Most liked posts in thread: NHTSA wants to mandate forward collision tech

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.

 

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....

 

Oh boy more nannies..... I'd gladly pay not to have them thereby funding someone who does.

 

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...

 

This is all part of the slippery slope leading us to automated driverless convenances.

 

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:

 

:devil:

 

Get off yer butts!

I have lived with a forward collision avoidance system on a Volvo S60 for more than 2 years, and I can tell you that it absolutely sucks. Imagine the joy of not being able to pull all the way into your garage, because the system hits the brakes hard. Guess how much fun it is to be exiting a parking ramp by way of the centrally located out ramp that spirals down to street level - and having the system "see" the inside wall and hit the brakes hard - causing you to get rear-ended 6 different times? And, as a bonus, the laser-guided system sets off my Valentine One when it mistakenly reads a road sign on the shoulder or an especially reflective semi trailer far ahead as a wall in the path of the car.

Writing NHTSA won't do any good; contact your senators and representative in Washington, D.C., now to stop the NHTSA. If you don't know who they are or don't have their contact information, here are links so you can call, e-mail or send a letter:

Find Your Representative · House.gov
U.S. Senate

 

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

 

'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.

 

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

 

Not requiring intelligent driving to avoid collisions has been a continual downward slide ever since they came up with the ludicrous expense and complication of four-wheel brakes. Good drivers know that adding front wheel brakes will only lead to an instant loss of control.

And don't get me started on the madness of disc brakes: they are the devil's handiwork.

 

+1

 

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

 

Imagine that. Another department head idiot, appointed by an even bigger idiot. Enough said.

 

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.

 

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.