"No choice for you!" says IIHS

[ITSec]

While I usually save my rants for more germane matters, I have lately become more than annoyed with the insurance companies beating up the vehicle manufacturers in order to force things on consumers that are of dubious benefit. The latest of these efforts took another step today, with ten auto makers caving in to the insurance companies' wolf in sheep's clothing, the IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety). Through its widely publicized crash tests (something easily understood by the typical NASCAR viewer), the IIHS has gained a somewhat unjustified weight that it throws around with increasing abandon. It often gains additional leverage by a relationship with the NHTSA and DOT that must make Eisenhower wonder whether he should have limited his warning to the military-industrial complex.

The weak knees involved were those on the brake pedal, and the wall they crashed through was resistance to forcing us all to pay for automatic emergency braking. The studies that show benefits for this technology have, almost without exception, been commissioned by the insurance industry or come from that industry itself - peer review not required. The ten companies involved have all committed 'voluntarily' to making these systems standard in all their vehicles for the North American market.

The companies are:

• BMW AG.
• Ford Motor Co.
• General Motors Co.
• Mazda Motor Co.
• Daimler AG's Mercedes-Benz.
• Tesla Motors Inc.
• Toyota Motor Corp.
• Volkswagen AG.
• Volkswagen's Audi AG.
• Volvo

I have no problem with this technology being made available. I don't even mind if it's in a car I buy, AS LONG AS I CAN TURN IT OFF (and I will). However, the recent debacle with hackers being able to remotely control the engine and brakes of a vehicle with a flawed wireless system tell me that it's more important than ever that the operator of a vehicle actually be able to operate the vehicle - without interference from insurance companies (including Flo and her plug-in), vehicle manufacturers, or short-sighted bureaucrats (and I like bureaucrats!). What I don't want is a car that someone else can force to brake, to turn off, to do anything that I haven't specifically asked it to do. ABS enhances my control - automated emergency braking takes away my control.

[oldbike54]

 

 This is gonna be beautiful 

  Dusty

[nsmith]

But what if I'm texting and I don't look up to see the line of cars at the stop light. Without auto braking I could ram into someone. I mean you don't think I should just drive do you, I need to be multitasking while driving my 2 ton weapon in stop and go traffic, I'm more efficient that way.

[elvisboy77]

If it keeps some inattentive wanker from offing me, I am all for it.  Maybe if the automatic brakes get slammed on while someone is doing their eye makeup (or texting etc) and a huge mess ensues they may be less inclined to do so in the future.....

[Dwight Sisk]

If I found out today that my life was spared because of the system...I would be happy with that!

[BRIO]

Freedom begets responsibility. This could just be common sense rather than a conspiracy.

Do you think the vast majority of drivers deserve the freedom to turn this system off?



For you who deserve the freedom I offer following solutions:

[centauro]

  :1:
This is rapidly coming to new bikes, as well....

[Antietam Classic Cycle]

For you who deserve the freedom I offer following solutions:

Wrap it up, I'll take it!  Actually, my '79 300CD will do just fine...

[O]

I'm really disheartened to see that Moto Guzzi wasn't on that list.  If they don't get with the times, they'll be left behind!   

[rboe]

I want a clicker so I can make other cars stop. Right now. Creeping on a red light. Click. Rolling stop. Click. Tailgating me. Click. Texting. Click. Coming into my crosswalk. Click,

Click those bastards!   

[Sasquatch Jim]

  I want a clicker that not only makes them stop but turns off their engine and locks their doors and blocks their cell phone.

[Lcarlson]

And sprays them with pepper spray! Well, maybe just water....

[kirkemon]

I'm undecided on this technology, but leaning in the direction that it's a good thing.

I noticed that Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen's Audi AG were both on the list but not Porsche.

[BRIO]

We can debate the merits all day long.  My complaint is that it adds cost to the vehicle.  There is already  a bunch of stuff on cars I don't need and shouldn't have to pay for.  Something as simple as power windows.  Try buying a car without them.

Economies of scale tends to offset that. Yes, I agree that  there are many gizmos that are unnecessary. However, I wouldn't lump this system in with electric windows and Sirius XM. A more accurate comparison would be ABS, ESP, airbags, and seat belts.

If it saves someone's daughter or son...

[segesta]

As I've posted before, if the automobile were invented today there is absolutely no way the government would permit it: A three-thousand pound hunk of metal and glass, that can go any direction the driver points it, at potential speeds exceeding 100 mph? There's no way the Dumb Citizenry could handle it. If we can save just one person, we must destroy this scourge.

Now pile onto this "mass transit" device, sheep. Er, fellow man.

[Noguzznoglory]

It's only a small step from mandating auto braking to mandating autonomous control: cuz macines can do it better.  And if it would save just one life, would it be ok to regulate motorcycles out of existence because too many people are killed on them?

I'll take less government, more freedom and I'll live with the risks. Can't be protected from everything

[cloudbase]

By setting premiums for coverage, the insurance industry controls what you can drive or ride.  If you think this is bad, you should see the requirements for general aviation coverage.  At least for cars and motorcycles, there's no requirement (yet) for so many hours in type before being allowed to drive off alone.

[ITSec]

By setting premiums for coverage, the insurance industry controls what you can drive or ride.  If you think this is bad, you should see the requirements for general aviation coverage.  At least for cars and motorcycles, there's no requirement (yet) for so many hours in type before being allowed to drive off alone.

Actually, there's a move in that direction already - it's been going on for decades. Some variation of progressive licensing is in place in many jurisdictions. This can be a displacement limit for new motorcyclists, a lower speed limit for new drivers, no night driving in the first year, and so on. It started in Europe in the 60s, and is common in Canada; even Oklahoma used to have a displacement thing for early motorcycle licensing.

[GearheadGrrrl]

The real challenge is going to be interoperability- What happens when a new car with good tires and ABS dynamites the brakes with an old truck and trailer with no ABS and bald tires behind?

[rboe]

Well, if the situation is such that the car has to apply the brakes before the driver can react that truck is going to cream you no matter what. If you and the car did not apply the brakes soon enough you'd pile into whatever was in front and then the truck would pile into the both of you.

Besides; cops love to find old trucks with bald tires (or any defects for that matter - just for those reasons; huge safety issue on the road).

At first blush, with this older crew, something that had better reflexes than us would seem to be a good thing. Especially with so many of us down grading our bikes because we don't trust our reflexes any more.

[guzzimike]

All I can relate about this Hi-Tech "protective system", ironically, is a phrase which dates from the 18th Century; by Ben Franklin -

 

"Those who would trade Freedom for Safety, deserve neither."



< paraphrased for reactionary intent >

 


 -

[Hymes Inc.]

Just one more ridiculously expensive thing to fix when it breaks. 

[Penderic]

How aboot...

If Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out? - Will Rogers.

New standards invented by Government funded agencies that are imposed on society .... for our own good, the health of the planet,  of course.

[charlie b]

I think the auto braking will be a good one.  And, I will welcome the self driving car, especially for interstate travel.  I just hope the govt doesn't mess it up like they did the first round of air bags.

Yes, it will make cars more expensive and less reliable, at least for a little while.

But, it also means that the motorcycle and other such vehicles will slowly go away.  I also suspect that there will be a version of a motorcycle in the future.

But, all this is a moot point for me.  I will be dead by the time most of this stuff is mainstream.  Oh wait!!!  Maybe it will get here about the time I would be restricted from driving due to poort eyesight or some such.  Auto drive means I could still go out on my own!  After all, being blind is no worse than texting while driving :)

[Penderic]

Where is the "Follow the money" flowchart?




 

Taking the blue pill....

Automatic range extension.

[oldbike54]

 I propose NERF cars 

 Dusty