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:
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....
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.
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
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.
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
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...
'You don't pay extra for your seatbelt' says Mr.-NHTSA-as-he-makes-that-no-brainer-face. 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.
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.
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. ut:
Another reason to keep the r53. At least there will be a reduced number of people out there to hit me.
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
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.