Slashdot Mirror

At best, we will be saving the drunks at the cost of some good drivers.

Good drivers get killed by drunk drivers too. And it's worth noting here that a remarkable number of deaths in the US are associated with driving under the influence of alcohol.

In 2014, 9,967 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

We also have here the fallacy of the excluded middle. There's no reason that sufficiently safe drivers can't continue to drive and the US has a large pool of high mileage drivers who have collectively reduced the accident rate to 11 deaths and 1850 crashes per billion miles.

Now, I noticed in the months ago thread where I first mentioned these US safety numbers, my following observation:

The problem here is two-fold. First, we have a very low accident rate in the US. There is not that much room for improvement. If you look at the proposed benefits of self-driving vehicles, you find that they speak of highway driving a lot. That is already among the safest sort of driving.

Further, both cargo and taxi driving are high priority targets. It would replace the safest human drivers, the ones who do it as a profession.

There could be a period of time when automated driving makes things worse due to replacing the safest human driving and human rather than the worst.

Sorry, I don't see replacement of the worst drivers as being a serious issue. Even wholesale replacement of all human drivers would still gain from getting the worst drivers off the street and thus would have somewhat weaker safety thresholds to meet than the best human drivers and still come out a net gain for safety.

The real problem is that some implementation proposals of self-driving vehicles looks to replace the safest drivers first not the worst drivers. For example, if you replace all truck drivers with less safe self-driving vehicles while doing nothing about the drivers who generate most accidents, you will see an increase in vehicular accidents and deaths.

Why on Earth was this modded up? To date Tesla has sold less than 100,000 cars. In 2014 GM sold over 3.4 MILLION. Instead of focusing on the fact that these incidents were notable because of Tesla calling their adaptive cruise control tech "autopilot", which mass-media picked up on, or the fact that it involved a car that typically cost over $70,000 US, you jumped straight to conspiracy.

Not to mention that the other car makes DO get media attention...I guess you can ignore that to because consipracy and Elon Musk.
http://blog.caranddriver.com/m...

https://forums.teslamotors.com...
http://media.gm.com/media/us/e...

*I know that safety can be determined through a number of different ways, such as deaths per miles driven, but I don't think that's applicable when talking about why journalist would pick up a story.

here is a comparison of multiple systems and we see that Tesla is vastly superior to them.

The problem with side mirrors is about 80% of drivers are idiots and aim both side mirrors to show you the view behind the car, which is already covered by the rearview mirror.

Given that /. has lots of engineers and scientists among the userbase, I'll be generous and guess that about 50% of slashdotters get it right, and the other 50% are imbeciles who have all three mirrors looking directly behind the car.

When mirrors are properly adjusted, there are no blind spots.

http://www.caranddriver.com/fe...
http://seniordriving.aaa.com/i...
http://www.cheatsheet.com/auto...
http://www.wikihow.com/Set-Rea...

Firstly, this is not about all VW cars, but only those fitted with one specific type of engine (EA189) and then only those sold in one specific country.

You are wrong on all points here. There are multiple engines involved, and German authorities say that VW cheated in Europe, too.

Plaintiffsâ(TM) lawyers brush aside the distinction being drawn by Volkswagen. âoeThe issue of whether or not it is a defeat device amounts to very little in a legal sense,â said Bozena Michalowska Howells, a partner at the London law firm Leigh Day.

âoeTheyâ(TM)re going to remove it and fix it, and for regulatory purposes, itâ(TM)s being deemed a defeat device,â she said.

So in fact, this is about a broad range of cars sold in multiple countries, and you have no idea what you are talking about. Why not step aside, and let the adults speak?

I was traveling abroad shortly after this scandal broke. I had gone on a guided tour and had dinner with a German family afterwards. The father liked my camera and was interested in getting my pictures from the trip. We chatted for hours and he gave me his business card. It turned out that he is the head of "Risk Management" for a large car manufacturer. I asked him of what he thought of the situation with VW. He made two claims to me that I (for obvious reasons) cannot verify. He said that he was personal friends with his counterpart at VW and that the company did make the decision to cheat at a high enough level that his counterpart was involved. He also claimed that VW only broke the law in the US despite the fact that it cheated emissions tests in multiple countries. He said that it was only the US that would be able to hold VW accountable as a country. Whether or not these statements are true, I cannot say.

Firstly, this is not about all VW cars, but only those fitted with one specific type of engine (EA189) and then only those sold in one specific country.

You are wrong on all points here. There are multiple engines involved, and German authorities say that VW cheated in Europe, too.

Plaintiffsâ(TM) lawyers brush aside the distinction being drawn by Volkswagen. âoeThe issue of whether or not it is a defeat device amounts to very little in a legal sense,â said Bozena Michalowska Howells, a partner at the London law firm Leigh Day.

âoeTheyâ(TM)re going to remove it and fix it, and for regulatory purposes, itâ(TM)s being deemed a defeat device,â she said.

So in fact, this is about a broad range of cars sold in multiple countries, and you have no idea what you are talking about. Why not step aside, and let the adults speak?

Yup. My first Japanese car (a Subaru) lasted fourteen years. That's longer than both american cars I'd owned previously, put together, twice over, and then some. And it never broke down. The only maintenance I did were the scheduled services recommended in the manual, and replacement of consumables like tires and brake pads. The same can definitely not be said of the Ford or Chrysler. For that matter, I could have gotten a few more years out of the Subaru. But it was due for a new set of brakes plus a timing belt & water pump. The cost of that was more than the value of the car. And I'm more of a city than outdoors person these days, so the mileage penalty of all-wheel drive doesn't make sense anymore.

My rule now is that to even be worth consideration, the VIN must start with the letter "J". Anything else is a non-starter.

Yeah, it would be impossible for a Subaru to have a problem, like "Subaru is recalling 48,500 Legacy and Outback models for total steering failure" . So maybe your anecdotal experience is not the same as data! Funny that you would claim your Subaru is more reliable that Ford, as the data from this dependability study says that Ford beats Subaru in dependability. Neither are stellar, but the data certainly doesn't back up your experience.

Focus RS recently crushed the STI and Golf in a Car and Driver comparison test http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2016-ford-focus-rs-vs-subaru-wrx-sti-vw-golf-r-comparison-test. The more recent turbos have much less lag vs. the older ones. I have a '15 Forester XT that replaced an '07 (similar engine to the wrx) and the difference is obvious and substantial.

The nice thing with my Tesla is I can charge virtually anywhere there's electricity. Granted, the superchargers take some time, but it's not a huge amount of time. Now, take the amount of time saved by charging every night. It takes only a few seconds to plug in and unplug vs the amount of time spent driving to one of a limited number of hydrogen refueling stations, waiting in line (if they're popular) and filling up. On top of that, the electricity is far cheaper than the hydrogen. Currently virtually all hydrogen is heavily subsidized since the actual price would not be cheap. Currently EVs are over twice as efficient compared to a hydrogen fuel cell car when once considers well to wheel. HFC vehicles aren't much better than hybrid vehicles when it comes to efficiency but they're still a lot more expensive to build. They have a very long way to go. Durability of the fuel cell stacks is currently about half that of a gasoline engine. A fuel cell stack as of the end of 2015 will need to be replaced at 75K miles. I did the math and the batteries in my Tesla will be good for at least double this. See this.

The 2016 Toyota Mirai, a subcompact, is only rated at 66MPG. A Prius is 58 city, 53 highway and costs less than half the price of the Mirai. BEVs are typically over 100 for a similarly sized car. For example, a 2013 Leaf is the equivalent of 115MPG, almost twice as efficient. My 3-year old Tesla, a much larger vehicle with a lot more passenger and storage room, is 89MPGe. The newer ones are even higher. The Model 3 should be considerably higher than that. Long term, I don't see HFC vehicles competing much against pure electric cars. The complexity alone means that they will always be more expensive, especially as the cost of batteries drops. The cost today of a Toyota Mirai is $58,335. This is for a car with 0-60 of 9.4 seconds and a top speed of 108MPH, not much better than a Prius. The Mirai will suffer the same problems as a Prius as well. The Mirai depends on a battery pack for acceleration and regenerative braking, just like a Prius. My last car was a Prius. It does poorly going up mountain grades and the Mirai will suffer the same problem. Unlike a Prius, the power output of the PEM stack will be considerably lower by 75K miles. A BEV car can put out considerably more power for a longer time since it isn't restricted to the limited output of the PEM stack. I've taken my Tesla up a number of steep mountain grades where my Prius would struggle without breaking a sweat. The Tesla Model 3 and other long range BEVs will cost considerably less than the Mirai. The Model 3 will also have considerably more room inside and storage space. The ONLY advantage the Mirai has is that it can be filled relatively quickly. In just about every other metric it falls short. Today I can take my Tesla most places in the country with the number of places I can't drive to without superchargers rapidly diminishing. By the time the model 3 rolls out the entire country will be pretty much covered. As it is, in California where most of them are sold, even out of the way places are getting covered. There's a charging station going in right near the entrance to Yosemite, for example and even highway 395 along the eastern Sierra Nevada mountains is covered.

Let's compare:

Hydrogen filling stations

vs

Plugshare chargers
Tesla Superchargers
Tesla Superchargers by the end of 2016 (click on 2016). This number should double by 2017.

The closest hydrogen fueling station to my house is 15 miles away from my house. My EV charging station is in my garage. This covers over 90% of my driving needs. I pay $50/month for the electricity and drive around 1000 miles/month. According to this article, the Mirai

Humans suck at driving.

Actually, they don't. That's why driving hasn't already been replaced, unlike say, computing a FFT by hand or screwing on a million bottle caps. For example, in the US we're down to about 11 deaths and 1850 crashes per billion vehicle miles.

That could be one hell of a towing truck.

I foresee problems using this proposed truck for towing. One of the things that makes the Model S successful is it's form. It has very low aerodynamic drag, and a somewhat fixed mass. Towing a trailer completely disrupts that system. Mass will increase dramatically, and most trailers have the aerodynamics of a brick.

Doesn't mean the car is safe.

Considering the "safety" of the cars with Takata airbags, this is no worse and can be considered far better since the driver doesn't have the expectation of that particular "safety" feature...

http://blog.caranddriver.com/m...

Fair comparisons: You can buy this for only $21.50 per mph or this for $1180 per mph. Now which one would you rather have?

That's not all there is to it. The EPA tests just two aspects of driving - highway cruise (65 mph), and start-and-stop city driving (averaging 21 mph). A lot of people's driving seems to fall somewhere in between those two test cases in terms of speed - i.e. around 30-40 mph.

That speed corresponds to the peak efficiency for diesel engines (gasoline engines peak around 40-45 mph). In other words, the EPA highway mileage rating for a gasoline engine is closer to the best MPG you can expect from it in any use case. But the best MPG you can get from a diesel is actually a lot higher than the EPA highway rating, and you can see a lot more MPG improvement if you drive slower in a diesel than if you drive slower with a gasoline engine..

"The car is so very silent when driving that minor squeaks and rattles that you wouldn't be able to hear in a gasoline engine car become very annoying."

That's only true at low speeds. At highway speeds, 3/4s of vehicle noise comes from tires on the road (trapping pockets of air as they roll), not the engine. That's why those sirens on EVs like the Leaf can shut-off above 35MPH, and why you still don't want to live near a busy road in an all-EV future...

Some design changes to roads have been tested, but the improvements are small.

If you want a notably quieter future car, you need to hope airless tires advance quickly and eventually surpass current pneumatic tires everywhere.

Electric cars aren't that expensive if you're willing to buy used. Aaron Robinson picked up a used Mitsubishi i-MiEV in Chicago for $8,500. It's got a range of 50 to 70 miles. http://www.caranddriver.com/co...

BMW doesn't supply software to VW, the control systems (and warning) came from Bosch: http://blog.caranddriver.com/r...

You should drive some of the newer vehicles, they are a cut above...

Give the Ford Fusion a try, a really nice car all things considered. In many ways, nicer than a Camry or Accord...

GM is still working its way out of the crap dept, but some of the newer vehicles are nice. Their cars have improved leaps and bounds over the past, in fact the new Impala is one of the best cars on the road, from anyone.

http://www.caranddriver.com/ch...

It is right up there with the Toyota Avalon and Nissan Maxima...

http://www.consumerreports.org...

If you don't like Car and Driver, try Consumer Reports...

Time will tell of course, but the American Auto Companies have finally figured out that quality sells cars.

The whole issue is based on ethics of business. If they are willing to cheat the emissions, what else are they willing to cheat?

Engine sound.

I believe there was at least one mechanical engineer that designed the motor and found that it didn't meet emission standards.

Also "real" engineers that screw up do not necessarily go to jail. The one who caused the GM ignition switch problem hasn't even been charged. Some go to jail, some don't and when they do it is usually for directly causing death or injury.

Actually this stock jeep will smoke a Vette - even a Z07, but not out corner it, obviously.

it's there's no replacement for displacement. You ignoranus.

"There's no substitute for cubic inches," goes at least back to the 1950's, as shown by this Car & Driver article from 1957. I suspect the one you use came later, and developed as a cute rephrasing. But you're free to try and find a reference dating to before 1957.

Bloody hell, shall we go pedantic? "No replacement for displacement, has a certain je ne sais quoi..... Like hell it does. It rhymes, flows in both mind and off the tongue. Whereas "No substitute for cubic inches" is inelegant, forgettable, and a much inferior way of saying almost the same thing.

Gotta side with AniMoJo here. Its the difference between good writing and bad.

it's there's no replacement for displacement. You ignoranus.

"There's no substitute for cubic inches," goes at least back to the 1950's, as shown by this Car & Driver article from 1957. I suspect the one you use came later, and developed as a cute rephrasing. But you're free to try and find a reference dating to before 1957.

In the US, I pay no yearly taxes on my Tundra, you should look into not living in a socialist paradise...

http://www.caranddriver.com/to...

Insurance companies have this information at their fingertips. Here are some public numbers:

1.2-1.5 deaths for every 100M miles travelled
185 crashes for every 100M miles travelled (or 300 if only 45% are reported)

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and http://www.caranddriver.com/fe...

However, in my experience, those numbers are pretty low. My wife and I have been involved in 3 accidents around a mid-sized city over the past 10 years (probably about 300,000 miles, or 1 crash per 100K miles), and I remember getting into a minor fender-bender (hardly ever reported) with someone about once a year when I worked near Chicago (1 crash per 20K miles).

Good grief not this again.

SDCs can drive much closer together

No, they can't.

Reaction time is only a fraction of stopping distance and cars already drive too close so, no, SDC's will not driver any closer than the cars you see on the roads today. Also you have to factor in the vast difference in braking distance difference between cars, braking distance can vary up to a third - for the very same car on the same day!

See:
The Power to Stop - Car Comparison - Car and Driver

Autonomous cars still have to leave more than a 1-second gap, I frequently see drivers leave a lot less.

I will admit it has been a while since I looked at Fords for anything other than a truck or truck like vehicles.

The new Mustang has much nicer interior materials, it no longer looks cheap, and it finally has an IRS, so the back doesn't have a hop, or as much of one.

Of course the price has risen to compensate, rather than focus on a $20k cheap pony car, a nicely equipped V8 Mustang will now run you about $40k, which is a bit nuts for what it is.

Still, for 435hp, that is pretty good, it'll do 0-60 in 4.5 seconds.

http://www.caranddriver.com/fo...

That being said, you want handling and curves, the GT is still tuned for the highway, being an American designed car for long, straight American highways.

The automatic version, it comes with all-season tires that won't impress you much, but if you change those out for summer performance tires, I think you'd be impressed.

At least when you consider the Mustang is $25K+ less expensive. :)

In terms of price, when you're talking BMW M3, you're approaching Corvette price range, and if you want to see impressive, check out the new Corvette Stingray. Lord that has been improved from prior models...

Ask and ye shall receive!
http://futurecarrelease.com/je...

Or how about a new Chief? I love the retro "razor" grille!
http://www.caranddriver.com/ph...

I would just be happy if they could make a rearview mirror and side mirrors that don't have blind spots how can I trust them with their technology when they can't even do the basic things

Blind spots don't exist because car design makes for them, blind spots exist because drivers never were taught, or never learned, how to properly set up their car.

I've had old cars and new cars, and none of them have had blind spots. Including the Miata what with it's "huge" c-pillars when top-up, an Rx-8 that people insist had huge blind spots and bad visibility, and a Mini with a small back window and fat c-pillars. All these criticisms are bogus, but people *hate* being told they're wrong.

I could spend many bytes explaining why there is no such thing as blind spots, but you'll likely dismiss my explanation. So here, spend some time educating yourself on the problem and the solution.

One way.

Car and Driver's Way.

This is the one I use, they all mean the same thing anyway.

So sort of like the Car and Drive Long term road tests.

Take the Tesla Model S as an example, it's made of aluminum and assembled through relatively conventional processes, not out of exotic processes.

Really? Because Gilbert Passin, VP of manufacturing at Tesla, says that the Model S is constructed differently from another car. But wait, yes, I watched the video, and you're right. That's a bunch of bullshit, and the car is built just like any other Aluminum vehicle, whether it's an Audi A8 or now a Cadillac CT6 or hell, probably an F150 but I didn't look into that yet. They use the same five bonding methods that everyone else does: adhesive, fancy rivets, robotic cold metal transfer, manual MIG welding, and spot welding, and the vehicle is made out of a combination of stamped, cast, and extruded parts, exactly like the A8 or CT6. So yeah, the powertrain is different, but the car is made the same way as everyone else's. Why does Gilbert have to lie like that?

I like the way the volt fixes range anxiety by allowing serial hybrid/generation. That makes it the only electric vehicle for sale that can easily be taken on long travel.

The forthcoming BMW i3 has an option (and an empty space under the hood) for a range extender. This vehicle looks seriously sweet. I am very much hoping that this new competition encourages GM to up its game with improvements to the interior and performance of its EV line. While I have admired the drivetrain tech in the Volt, I found the interior design and performance to be lacking, more econo-box than flagship. Owning a Volt needs to make the driver feel great, but too often car companies build-in these kind of compromises to encourage buyers to consider the next more expensive model.

An interesting article from Car & Driver magazine, June, 1980.

The conclusion?

"The test is over. It's obvious our subjects are as high as they're going to get. It is also obvious—and a little disappointing—that their driving abilities as determined by our two tests have not been particularly impaired, have not shown dramatic deterioration."

Visit the link for more details, including comments by an assistant research scientist specializing in drugs and their effects on driving at the Highway Safety Research Institute in Ann Arbor. (Hint -- the Car & Driver results are consistent with other tests.)

If someone is thinking about drive-by-wire cars (Nissan, uses a safety clutch to be legal atm, but they have publicly announced a push to go fully by wire http://www.caranddriver.com/fe...)

Wow, I am so looking forward to being able to get one of those steering sensor+wheel packages from a crusher. That's just the thing to use to build a really quality FF wheel on.

In particular, BMW has a history of similar cockups - just search youtube for various "iDrive problems", "Check engine reset" issues, "Engine stalling" issues, etc. Those software problems go back years. The first iDrive implementation from 2002 using Windows CE was a legendary lemon.

It isn't just BMW, though - http://www.edn.com/design/auto...

I had a Renault Clio and Renault's unreliable electronics is legendary too, even though there it was more a poor design than necessarily bad code. But you will never know - nobody has seen the source code of the firmware in many of the control units. Often not even the manufacturer has it - it is outsourced and subcontracted, even for critical systems like ABS or ECU.

And I am pretty sure that this is industry-wide problem - the same control units are in many cars, especially today with all those shared platforms and alliances between manufacturers.

If someone is thinking about drive-by-wire cars (Nissan, uses a safety clutch to be legal atm, but they have publicly announced a push to go fully by wire http://www.caranddriver.com/fe...) or the recent idea about the OTA updates in this sort of cesspit of horrid and unaccountable code, they must be insane.

Actually, auto makers are tending to do the opposite, actually using speakers and installing other systems to make the engine noises LOUDER. ;)

Actually, most all of the big car makers have been working on hydrogen fuel cell cars for over a decade now. The problem isn't the tech, although the cost of the technology is an issue. In fact GM has been putting them in the real world since 2007, I think. I doubt they are alone, as that is with minimal searching and knowledge in the area. Do not think Toyota is first or ahead simply because they have a good PR department.

Welcome to the future: http://blog.caranddriver.com/s...

DorkTwat, your fantasy S8 doesn't exist in this universe.

2012 Audi S8 ( from http://www.topspeed.com/cars/a... ) 0-60 in 4.2 sec ( about the same as the non-dual Model S P85 )

2013 Audi S8 ( from http://www.caranddriver.com/re... )

zero to 60 mph in 3.6 seconds, needs just 8.5 seconds to reach 100, and tricks through the quarter-mile in 11.9 seconds at 118 mph. Never mind that the S8 is a 4620-pound car that comfortably seats five

A Model S weighs as much or more and also seats 5 comfortably.

The reviews I've seen for the 2014 S8 puts its 0-60 at 3.9s so it may have gotten SLOWER.

A Corvette has multiple displays that could provide the warning, if you have the HUD option you could project it on the windshield.
http://media.caranddriver.com/...
http://www.caranddriver.com/ph...

A Corvette has multiple displays that could provide the warning, if you have the HUD option you could project it on the windshield.
http://media.caranddriver.com/...
http://www.caranddriver.com/ph...

The cause of the Toyota problem was people hitting the accelerator instead of the brake.

http://www.caranddriver.com/fe...

So if you take away the accelerator pedal I think we're good to go.

Or at least good to stop

The cause of the Toyota problem was people hitting the accelerator instead of the brake. http://www.caranddriver.com/fe... So if you take away the accelerator pedal I think we're good to go.

I wouldn't consider a range rover hybridized with a 47 hp electric motor vs the 288 hp diesel engine to be 'strong'. To me a 'strong' EV has the electric motor be at least as strong as the engine.

Still, per this article it gives V-8 performance at V-8 cost with V-6 gas mileage.

So it's not quite as fast as an Audi S6 which sells for about the same price as the Tesla, and is just as luxuriously appointed. And weighs about the same as well.

In the movie Fires of Kuwait, my favorite part showed a modified tank called "Big Wind".

Instead of a cannon, "Big Wind" has two jet engines from a MiG fighter plane, and it uses those to blow out fires the same way you might blow out a candle on a birthday cake, only at epic scale.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/stilling-the-fires-of-war

It's probably more practical, for wildfires, to use a helicopter to deliver explosive devices rather than drive a tank around. Setting up the water reservoirs in advance would be a problem also. The tank worked very well in Kuwait, though!

Of course all threats by corporations regarding regulation have proven to be true. Collapsible steering columns, air bags, anti-lock brakes and other government mandated technology standards have nearly destroyed the auto industry, as the American car companies promised they would.

Not really, cornering in a regular car (we are not talking race vehicles here) depends mostly on the coefficient of friction between the tires and road surface and the amount of body roll (suspension and weight). Decreasing the weight doesn't change the coefficient of friction but will decrease the amount of body roll so making things lighter will help out in cornering.

Decreasing the weight does decreases the coefficient of friction, as it lessens the amount of force that's pushing the tires against the pavement. That is, if I understand the Wiki article correctly when it states:

The coefficient of friction (COF), often symbolized by the Greek letter , is a dimensionless scalar value which describes the ratio of the force of friction between two bodies and the force pressing them together.

If being light weight meant it would handle like crap then those tiny little Lotus Elises would probably be amongst the worst handling vehicles on the road today but instead considered to be pretty close to the best.

One of the best, under $100K, in America. But, according to the article I just cited, even with a large amount of that handling prowess being the result of fancy electronic nannies, there were still issues of lift-off understeer, likely a result of poor weight distribution common with mid/rear engine cars.

Gotta admit, though, today's mid/rear engine cars are far more well-engineered (and thus, better able to handle higher power/weight ratios) than the ones I grew up with in the '80s and '90s.

I don't see why I need to talk to automotive engineers just because you've failed to produce evidence that cars are typically built with pedestrian safety features.

Well, had you read beyond the first sentence you would have seen some information to that effect, although in fairness, I admit the Wiki page is a bit thin on details; here's a link to a better article, as well as this graphic that details some of the areas of vehicles that have been designed to improve pedestrian safety.

You are misconstruing my statement about car drivers. Malicious intent is when you actively go out to injure people, whereas the vast majority of collisions are "accidental" (i.e. someone may not have been following traffic rules, but did not intend someone getting hurt as the outcome).

Probably ought to work on your wording, then. Because the way you said it originally, it sure feels like you're attributing malice.

You never want to turn off the engine while driving, since you lose power steering, power breaks, and other power functions that make it easier to control your vehicle. If you find yourself in an uncontrolled acceleration, there are much better options to take control of your vehicle: apply the brakes or put the car in to neutral. Your brakes are more than adequate to stop the vehicle and since basically every car sold has a rev-limiter, your stuck accelerator won't kill your engine if you pop it in neutral.

Car and Driver found that even a 540hp Roush Mustang only took 900ft to stop from 100MPH with both pedals to the floor. Most tests only took less than a couple hundred feet to stop: http://www.caranddriver.com/fe...