NHTSA wants to mandate forward collision tech

Discussion in 'Other Vehicles' started by Ryephile, Jun 9, 2015.

  1. Ryephile

    Ryephile New Member

    Apr 9, 2009
    299
    122
    0
    Yes!
    Metro Detroit
    Ratings:
    +122 / 0 / -0
    This just dropped today:

    The full story link is here

    What do you think? Plan to keep the economy afloat, or deter buyers from affording new cars? The NTSB Chairman can't be genuinely asserting that tech is "free", or is he that ignorant? Is the rhetoric irrelevant, and saving lives the only useful point? Discuss :biggrin5:
     
  2. Metalman

    Metalman Well-Known Member
    Lifetime Supporter

    Sep 29, 2009
    12,713
    7,659
    113
    Ex-Owner (Retired) of a custom metal fab company.
    Columbus, Ohio
    Ratings:
    +7,913 / 1 / -0
    And they spend my taxes like it was free....

    “You don’t pay extra for your seat belt,” HUH??? I'm pretty sure I paid for mine....




    [​IMG]

    seatbelt.JPG
     
  3. Ryephile

    Ryephile New Member

    Apr 9, 2009
    299
    122
    0
    Yes!
    Metro Detroit
    Ratings:
    +122 / 0 / -0
    Exactly. Based on that right there, the guy is out of his mind. It's as brainless as saying "I don't see it costing anything on the Monroney, so it must be FREE!"

    If it's in the car, it costs something. The MY2018 rear view camera mandate will obviously add cost, and adding forward collision will obviously add cost.
     
  4. Crashton

    Crashton Club Coordinator

    Jun 4, 2009
    19,424
    10,031
    113
    Retired old fart
    Hooterville Ohio USA
    Ratings:
    +11,656 / 2 / -0
    Oh boy more nannies..... I'd gladly pay not to have them thereby funding someone who does.
     
  5. MCS02

    MCS02 Moderator
    Staff Member Articles Moderator Supporting Member

    Jul 31, 2009
    11,164
    6,170
    113
    Male
    Ratings:
    +7,877 / 10 / -3
    I'm with Crashton! The NTHSA head is an idiot
     
  6. DryMartini

    DryMartini New Member

    Dec 6, 2012
    1,048
    479
    0
    Ratings:
    +479 / 0 / -0
    +1
     
  7. caseydog

    caseydog Well-Known Member

    Nov 7, 2012
    2,433
    879
    113
    Automotive Photographer
    Dallas
    Ratings:
    +1,059 / 1 / -0
    Having been rear-ended at red lights four times, I gotta say I like the idea. As for cost, the last time I was rear-ended (by and uninsured driver), it cost my insurance company $16,000. We all pay for those claims with higher insurance rates.

    CD
     
  8. Firebro17

    Firebro17 Dazed, but not Confused
    Lifetime Supporter

    Sep 18, 2010
    7,820
    3,327
    113
    Retired CAL FIRE Battalion Chief
    The Great Irrigated Desert of Central CA
    Ratings:
    +3,328 / 0 / -0
    Imagine that. Another department head idiot, appointed by an even bigger idiot. Enough said.
     
  9. Crashton

    Crashton Club Coordinator

    Jun 4, 2009
    19,424
    10,031
    113
    Retired old fart
    Hooterville Ohio USA
    Ratings:
    +11,656 / 2 / -0
    It seems to me most of these systems now only work at low speeds. Not sure if the proposed new ones are different. Someone tooling along reading their texts is still going to crash into someone. CD with $16,000 coming from your insurance company I'd hazard a guess that wasn't a low speed bump.
     
  10. caseydog

    caseydog Well-Known Member

    Nov 7, 2012
    2,433
    879
    113
    Automotive Photographer
    Dallas
    Ratings:
    +1,059 / 1 / -0
    He wasn't going fast, he just never hit the brakes. As for the damage, speed wasn't the issue, it was mass. My Audi A4 was hit by a Ford Expedition and got punted up the back of a Ford Explorer. Heavy front and rear damage on an Audi costs a lot of money to fix.

    CD
     
  11. Metalman

    Metalman Well-Known Member
    Lifetime Supporter

    Sep 29, 2009
    12,713
    7,659
    113
    Ex-Owner (Retired) of a custom metal fab company.
    Columbus, Ohio
    Ratings:
    +7,913 / 1 / -0
    Put the airbags on the outside and the inside....

    There.... I fixed it..... And it's all FREE....

    It even meets european pedestrian impact standards...

    [​IMG]
     
  12. Nathan

    Nathan Founder

    Mar 30, 2009
    25,144
    10,052
    113
    Writer
    Short North
    Ratings:
    +10,069 / 0 / -0
    This is all part of the slippery slope leading us to automated driverless convenances.
     
  13. Eric@Helix

    Eric@Helix New Member
    Motoring Alliance Founding Sponsor

    May 4, 2009
    1,154
    1,257
    0
    Shepherd
    Philadelphia
    Ratings:
    +1,257 / 0 / -0
    'You don't pay extra for your seatbelt' says Mr.-NHTSA-as-he-makes-that-no-brainer-face.

    [​IMG]

    Yes. Yes you do Mr. NHTSA. It's part of the cost of the car. The effectiveness of a snappy rhetorical truism to support your idea is reduced if it's not true.
     
  14. ScottinBend

    ScottinBend Space Cowboy
    Supporting Member

    May 4, 2009
    8,767
    2,547
    113
    Bend, OR USA
    Ratings:
    +2,678 / 1 / -0
    Just to play devils advocate.........I actually like this idea. Yes it can be argued that it will lead to the dumbing down of the driving population, but seriously hasn't that already been happening? We have the internet in some new cars so phones aren't even necessary to the distraction bag of goodies. If it is simply an accident avoidance system, like in the new Subies, I would like to see it made available in all cars. But we all know most off these functions can and will be able to be turned off.
     
  15. Crashton

    Crashton Club Coordinator

    Jun 4, 2009
    19,424
    10,031
    113
    Retired old fart
    Hooterville Ohio USA
    Ratings:
    +11,656 / 2 / -0
    Scott I'll pay for not having them & you can have the ones I paid not to have. Instead of making drivers better we continue to dumb them down making them worse. Now that is real progress. :eek:ut:
     
  16. MCS02

    MCS02 Moderator
    Staff Member Articles Moderator Supporting Member

    Jul 31, 2009
    11,164
    6,170
    113
    Male
    Ratings:
    +7,877 / 10 / -3
    Ok your the Devil!!:lol::lol:
     
  17. TexasChiliS

    TexasChiliS Well-Known Member

    May 5, 2009
    1,144
    73
    48
    Ratings:
    +73 / 0 / -0
    Another reason to keep the r53. At least there will be a reduced number of people out there to hit me.
     
  18. ScottinBend

    ScottinBend Space Cowboy
    Supporting Member

    May 4, 2009
    8,767
    2,547
    113
    Bend, OR USA
    Ratings:
    +2,678 / 1 / -0
    :devil:
     
  19. caseydog

    caseydog Well-Known Member

    Nov 7, 2012
    2,433
    879
    113
    Automotive Photographer
    Dallas
    Ratings:
    +1,059 / 1 / -0
    We can't "make" drivers better. They have to want to be better drivers.

    Case in point, TPMS, which is now mandatory. I don't need it. You don't need it. But, I regularly see cars, minivans and SUVs running with what is probably 15 pounds of air in the tires -- many of them with kids in child seats in them. Those people aren't "drivers," they are motor vehicle operators, at best. Those people are the reason that TPMS is mandatory.

    CD
     
  20. Crashton

    Crashton Club Coordinator

    Jun 4, 2009
    19,424
    10,031
    113
    Retired old fart
    Hooterville Ohio USA
    Ratings:
    +11,656 / 2 / -0
    Our licensing requirements are a sad joke. Tighten up the requirements & make people learn how to drive before giving them a license. There will always be a portion of the population who are stupid idiots. At least start them off with proper training.
     

Share This Page