Moonman62
(The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
To: Cagey
I've got a Miata. It would suck to be in a roll over accident...but it is hard to think of a scenario that would cause it to roll over in the first place.
22 posted on
09/14/2006 6:24:12 AM PDT by
Mr Rogers
(I'm agnostic on evolution, but sit ups are from Hell!)
To: Cagey
Better yet would be to require all vehicles to have anti-lock brakes. I avoided accidents on several occasions because the anti-lock brakes on my vehicle allowed me to keep in control during a hard stop.
28 posted on
09/14/2006 6:35:11 AM PDT by
The Great RJ
("Mir wölle bleiwen wat mir sin" or "We want to remain what we are." ..Luxembourg motto)
To: Cagey
"These are staggering statistics compared to most safety technologies that are installed on the vehicles today. This technology will save lives," said William Kozyra, president and CEO of Continental Automotive Systems, North America, a leading supplier of stability control. Oh yeah, no conflict of interest here.
More complex crap to drive up the cost of purchasing and maintaining a car. No safety systems can make up for roads full of barely competent, careless and distracted drivers.
33 posted on
09/14/2006 7:07:13 AM PDT by
jrp
To: Cagey
No need to worry!
The cost of this Gubmint mandated add-on will be passed onto the consumer.
43 posted on
09/14/2006 7:43:50 AM PDT by
DoctorMichael
(A wall first. A wall now.)
To: Cagey
Simply wearing a seatbelt would save a lot of lives in rollovers. Always seeing "he was thrown from the car" in those accidents.
45 posted on
09/14/2006 7:57:24 AM PDT by
Gone GF
To: Cagey
...anti-rollover technology... A low center of gravity is not high technology.
Limiting speed and limiting tight turns are the only ways that rollover could be prevented outside of the driver's control. I expect either of those would be more dangerous than the current situation.
It would be better to train drivers before issuing a drivers license rather than issuing them to anyone with a temperature of 98.6.
50 posted on
09/14/2006 8:19:48 AM PDT by
GingisK
To: Cagey
I thought this was about my deoderant.
To: Cagey
Some drivers already act as if the car drives itself. This feature will allow not only cellphone usage but widespread farding and dining, and probably FR posting exchanges of unbridled ferocity, during the commute to the mall.
55 posted on
09/14/2006 8:55:03 AM PDT by
RightWhale
(Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson