Amazing Things Your Automobile Can't Do

dslmodem submitted this NYT story on nifty automobile technology that isn't coming to the United States. The report suggests that legal liability is a significant reason for not offering various driver-distracting options in the U.S.

Comments

good, we don't need that crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to drive an urban assault vehicle, then get off the phone & keep your eyes on the road.

Re:good, we don't need that crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, I'll grow them just in time to slash your tires and scratch "fuck you" into the side.

Re:good, we don't need that crap.

[The_K4]

Jest this weekend I was driving a stick shift truck with a UHAUL trailer behind it when my cell phone rang. I had to use the same hand for my Egg McMuffin and the wheel, while using my other hand for the speaker phone and the stick shift. Considering the pooring rain and my broekn foot i thought I was doing pretty well.

Re:good, we don't need that crap.

[Enonu]

How'd you drink your 64 ounce thirst destroyer?

Re:good, we don't need that crap.

[Frymaster]

your real options in this situatin are:

1. don't answer the phone
2. stop eating your egg mcwhatsit

you have voice mail. your egg mcdoodad won't get any more gross for being a little colder. make the right decision.

way more americans die in traffic accidents every year than because of international terrorism. you, sir, are threat to homeland security.

Re:good, we don't need that crap.

[nomadic]

If you're going to drive an urban assault vehicle, then get off the phone & keep your eyes on the road.

What's the point of actually getting an urban assault vehicle if I can't stop paying attention the road? That's the whole point of armor, man.

Re:good, we don't need that crap.

[SIGALRM]

The same connectivity you love at home is now available in your car. In many vehicles nowadays, you can check your e-mail, view Web sites, even watch television, from the comfort of your driver's seat

Now that I've slurped back my "geek drool" and thought better of it, the idea of that sweet gadgetry massaging my technolust while I'm careening down the highway... is of course not only bad, but dangerous.

Each year, an estimated 284,000 distracted drivers are involved in serious crashes. Probably good to keep that number at least stable--if not lower--than it currently is.

Re:good, we don't need that crap.

[ShecoDu]

you forgot about the broken foot and the mad laugh in the background while he was posting the message.

it was a joke, laugh. :)

Re:good, we don't need that crap.

[Idarubicin]

(Score: -1, Didn't Get Joke)

Though to be fair, I have to agree--the McWhatsit family of breakfast products are pretty gross....

Re:good, we don't need that crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

way more americans die in traffic accidents every year than because of international terrorism. you, sir, are threat to homeland security.

More Americans died in September 2001 from traffic accidents than because of international terrorism.

Re:good, we don't need that crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or hey, do both of Frymaster's options and be twice as safe!

Re:good, we don't need that crap.

[mrclmn]

But did you spill your beer?

Re:good, we don't need that crap.

[gshub77]

Unless you were planning on doing this with him standing right there I would not consider that having a set of balls.

Re:good, we don't need that crap.

[Alaska Jack]

I suspect a lot of people are also killed by hypertension brought on by the lack of a sense of humor.

- Alaska Jack

Re:good, we don't need that crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

it was a joke, laugh. :)

Do you really think that's a safe assumption?
You don't live in the same city I do, apparently.

Re:good, we don't need that crap.

[grammar fascist]

Though to be fair, I have to agree--the McWhatsit family of breakfast products are pretty gross....

I dunno. I kinda like the McGuessBurger and the Mystery Meat Salad.

Re:good, we don't need that crap.

[Mikkeles]

'But did you spill your beer?'

No, but the bottle slipped under the brake pedal and I couldn't stop 'til I hit the cop car!

Re:good, we don't need that crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno. I kinda like the McGuessBurger and the Mystery Meat Salad.

Your /. username is "grammar fascist," and you dare to use words like "dunno" and "kinda?"

Turn in your card immediately! :)

Re:good, we don't need that crap.

[beanluc]

Anonymously, of course.

Re:good, we don't need that crap.

[Xoder]

William Shatner's latest album rocks!

[For those who don't get it, that's a line from the track, "Can't get behind that" featuring Henry Rollins, and it's totally excellent]

Re:good, we don't need that crap.

[SonicSpike]

Yeah... I was reading this on my laptop going through the toll plaza of the interstate on the way to work and nearly dropped my razor into my corn flakes!

Can you believe people were flicking ME off!?!? I tell ya people need to learn how to drive these days... geesh!

Stuff British cars have

[Xpilot]

I haven't read the article, but I assume American cars won't have ejection seats, machine guns and rocket launchers hidden with a flip of a switch like those British Aston Martins have.

Re:Stuff British cars have

[compro01]

i would mod you up, but i used up all my mod points yesterday.

Re:Stuff British cars have

[dcphoenix]

.....American cars won't have ejection seats, machine guns and rocket launchers.....

Why bother using a foreign car to blow stuff up and get tossed into the air? Buy American - get a Pinto!!

Re:Stuff British cars have

[dfj225]

For a "reasonable" fee I would be willing to install some "aftermarket modifications" for you ;)

Re:Stuff British cars have

[Erik Hollensbe]

I had a buddy who was a gear head and use to race drag when we were in high school...

His car? A pinto. The car is so damned light that it beats a lot of muscle cars for the 1/4, and nothing, I mean nothing, is worth more than the look on the face of someone who was just beaten by a car known far as wide for it's lack of anything worthy.

I get a similar feeling when people realize they were just owned by my wife at CS. :)

Re:Stuff British cars have

[jd]

Ironic, given that America is where ordinary citizens can buy a lot of this stuff off-the-shelf!

Re:Stuff British cars have

[niteice]

I will.



Aw, dammit.

Re:Stuff British cars have

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny you should mention this......

I dated a girl once whose brother raced w/ a 455 burning alchol, and a bolt-on pinto body. From memory, a stock pinto won't hold anything bigger than a 5 liter (302?).

Also, growing up in rural Michigan, there used to be a lot of pinto bodies bolted onto a 4wd chassises (jeeps, I think).

Re:Stuff British cars have

[FlopEJoe]

Maybe not the average American car but there's always DIY types out there and you just gave them ideas. Thanks Xpilot for making my drive to work much more frightening!

Re:Stuff British cars have

[CamMac]

nothing, I mean nothing, is worth more than the look on the face of someone who was just beaten by a car known far as wide for it's lack of anything worthy.

I get a similar feeling when people realize they were just owned by my wife at CS. :)

Hope she doesn't read Slashdot.

--Cam

Re:Stuff British cars have

[Lord Kano]

I get a similar feeling when people realize they were just owned by my wife at CS. :)

I used to like it when my friend's 4 year old son would 0wn n00bs at CS.

LK

Re:Stuff British cars have

[scribblej]

Did you just say your wife lacks anything worthy?

Daaayam... She may be a CS-playing geek, but I hope she doesn't read Slashdot.

Re:Stuff British cars have

[fitten]

The AMC Gremlin was a sleeper too. It is ugly and very unassuming until you realize that you could order them stock with 390 cu. in. engines in them. Do a little work on that engine and you can get 500 hp or so out of it. Not bad for a car that, like your Pinto above, weighed practically nothing.

Another car I've seen beefed up is a Maverick, same reasons, etc.

Re:Stuff British cars have

[neolith]

His car? A pinto. The car is so damned light that it beats a lot of muscle cars for the 1/4, and nothing, I mean nothing, is worth more than the look on the face of someone who was just beaten by a car known far as wide for it's lack of anything worthy.

I get a similar feeling when people realize they were just owned by my wife at CS. :)

I personally can't wait to find out what happens when your geeky wife logs onto slashdot and finds you implicitly comparing her to something known far and wide for its lack of anything worthy. Buddy, are you in for the "-1, flamebait" of your life...

Re:Stuff British cars have

[Guppy06]

Exactly! Why would anybody want to bother hiding those things behind panels and such, anyway?

Re:Stuff British cars have

[F00F]

> I had a buddy who was a gear head and use to race drag
> when we were in high school...
>
> His car? A pinto. The car is so damned light that it
> beats a lot of muscle cars for the 1/4, and nothing, I mean
> nothing, is worth more than the look on the face of
> someone who was just beaten by a car known far as[sic] wide
> for it's[sic] lack of anything worthy.
>
> I get a similar feeling when people realize they were
> just owned by my wife at CS. :)

And, tell us, just how is the look on your wife's face when she checks your slashdot account and sees that she's on the wrong end of that particular Pinto analogy?

I'm leaving aside whether one can even be "owned" at Computer Science at all, of course (I believe you were looking for "5ko0l3d", there).

Re:Stuff British cars have

[KuNgFo0]

My dad raced a pinto back in the late 70's and 80's. With a 302 it's best times were in the 10.9's I think.
Pic 1
Pic 2 - look close, you can see me (prolly 8 years old or so)!
Pic 3

Re:Stuff British cars have

[cbiltcliffe]

It'd be interesting to see it go up against a similar car I saw recently.

'76 Chevy Vega with a 350 small block.

I've always wanted to put a small block in a Chevette, too, as the results could be....shall we say....interesting. :)

Re:Stuff British cars have

[dasdrewid]

I've still got a pinto. And damn, is that thing light. With a mushy clutch, I can beat all the rich kids in their new BMW sport-coupes etc. no problem.

And driving down the highway is 10x as exciting. Everytime a big truck passes/is passed, the car jumps a few feet away from the front and a few feet towards at the back. There's nothing that'll make a passenger jump like doing 80 and having the car try and launch itself into the backend of a big rig doing 65 or so.

Re:Stuff British cars have

[GooberToo]

Hehe. I remeber being in a friend's 1967 'Stang, with a 351Clev and 4.11 posi-end. It was pretty fast, but only topped out around 120MPH. Needless to say, we laugh and laugh when an old Grimlin passed us up, fish-tailing and smoke pooring from its tires.

Those little cars can sure be fast.

Re:Stuff British cars have

[Thing 1]

I had a buddy who was a gear head and use to race drag when we were in high school...

Cut to buddy wearing high heels...

Re:Stuff British cars have

[edunbar93]

Buddy, are you in for the "-1, flamebait" of your life...

I realize you're just trying to be funny and everything, but the fact of the matter is that CS is a male dominated game, and the men prefer it that way.

I would expect that a lot of those guys who got pwn3d by his wife would feel a lot like this guy did.

Just for comparison.

Re:Stuff British cars have

[cloudmaster]

"Ow, my unibody!"

Re:Stuff British cars have

[cloudmaster]

I've got a '96 caprice (AKA the 4-door corvette), and damn, is that thing heavy (almost 3 tons). With an electronic overdrive, I can beat all the rich kids in their new BMW sport coupes, too. I can also give them a ride home, 'cause you can fit about 80 adults in that barge, and a pinto in the trunk. It's stable on the highway, though, so you've got me there - but cars slow down around me 'cause it's still painted black 'n white. :) It seems that people don't notice the loud exhaust or the fact that the cops around here haven't used Caprices for years, what with being discontinued in '96 and all...

Re:Stuff British cars have

[Erik Hollensbe]

Heh, I think you're thinking of the Eagle 4WD. :)

Re:Stuff British cars have

[N Monkey]

Exactly! Why would anybody want to bother hiding those things behind panels and such, anyway?

It's obvious. To reduce the coefficient of drag.

Engineers don't go spending hours in a wind tunnel getting the car perfect only for you to spoil it all with an ugly roof-rack full of munitions.

Jeez! :-)

Glad

[jdc180]

I'm GLAD that those features aren't available in the US. I don't need the added worry that they guy in the car next to me is reading slashdot, or trying to keep up with the lyrics on some karaoke song!

Re:Glad

[SlamMan]

But I have to admit, people around DC drive like they're trying to play Dance Dance Revolution.

Re:Glad

[shawn(at)fsu]

I don't think "driving" is the right word. Driving implies a sence of trying to get to a destination, the people here in DC are wrecking, which is the act of looking for a way to be involved in an accident.

Re:Glad

[Anonymous Coward]

yea, lets make everything illegal that way we can all be safe from each other all the time. no ive got a better idea lets just make it illegal to be an idiot.

I want to be Free and Safe, but if i have to choose between the two, I think I choose Freedom.

And dont bother replying to this thread, Darwin Doesn't care what you think about his law, and neither do I.

Re:Glad

[morganjharvey]

Ah yes, DC... The only city where people stop for the green and go through the red.

Re:Glad

[jd]

That is true. On the other hand, they're probably fishing around for a DVD for the back-seat player, gurgling along to their latest pop favourite on the CD player, watching the RADAR detector device, hoping that red-light camera fooler works... It doesn't help that many US drivers think "speed limit" refers to how many drugs you can take...

American drivers manage to be dangerous, even without all the fancy extras. The threat of lawsuits against manufacturers deters innovation but a lawsuit against an individual just means forwarding the bill to the insurance company. Speeding fines, parking fines, traffic violations - these are seen as normal living expenses, and most of the add-ons I've seen American drivers put on their cars are ways to avoid cops and fines.

Automatic parking, email-to-speech systems, etc, are nowhere near as dangerous as the stuff already in widespread use. I would consider it infinitely preferable for drivers to be able to get e-mail while driving than using a hand-held mobile phone.

Re:Glad

[Bobman1235]

I'm GLAD that those features aren't available in the US. I don't need the added worry that they guy in the car next to me is reading slashdot, or trying to keep up with the lyrics on some karaoke song!

The point is, that guy next to you CAN do all those things (read : laptop?), BUT that guy won't take responsibility for his.... LACK of responsibility, he'll blame the manufacturer of the device that's "distracting" him. There ARE applications where these toys would be fun and SAFE to have, but in the States we have to worry about liability for EVERYTHING, and it's restricting more and more markets.

Re:Glad

[ConceptJunkie]

The only city where people stop for the green and go through the red.

And the traffic cameras get you a ticket on the green.

Washington drivers are dense, but in places liek Boston, it's cutthroat, and you know what, I could deal with that because it's more predictable. Nothing is worse than someone coming to a complete stop on an entrance ramp to the Beltway.

As an unrepentant gadget freak, I don't find most of the devices appealing. It's just more grossly overpriced crap to sell you. Give me a decent stereo and my cellphone headset and I'm fine. I can see the benefits of the navigation systems, but I can function just fine without one.

Re:Glad

[Lumpy]

But they are.. or at least have been.

I had many of those features in my Kia-Sephia Back in 1999.

I installed an AutoPc from clarion. I could as kthe autopc to look up names and then dial them via my cellphone in the cradle and operate as the hands free portion of the call, I could recieve email and pages to the car and it would read them or display them on the screen. I had navigation with the crappy navtech maps, could play games, etc.... I even recieved traffic congestion reports. plus I could monitor engine and vehicle information as well as have a speed minder set to alert me when I exceed a set limit.

This is old and tired tech from the late 90's. Why europe's cars are just now getting around to doing the same things as a discontinued old car stereo system I have no idea.

The new "autopc" is called the Clarion Joyride. It adds the ability to play dvd's to the back seat or secondary display.

but the map's are still navtech maps and are horrible.

Re:Glad

[pixelpusher220]

Nothing is worse than someone coming to a complete stop on an entrance ramp

A word of advice...don't *ever* go to Eastern PA. If you think it's bad in DC it's nuts up there; the ramps are nicely shorter too, blind curves to accelerate towards a stopped car you can't see...oy

My theory on DC drivers is this...they suck badly because as soon as people learn to drive (about 4 years) we send them home and get new morons in!

Re:Glad

[The_K4]

Come to California where someone thought it would be a good idea to put stop lights on the entrance ramps to the highway so EVERYONE has to come to a complete stop. It's fun trying to merge from 0 into traffic at 70 mph!

Re:Glad

[Infinite93]

You should see the traffic in Asia. Was recently in Taiwan and the traffic there can only be described as chaotic. Rules are arbitrarily followed, lane markers are taken as a suggestion. Add the thousands of scooters weaving in and out of traffic (travelling either with or against the flow of traffic, it doesn't matter) and ANY US city seems sane.

The most interesting part is, while almost every vehicle has a few rub marks, I only saw 1 accident in a week's time.

Re:Glad

[spitefulcrow]

Or try driving in New York. The city itself is pretty manageable, only problem is traffic. The suburbs are horrid. Way too many cars going way too fast on roads that were never designed for the amount of traffic that's going on them due to the population boom here. Try negotiating an on-ramp to US-9 that has a STOP sign instead of yield, and then a 50-yard merge lane into 65+ MPH heavy traffic.

Re:Glad

[The_K4]

Here are some interesting results of a study of distracted drivers causing an accident:
Rubbernecking: 16 percent
driver fatigue: 12 percent
looking at scenery: 10 percent
other passengers or children: 9 percent
adjusting the radio, cassette or CD player: 7 percent

So does all the fancy extras include windows? radios? passanger seats?

Re:Glad

[GeekZilla]

Sounds like South Korea. I was there early this year and saw the same crazy traffic. These people wouldn't even give-way to an ambulance (with it's lights on and sirens blaring). I didn't see any accidents, but I saw a scooter almost get squished by a bus as the scooter was weaving between lanes of traffic. Rub-marks are most of the vehicles there too.
Oh yeah, the sidewalks? Those are merely raised roads for smaller cars and scooters.

Re:Glad

[ElGuapoGolf]

This is old and tired tech from the late 90's. Why europe's cars are just now getting around to doing the same things as a discontinued old car stereo system I have no idea.

I'm sure you could get a european version of the same system in the 90's. I don't think you could get it installed OEM in the 90's here or there. That's what the article is about. OEM's are including these systems.

Re:Glad

[Teun]

I'm GLAD that those features aren't available in the US

Yet in the USofA it's still legal to use your hand held cell phone while driving, in most developed(!) European countries only hands free phones are allowed.
Big companies like BP and Shell have now disallowed hands free as well because statistics show they're just as distracting and dangerous as hand helds.
So it's only a matter of time for these European countries to follow suit and write it into law.

But I can say that just about every trip I make on the I-10 between say Houston and Lafayette I see people driving while watching portable DVD players. And that road is, compared to Europe, full of cops.

Re:Glad

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh... I love the onramps around here (Harrisburg PA area). 40% of the people will try to "merge" into your side without looking, 40% will drive the whole way to the end of the ramp without looking and either slam on their brakes or continue to drive along the curb, and the remaining 10% will actually, you know... MERGE.

Up above Harrisburg heading north toward coal country on I-81 is great. They cut the road pretty in half around Lebanon so that there's a tiny little alley to creep along. Beyond that, it's a pothole filled track that can only be tenuously called a "road", much less an Interstate highway.

The cities are nice, too. In york, every single road is a one way street, but they all seem to go in the same direction. In Harrisburg, it's not unusual to watch someone actually drive up onto the sidewalk to go around pedestrians crossing the street from said sidewalk. This, of course, assumes that some idiot hasn't stopped in the middle of the lane to try and unload passengers in high speed traffic.

Heh... I've drive the beltway a couple of times at different times of the day. It don't scare me no more.

Re:Glad

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, if they're driving through the northern ("ethnic") area, I wouldn't blame them :)

Re:Glad

[Grishnakh]

Yeah, OEMs are always slow to add these things. They show up in the aftermarket years before the OEMs decide to offer them as options.

Re:Glad

[cayenne8]

"Try negotiating an on-ramp to US-9 that has a STOP sign instead of yield, and then a 50-yard merge lane into 65+ MPH heavy traffic."

Hehehe....see? There is something to be said for fast cars with big block engines and/or turbo's. My car may only get me 10 mpg...but, I get in and out of traffic REALLY fast....

:-)

Re:Glad

[clem9796]

Finally! The reason why everyone drives a SUV with a turbocharged 6.0 Liter engine. :-)

Re:Glad

[NeoSkandranon]

Perhaps "fiddling with gadgets" is low on the list because not many cars come with said gadgets as it is? Do you really want to test and see if letting people get MORE distracting stuff in their vehicle makes that percentage rise or not?

Re:Glad

[Flying Purple Wombat]

Yet in the USofA it's still legal to use your hand held cell phone while driving,

It's not legal in New Jersey, but lots of people do it anyway. I think it is also illegal in New York.

Re:Glad

[JWW]

That still doesn't explain the 20" tires with spinner rims. ;-)

Re:Glad

[Anonymous Coward]

Your assumption is totally unfounded. Back when cars first came with stick shifts and radios, everyone thought that no one would be able to cope moving a stick and being able to listen to the news on a radio. It's that kind of attitude that's kept America in the back seat when it comes to innovation. Do you realize how much more advanced Europe and Asia are when it comes to telecommunication infrastructure? We're always playing catchup.

Re:Glad

[Anonymous Coward]

> Rubbernecking: 16 percent

Yeah, surprise, the study was of accidents in Virginia. Who cares about Virginia?

Re:Glad

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, tell that to the billions of people in Asia without running water. I'm sure they'll be glad to know how advanced they are.

Re:Glad

[NoMaster]

As an unrepentant gadget freak, I don't find most of the devices appealing. It's just more grossly overpriced crap to sell you. Give me a decent stereo and my cellphone headset and I'm fine.

15 years ago, you didn't have a cellphone. 30 years ago, you didn't get a decent stereo.

See how this sort of thing works yet? What will you be unable to do without in 15 years time?

Re:Glad

[Bigbutt]

I dunno. I get 45mpg on the highway and about 38 in the city and could probably dust you off on that on ramp (not that I'd ever do that).

Of course I'm on a Hayabusa ;-) (yes, even in DC traffic; regularly commuted downtown for almost 13 years until I moved to Colorado a few months back).

Re:Glad

[bscabl]

i usualy blow that stop sign... i always forget its there till i go "aw @#$" and frantically look for a cop

Re:Glad

[Insanity]

Curious: does the light turn green only when a gap opens up into which you can merge? Or is it simply on a timer? If it's the latter, why don't Californians start ignoring the lights and just treating them as standard onramps?

Re:Glad

[Buelldozer]

This is why god created turbocharged Hayabusas. :-)

Re:Glad

[beanluc]

Nothing does!

Re:Glad

[Infinite93]

Not only do they not give way, I was in a cab that deliberately cut off an ambulance to get better position on a stoplight. We drove in front of it for 3 blocks, sirens lights and horn going the entire time.

When we arrived, we asked the company we were visiting about it, and they agreed that if you are injured, you should drive yourself or take a cab.

Re:Glad

[Anonymous Coward]

Timer. As for why people don't ignore them, I'd say the prospect of a huge ticket has something to do with it.

Re:Glad

[cayenne8]

"Of course I'm on a Hayabusa..."

Hahaha...yes, I dare say you could 'dust' me too...darned those 4 wheels...

:-)

But, I can actually keep up with a number of slower bikes...that would dust normal cars...

Reminds me...need to give my bike a cleaning, and hit the Steel Pony Express this weekend...stay safe!

Re:Glad

[Anonymous Coward]

in the States we have to worry about liability for EVERYTHING, and it's restricting more and more markets.

But at least it is keeping the lawyer class employed! We wouldn't want unemployed lawyers now.

Video would be nice

[erick99]

I would like to be able to watch tv or other video when stuck in traffic. Having the video system turn off once the car starts moving over 3mph sounds like a great idea. But, here in the US, you can sue anybody for anything and stand a good chance of winning so I understand the car makers reticence.

Re:Video would be nice

[AuMatar]

A system like that wouldn't be too bad. The problem is those that don't stop at over 3 miles an hour. The minute the driver can watch TV, you'll see a huge spike in accidents. We're better off without these features.

Re:Video would be nice

[codemachine]

Considering that a motor home company got sued by someone who put his vehicle in cruise control, then went to the back to sleep (he won with the defense "the manual didn't tell him he couldn't"), I imagine you're right about this.

It seems the defense "I'm too stupid to live" is quite valid in court nowadays, so you can just see all sorts of lawsuits about how these great new features distracted Joe Blow from paying attention to the f#%!ing road while driving.

Re:Video would be nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh great now only the elderly drivers with be able to use this!

Re:Video would be nice

[Martin Blank]

Urban legend.

Re:Video would be nice

[Anonymous Coward]

"here in the US, you can sue anybody for anything and stand a good chance of winning..."

Between 95 and 97 percent of all lawsuits filed end in settlement.

80% of all lawsuits are filed by businesses, not individuals. These suits are usually not brought because of their merit, but because they have some business purpose. For example, maybe someone wants to buy a piece of property for less than the offering price. They bring a suit against the party selling the property, that in some way casts the ownership of the property in doubt. Even though their suit is groundless, while the seller is waiting for the case to come up and be dismissed they can't sell the property. The plaintiff makes an offer for less than the property's worth, and the seller concedes. An attorney friend of mine handled just such a case.

We live in a litiginous society not because individuals sue others so readily, but because businesses use groundless or just-barely-justifiable lawsuits as weapons against their competition, and because lawyers love lucrative class-action suits. Dismiss the frivolous suits within days instead of months or years, and make class-action suits less lucrative for greedy lawyers, and a lot of these lawsuits would disappear.

Re:Video would be nice

[zfractal]

Why do I get the funny feeling that traffic on the freeways will get even worse due to people trying to stay at 3MPH so that they don't miss out on what happens next on [insert reality TV show here]?

Re:Video would be nice

[westlake]

Having the video system turn off once the car starts moving over 3mph sounds like a great idea.

Three mph can kill when you are backing out of a driveway. In the past year, I've seen four cars totalled this way on village side streets which never see speeds above 15 mph. You can as easily take out a toddler on a low-slung trike.

Re:Video would be nice

[LinuxHam]

Pure FUD. I converted my nav to also a TV, and I put the news on in stop-and-go traffic all the time. No huge spike in accidents in my little world. Not worth becoming one of your freaks, but but its FUD nonetheless.

Re:Video would be nice

[Waffle Iron]

Having the video system turn off once the car starts moving over 3mph sounds like a great idea.

So now you're going to have a bunch of people who can't pull away from their TV show and remain at a dead stop long after the light has turned green. This will undoubtedly cause rear-end collisions and countless episodes of road rage.

Enabling drivers to squeeze in a couple more minutes of TV per day just isn't that crucial.

Re:Video would be nice

[southpolesammy]

What's stopping you from getting a portable TV or DVD player? That's no different at all, and available now.

Anyway, you want to know why you won't see these in US cars? Given our legal system, if you wrecked while watching a movie on your own portable DVD player, you're at fault. However, if you wrecked while watching it on a vendor-supplied device, this could possibly be litigated into liability for the automaker, besides the fact that the commuter is no less stupid for not paying attention to the road. There is precedent for this type of ridiculous judgement with the McDonald's coffee lawsuits, and corporations are rightfully scared of the possibility of such outcomes.

However, this still does not make watching TV in your car a good idea.

Re:Video would be nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you Captain Everybody for your stunning isight into technologies that distract while driving! Knowing that you personally are capable of handling a multi ton(or hundred pound Honda, ZING!) vehicle while silmotaneously being able to cook a bagel, read the news, watch your favorite movie, and still post to Slasdot truly makes you an American icon. Escpecially since because of the fact that your brilliance automagically makes the entire American population as smartypants as you we can all do it!

Jackass.

Re:Video would be nice

[Anonymous Coward]

My parents went to Vegas and came away with a big profit. The "risk" of so-called "gambling" is pure FUD.

Re:Video would be nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Check your rear view mirror, you tv watching, erraticly swerving, lane changing, brake hitting mother fucker. Often times the worst drivers ARE NOT IN ACCIDENTS,
its those of us trying to get out of your way because you are too concerned with the tv, phone, kids, makeup to drive from point A to point B.

Re:Video would be nice

[Quixote]

Between 95 and 97 percent of all lawsuits filed end in settlement.

That's because the cost of lawyers is so high that it often makese sense to settle.

If you sue a company for $1000, it will cost the company more to just file a response in the court. The company might be better off just giving you the $1000 to go away (and never come back).

Re:Video would be nice

[codemachine]

Good to know. I can't remember where I head it, but I thought it was actually published somewhere. That certainly doesn't mean it is true though - likely someone just printed it because it sounded plausible.

Although the article does indicate that the automotive companies withhold these features in the US because they are afraid of these kind of lawsuits, whether this particular example is true or not. Maybe they believe in urban legends too, but it is more likely that they have come up with some real lawsuits to support their fears.

Re:Video would be nice

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how that's the problem of the driver. It seems to me that if the toddler is too young to not run blindly into oncoming traffic, or to get out of the way should oncoming traffic become an issue, the toddler should not be away from a (theoretically taller) parent.

Re:Video would be nice

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you leave your house each day when you are this consumed with fear? People like you are afraid of everything - you sit up at night thinking of new things to be afraid of. I doubt our forefathers foresaw a future of such utter wimps. Grow some balls.

Re:Video would be nice

[JimBobJoe]

A system like that wouldn't be too bad. The problem is those that don't stop at over 3 miles an hour.

You've actually just made an interesting argument for allowing such systems. I have seen people mount a TV on their dashboard here in the US. On the other hand, between them mounting a regular TV to their dashboard, and having one which I know automatically turns off after 3mph, I would definitely prefer knowing that drivers had the latter and the former. And the best way of eliminating the former, would be bringing out the latter.

Re:Video would be nice

[Anonymous Coward]

The McDonald's coffee lawsuit brought by the elderly woman was legitimate. McDonald's was aware that its coffee was dangerously hot and had injured several other people, but chose to ignore these previous warnings. It was also aware that it was holding its coffee well above normal temperatures for stored, brewed coffee (according to McDonald's, this helped retain the flavor). The woman in question suffered severe burns which required grafts. She was mainly compensated for the medical bills she incurred from the injuries. The initial award that is frequently tossed around, like most awards in this type of suit, was reduced to reasonable levels by the judge.

The coffee was knowingly being held at abnormally high temperatures for stored coffee. As such, it was unexpectedly dangerous which is why the jury handed her a win. This is more akin to accidentally cutting your thumb off with a pair of safety scissors that have been made razor sharp and suing than it is to sticking your hand in a running mower blade. You are expected to take reasonable precautions, but if the only reason you didn't take reasonable precautions was that the item you were handling was abnormally dangerous for the type of item it is (without warning), then it's hard to fairly place the blame on the person who is injured. There are many examples of stupid litagation due to greed or ignorance. This is not one of them.

Re:Video would be nice

[AuMatar]

I don't think I ever saw anyone who did that. I think if I did, I'd smack some sense into them.

I disagree, that its a good argument. A bolt on will likely be cheaper than the official product, and it will make a cop looking at a car unsure if its legal or not. A better idea is just to outlaw them and place a very large fine on anyone with an on dash TV.

Re:Video would be nice

[Waffle Iron]

How do you leave your house each day when you are this consumed with fear? People like you are afraid of everything - you sit up at night thinking of new things to be afraid of. I doubt our forefathers foresaw a future of such utter wimps. Grow some balls.

The fear is not irrational. Statistically, you're more likely to die young in an auto accident (around 1% lifetime risk) than from any other single cause. Every month of every year as many people die in car accidents as in the 9/11 attacks. Even if terrorists got WMDs, they would have a hard time creating an overall lifetime risk that equals that of car accidents.

I do go out of the house despite these risks, but the risks placed on everyone don't need to be made worse just so YOU can selfishly watch fsking TV in your car, mkay? I don't need more balls, you need some priorities.

Re:Video would be nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, we have a huge over-population problems in the large cities!

This might slowly start to fix the problem.

Re:Video would be nice

[jeff4747]

These suits are usually not brought because of their merit, but because they have some business purpose

And for another example, see SCO vs IBM.

Re:Video would be nice

[bluGill]

As I understand it, there are two choices. A company can always fight to the end, even when they know they are in the wrong, or they can settle. Companies that fight get a reputation with lawyers, and the lawyers will not bring anything to court unless they are [somewhat] sure of winning. Companies that settle get more suits, but they don't have to spend nearly as much settling.

It makes no difference to the bottom line in the long run. However in the short term, every court case that is dragging out has to be put on various SEC reports. (the rules are far more complex than I'm making them out to be) Many investers don't like to see unknowns like this. So many companies just settle if they can.

Personally I'd rather see the company pay lawyers. You don't sue Ford unless you are going to win (IIRC Ford is one of the big fight it out companies, but this could have changed), while you sue GM if you can come up with something. However if everyone fought it out, perhaps we would get to the point where you don't sue unless you can win. Once people don't just sue, perhaps some settlements are safe when you know you are in the wrong. (maybe... if this doesn't get us back to the current situation)

Re:Video would be nice

[Anonymous Coward]

You're either a lawyer or a used car salesman. You hold hot coffee between your legs, you may get burned. A reasonable precaution is to use a fucking cup holder.

Re:Video would be nice

[Anonymous Coward]

You are the problem. The people manufacturing items, or selling them, or whatever should not be responsible for warning you of every possible way you could hurt yourself.

If you buy the item it is your responsibility to understand its proper safe use. Mcdonalds should be able to sell coffee as hot as they freaking want to. If its too hot poeple won't buy and they will make it cooler. If its not so hot that people stop buying then there is no problem. If you buy a cup you immediately know its hot. Certainly you should then take precautions not to burn yourself. If you do not it is not anyone elses responsibility to have told you to do so. If you are too stupid to have learned about hot things burning then its a good chance to finally learn.

Re:Video would be nice

[Mock]

In Japan, there are very few cars that have automatic cutoffs in the navi systems. The automobile accident rate here is low compared to the USA and has remained fairly steady over the years.
I sometimes watch TV or a movie on the navi while my wife is driving, or vice versa. The same goes for programming in the destination (it's nice to use the auto-route selection, even if you know a faster way to get there since it keeps updating its idea of the best route, and will warn you if there's heavy traffic, bad weather, road work etc).

The problem lies not with the technology, but with the people using it. What does this mean? Education.

In Japan, everyone has to undergo a grueling exam before they are allowed on the road (100 question test, followed by driving on the testing course).
Because there are so many safe driving habits to learn (such as keeping close to the curb when making a left-hand turn so that people riding scooters don't try to sneak up on the inside where your bind spot is), it's rare that someone will get their license without having gone to a driving school.

American education has given way to American schooling (which is completely different). Fix that and you'll fix a whole lot of other problems in your society.

Re:Video would be nice

[westlake]

I don't see how that's the problem of the driver.

You kill a child you pay a price whether the law holds you responsible or not.

Re:Video would be nice

[VeriTea]

The coffee was knowingly being held at abnormally high temperatures for stored coffee

You do know that coffee is brewed with boiling water, don't you?

You do know that water will not exceed 212 degrees at sea level, dont' you?

Unless that coffee was OVER 212 degrees it was NOT unreasonably hot. McDonalds is right, hot coffee holds its flavor much better then lukewarm coffee. That's why I like Starbucks - their coffee has a darker roast then I prefer, but they serve it much hotter then anywhere else, so it ends up tasting fresher and more flavorful.

Re:Video would be nice

[gujju]

What about the idiot who refuses to get back up to traffic speed just so that he can get to see the last episode of his favorite show and is too lazy/stupid/stubborn to pull over.. So now you have people who are going 3mph or slower just to see if Ross kisses Rachael or if Phoebe is pregnant while traffic is going past them at 35-40 mph

Nah...doesn't sound right to me.. Maybe if you let the audio be on and just switch off the video...but I'm sure there might be something wrong with that idea as well.. Adhish

Re:Video would be nice

[JuggleGeek]

An attorney friend of mine handled just such a case.

Your friend is a slimeball, which means he'll screw you just like anyone else.

We are not a litigious society (n/t)

[Anonymous Coward]

Yours sincerely, Darl McBride

Re:We are not a litigious society (n/t)

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure I completely understand what's so great about these extra features in these cars. Could you please explain, perhaps using an operating system or music distribution methodology as an analogy?

good!

[digitalsushi]

i dont want the people passing me watching TV while they're driving. the only thing they should be doing is driving. i dont want cars that park themselves, and i dont want cars that alert me when i'm getting sleepy. its unfortunate that the move is cowardly, but fortunate that it's the safer result.

Re:good!

[Eccles]

i dont want the people passing me watching TV while they're driving.

The European system shuts off if the car is going more than 3 MPH. If you're getting passed by someone going 3 MPH, perhaps you should just pedal your Big Wheel a bit faster?

here come's the story

[samyool]

/me wonders how many times the GM ceo versus Bill Gates story is going to be posted now. Hell, I bet it even gets modded up.

Wow... point and click parallel parking... COOL!

[Delta-9]

"This device automatically parks the car, maneuvering the Prius backward and into the space. To activate it, the driver first pulls alongside the forward vehicle, then drags a picture of a flag marker and parking triangle on the car's touchscreen display, until they are positioned where the vehicle should wind up."

haha

[badpenguin]

The cure to AIDS! Only you cant have it

Superflous.

[Raven42rac]

I really want my car to do 1 thing, get me from point A to point B, reasonably efficiently and safely. A modicum of comfort does not hurt either.

Re:Superflous.

[Ironsides]

Then you have many options that will work for you besides cars.

A) Walk
B) Bike
C) Moped

You can also buy the bottom of the line models that the manufacturers sell without radio or anything else. I, however like to listen to music while driving as it helps me concentrate.

Re:Superflous.

[Tassach]

I really want my car to do 1 thing, get me from point A to point B, reasonably efficiently and safely. A modicum of comfort does not hurt either.

Then you have many options that will work for you besides cars[: Walk, Bike, Moped].

Unfortunately for most people those options are neither efficent nor safe. You cannot legally (or safely) walk or ride a bike or moped on an Interstate, which is for a great many people the only practical way to get to work. Likewise, any open-air vehicle is unsafe in rain or snow.

Re:Superflous.

[Anonymous Coward]

A) will turn an average commute into several house, is incredibly inefficient, and is totally unsafe.
B) is only an option for relatively short trips, is much less safe than a car, and is not an option in bad weather.
C) is better than A and B, but I'd still like to see you on your moped in a heavy storm.

oh, and good luck taking any of those three on a highway, which is often the only way to get from point A to point B.

Re:Superflous.

[Greyfox]

A) Walk

And get run over. Here in Boulder during the summer, we hear about pedestrians getting run over two or three times a week on the traffic report.

B) Bike

And get run over, see above.

C) Moped

And get laughed at, mocked, and then run over. We don't hear about so many of these because everyone knows that the drivers will aim for them, which isn't why the pedestrians and bicyclists are getting run over.

Re:Superflous.

[Anonymous Coward]

By any chance are these pedestrians walking down the middle of the street instead of on the side walk like they are supposed to? Jeeze, don't you have any paths for people in Boulder?

My does

[Anonymous Coward]

Does your drive straight forward ?

:: fingers crossed ::

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's just hope that car blow jobs aren't in that list ;)

Re::: fingers crossed ::

[Anonymous Coward]

What, you don't approve of autoeroticism?

Re::: fingers crossed ::

[Anonymous Coward]

What a great idea, a blowjob machine for the driver. It might calm down some of the idiots driving around here. Better yet, make it so that it stops giving you blowjobs when you exceed the speed limit, or "gets a headache" when you run a red light!

Hell, I'll settle for a mandatory soundtrack that says "my what a big dick you have," with more enthusiasm the slower you drive.

Re::: fingers crossed ::

[Tackhead]

> > Let's just hope that car blow jobs aren't in that list ;)
> What, you don't approve of autoeroticism?

Getting an blow job while driving an auto? Erotic.

That same blow job performed autoerotically? Problematic.

Doesn't matter whether you're driving an auto, truck, motorcycle, small plane, M-1 Tank, or a unicycle, it's gonna get messy.

...but if anyone's got a unicycle and feels flexible... umm... MPEG?

We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing that is very cool that they have in Europe is 'TMC' -- radio stations will broadcast traffic alerts on where there is bad traffic. This will automagically update the route computers in most cars' naviation systems to find an alternate route around the traffic jam. No-one in the states has it, but it is standard with all VW/Audi/Skoda/Seat NAV+ units in the EU. Absolutely shameful.

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[samyool]

Am I missing something?

This feature has been available since the early 90s in the UK to anyone with a http://www.radioandtelly.co.uk/rds.htmlRDS (Radio Data System) enabled set.

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[DNS-and-BIND]

That's only useful if you don't know where you're going. I had a GPS in my car, and only used the navigation features when I had a trip to an unfamiliar place. Using it around town is kinda pointless. It's good for seeing where you are, but I never used route navigation. I never saw any taxis do route navigation, either.

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[Aggrazel]

I have this in the US. Its called "AM Radio".

Course this guy named John Phillips is liable to shoot at groundhogs from his helicopter, I'm not sure if you get that in GB, but I guess around here it adds to the spice of life.

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[conway]

Well, if everyone takes the alternate route, collectively suggested by their same-model NAV systems, wouldn't the guy _without_ the NAV system be left better off ;)

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[mekkab]

That's only useful if you don't know where you're going.

UHm, exactly. I used to live outside of DC. Now I live in a temporary apartment just over the DC line. I have no idea where I'm going, AND I'm in the thick of traffic. In short; I'm a beltway commuter's worst nightmare!

Another example: I get into downtown DC to pick up my wife by taking the GW parkway down into Virginia, cross over a bridge, and voila I'm in DC. One night they closed the whole friggin GW parkway! I had to call my wife to get alternate directions. Its times like these that you need extra help. If my wife didn't have web access (Thank you, mapblast!) I would have been screwed and lost; DC sucks to get lost in!

P.S.- my sister sent an email and did infact write "alittle." !!!! I immediately thought of you.

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[dfj225]

What you said is true, but I think it would be an excellent feature if the system operated like this: I could tell my car that I'm going on my usual route to work but to keep me alert of any problems on my path. Having this information the car would know that I don't need turn by turn navigation, but if it hears of any traffic problems, it could calculate the fastest alternate route. I think this would be useful because I know my way to work, but I pretty much only know of the major roads that get too much volume on a daily basis. If my car could figure out a faster way to work, with less traffic, on the fly I think I would buy such a car or device.

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[drinkypoo]

here in the U.S. you can buy radar detectors with an upcoming-construction-warning system. Problem is, at least in California, no one actually uses the beacons that warn of upcoming road construction. Well that, and it's a useless feature, because they put up signs that say "SLOW DOWN FUCKHEAD" when you come up to one anyway.

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[Misch]

In large swaths of the US, we don't have the population density that lots of European countries have.

I'm not exactly sure that these systems are all viable over here.

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[jevfro]

I was amazed when I went to Japan two weeks ago, just how many cars had TVs/LCD navigation systems and the like. My Fiancée's parents owned a 10 year old Toyota sedan and it had a 6" TV (although reception came and went), power everything, including rear seat recliners w/ vibrating massagers, a separate cassette deck in the rear seats, with seperate AC heat CD controls, etc... All of this was original to when they bought the car in 1993. I'm not sure what other features it had but I can imagine they take all the electronics to a similar "next level". These things would probably not be a good idea for your average US driver. But as far as I could tell the Japanese drove amazingly well. You have to realize how much harder it is to drive in Japan in the first place (at least in the urban areas I visited) The hords of lil' cars, motorcycles, scooters, bicycles, busses, trains, and shool children and lil' ol ladys on thier way to the market, all fighting for position. Sure I saw a couple fender benders and one more serious accident, but the number of people using the streets has to be huge! I think driving is taken much more seriously in most other parts of the world. We feel it is our right to drive, and when we're 16 damn it! I think you should have to beable to pass some sort of erratic manuver simulation test before you get a licence. Just to see what the person does when they are facing the unexpected. Jevfro, out

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[Mr. Slippery]

I had a GPS in my car, and only used the navigation features when I had a trip to an unfamiliar place. Using it around town is kinda pointless.

You'd be surprised. I once dated a brilliant woman, PhD candidate in Egyptology, speaks six languages, is now a Fulbright scholar. We dated for about seven months, and she would still get lost on the way to my house. Some people really need this feature.

(She can't do math, either. She can explain the historical development of the Babylonian sexagesimal number system, but I once spent twenty minutes trying without success to explain how to compute a 20% tip by doubling and shifting the decimal point. Her dad is a retired engineer, a former VP at Lucent/Bell Labs, but to her any mathematical formula makes as little sense as hieroglyphics make to me.)

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[radish]

How does knowing where you're going tell you magically where there is bad traffic ahead. The parent was not extolling the virtues of nav systems (though they are useful) he was talking about traffic data systems which automatically route you around jams. And they are extremely cool.

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[radish]

I have this in the US. Its called "AM Radio".

Great. So you can spend the whole trip listening to 1010WINS or the local equiv, with it's dumb commercials, fuzzy sound quality and endlessly repeating news headlines. I on the other hand can listen to whatever I want from my CD changer, knowing that I will be notified automatically of any problems up ahead, and if needed my route plan will be updated.

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[DNS-and-BIND]

My point was, to use the traffic features, you'd have to plan out a route every time you went somewhere. This is usually too much trouble (it was for me, anyway, even though I could store preprogrammed routes).

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[ElGuapoGolf]

Dude, rock on! AM Radio rules. It's so great to wait 15 minutes for a traffic update during rush hour. And when you finally get it, one of 2 things will happen.

1) You get the update for the traffic backup you're currently sitting in.

2) You get no update for the traffic backup you're currently sitting in because the damn newsroom is so slow that nobody's reported it yet, or because the traffic chopper can only cover so many highways in a 15 minute timespan.

Yeah, AM traffic updates rock dude!

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and while you rely on GPS to tell you where to go, you aren't learning anything and still can't navigate on your own long after anyone else would have learned. Ditch the GPS, learn the area, and you won't get lost when you don't happen to have it.

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[ElGuapoGolf]

In large swaths of the US, we don't have the population density that lots of European countries have. I'm not exactly sure that these systems are all viable over here.

I formally invite you to join the residents of the NJ/NYC metro area for a week of commuting. Then you can tell me how viable you don't think they are.

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[LinuxHam]

I'm going on my usual route to work but to keep me alert of any problems on my path

On a trip to Scotland, I called Hertz three times to ask if they had GPS and all three times they said, "no". I got in and found that the Toyota had a funky GPS feature hidden in the radio. Having GPS in my car, I knew what features to expect and being a geek, I was able to figure it out. ;) Well, I found my hotel in the list and before leaving the lot, the GPS proceeded to tell me about problems on my way there, including "road work", and a "traffic jam". She also warned me as I was driving along the M-whatever, "Warning: last chance to exit before... traffic jam".

It was the coolest car gadget I've ever had the pleasure of using. I will be very happy when that comes stateside. Part of me never expects it to, however, as I'm sure we could never agree on a nationwide standard format for the messages.

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[radish]

Not true. I used to have a Traffic Master unit in the UK, but I didn't even have a nav system. The Traffic Master displayed a map (which I could zoom in/out) showing the major roads around my current location and indicating bad traffic & road construction. So I could glance at the display and see if there were any problems, then use my local knowledge to go around.

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[Flying Purple Wombat]

You'd be surprised. I once dated a brilliant woman, PhD candidate in Egyptology, speaks six languages, is now a Fulbright scholar. We dated for about seven months, and she would still get lost on the way to my house. Some people really need this feature.

Sounds like a friend of mine. Has a PhD (engineering), IQ over 160, and a GPS/Nav system in his car. Even with explicit written directions, a highlighted map to my house, and the Nav system, he still got lost! I had to "talk him in" via phone.

My son (now 15) is turning out the same way. He's a genius, but got lost riding his bike home from his girlfriend's house, in our own neighborhood.

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[Aggrazel]

I'm sorry that you don't have Gary Burbank where you live, he makes it worth the wait.

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[Aggrazel]

Five things I've learned driving 100 miles a day on congested interstates:

1: Traffic updates (at least where I live) come every 10 minutes, usually on the 10s, so if I want them I know exactly when to turn the radio on.

2: Always check traffic 10 minutes before you set out from work.

3: Always keep backup routes in mind.

4: Memorize street names wherever you go.

5: The same places will back up at the same times nearly every day, plan for it. I don't need any stupid electric gadget to tell me that I75 southbound is going to be backed up at paddock from about 7AM to 9:30AM. It happens every day.

I know about 30 ways to get from downtown Cincinnati to Dayton. Several of them are even fun with the top down in a convertible. Never have I thought, "Gee, I need an instant traffic update button.", because you know, anything I can't find out on the AM within 10 minutes wouldn't help me anyway because the alternate would be too far out of the way as it is. And I enjoy the AM as it is because well, Gary Burbank rules in the afternoons and in the mornings there's two stupid sports guys who argue about crap. Either way I'm more entertained than I would be by music that I've heard before.

**** HOWEVER ****

Even without that, to say the US is backwards because our cars don't have these things, check out MSN autos, you can actually have instant traffic reports delivered directly to your cell phone if you want them to be.

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[pixelpusher220]

Only problem becomes one of scale since *everybody* probably gets the same 'alternate' route...at least until that fills up too

But the idea is a good one

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I use mine as a radar detector. Well, not really- but it does beep when I exceed the preprogrammed speed limits for certain types of roads.

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[jrumney]

Using it around town is kinda pointless.

That might be true if you live in a small town that you know like the back of your hand, or if you live in a modern city with streets aligned on a grid and called 1st, 2nd, 3rd..., but if your in one of the older cities in Europe that has grown organically with narrow streets weaving in all directions then you'll really appreciate a navigation system.

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[Anonymous Coward]

The US has an equivalent system called RDS, which is standard on quite a few cars now.

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[Anonymous Coward]

Even without that, to say the US is backwards because our cars don't have these things, check out MSN autos, you can actually have instant traffic reports delivered directly to your cell phone if you want them to be.

Great - so you can read text messages on your phone while driving. Just what I wanted to hear...

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[DNS-and-BIND]

Yes, most people live in modern cities these days. How trite of me to forget Old Europe.

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[mink]

The Toyota Prius has the nav system you are talking about, also the radio has a TRAF button and can automatically pick up broadcast warnings. It's just that no one in america seems to bother to broadcast the warnings. Both the "classic" and current model Prius have this option.

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[LinuxHam]

I was trying to remember the name of the Toyota model in Scotland. It was a basic 4-door hatchback. But in any case, my mom's Camry has that TRAF button and my friend's '03 Trailblazer has it, too. Those are just quick RDS searches. I can also search up TRAFFIC in RDS in my Murano, but as you say, no one here uses it properly. There's a station in Orlando, for instance, that just leaves it on all the time. So when you do an RDS seek for TRAFFIC down there, you get oldies or "sunny hits" or whatever the f is on.

This system in Scotland was way different, though, since the gps coordinates and road names were broadcast in the signal. The car warned as I was approaching the rear of the traffic jam. It was really amazing. And the black & white LCD for the stereo would actually change to display the layout of the upcoming intersections. I have a completely separate full-color nav system in the Murano. Its display is not shared with the radio functions (prior to being aggregrated on-screen, that is).

Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

News for nerds. Matter that stuffs.

Tort Reform Redux

[geomon]

The tort system does need revision, but the only proposal I've seen so far gives relief exclusively to corporations. For tort reform to work, it will have to include:

1) eliminating slap suits,
2) limiting damages that individuals must pay to corporations (what's good for the goose, etc), and
3) shifting the burden of proof from the defendant to the plaintiff (same as for criminal cases).

Then I can support tort reform.

Otherwise tort reform is yet another corporate bailout.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[Maestro4k]

• The tort system does need revision, but the only proposal I've seen so far gives relief exclusively to corporations.

While I agree that we need Tort reform in general, in this case I don't see the threat of lawsuits as a problem. Frankly these are things that aren't needed in cars, especially not for the driver. Even with reasonable restrictions in place (shutting off the video when the car goes faster than 3mph) wouldn't stop idiots from killing themselves and others because of these distractions.

While a lot of the resulting carnage would probably be from people disabling built in safety restrictions, ultimately it's hard not to blame the company for selling something like a TV screen built-in to a car for the driver's usage. In this case the fear of lawsuits is probably helping to prevent many, many deaths due to unnecessary, distracting, potentially deadly car accessories.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[SlamMan]

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff in civil cases. The issue is that a civil case quit requires a "preponderance of evidence" to win, versus "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a criminal case.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[Martin Blank]

One of the other ideas that is often thrown in is a "loser pays" aspect. I'm of mixed feelings on this one, though the idea seems pretty common in other countries. Any thoughts on it?

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[TopShelf]

2) limiting damages that individuals must pay to corporations (what's good for the goose, etc),

Is that really a problem? Haven't heard too many egregious instances of individuals getting hit with massive judgements against them by corporations. The only ones that come to mind are the copyright infringement suits that allege zillions in damages. On the other side of the coin, however, you have individual executives who get sued by their former employers and shareholders (like the Computer Associates and Conseco guys). These suits against individuals can go into the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, and yet are completely reasonable....

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[dpilot]

I like your suggestions, and I have one more...

Last I heard, something like 6% of doctors were causing 66% of the malpractice payouts. Yet what ends up happening is that a hospital hides the records, in order to move the doctor elsewhere. The doctor has no visible blackmark, and is free to continue practicing (Perhaps the ordinary meaning of 'practice' is appropriate, here.) medicine.

If I mess up at my profession and am 'encouraged' to leave, the black mark would follow me. Doctors should be the same, if there's some clear indication of incompetence or negligence. I'll presume that that 6% of doctors isn't a matter of 'bad luck,' it's the bottom of the bell curve, and those people shouldn't be doctors.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[bcboy]

It's a fairly classic example in game theory. You set up an auction such that the 2nd highest bid (i.e. the loser) pays. You can't bid more than you have.

Now, who wins? The person with the most money. He always has incentive to bid higher (his cost goes to zero when he does), and he can keep bidding the longest.

Contracts with "loser pays" clauses are basically million dollar gift funds for lawyers. There's always incentive to pay more because if you win, your costs are zero.

As a deterrent to frivolous suits it sounds reasonable, but it's not.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[Kazrath]

And now women will be able to bring multitasking one step further! Drive/Do makup/Talk on phone/Light cig/Adjust Radio/Watch TV/ While driving 20-30 MPH over the speed limit!!!! And my insurance is higher.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[Peyna]

3) shifting the burden of proof from the defendant to the plaintiff (same as for criminal cases).

The burden of proof is already on the plaintiff in civil cases, except in cases where res ipsa loquitur comes into play. (res ipsa loquitur - literally, the thing speaks for itself; if you walk by a concrete block factory and a concrete block falls on your head, a reasonable person would conclude that the concrete block factory was responsible, and they have the burden of proving otherwise.)

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[Azghoul]

It's good that you are the one who gets to decide what's needed in cars and what isn't.

I was wondering who was in charge of that, thanks!

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, in Oregon it's now called "Prop 35". Which is stupid. The real problem is screw-up doctors, and a medical system that protects them (hey, see what's happening to the Roman Catholic Church in the US?).

Having had possibly a cause for a lawsuit for one of our children, who could have faced a lifetime of medical complications, but luckily hasn't (she's 4 now), having a corporation decide what is "just" compensation in this case is completely screwed up.

The insurance companies, etc., want to reduce their risk to a "cost of doing business" calculation, which is what a payout cap reduces the problem to.

"everybody" wins? Maybe, except for the party that really needs to win.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[Anonymous Coward]

I see what you're saying, but I think the solution is for the court to set a reasonable amount for how much the loser should pay. For instance, let's say a poor man sues a rich man. The rich man hires a team of high-priced lawyers and wins. The poor man shouldn't have to pay for everything...he just needs to pay an amount that is enough to deter him.

The point is not that there should be one amount that either side must pay, regardless of how much wealth each party has. The point is that each person should be willing to bet an amount, which is significant to them, that they will win. If you aren't willing to bet that you will win, then your case probably isn't strong enough to be worth the court's time.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[Elwood P Dowd]

And intent.

I don't know what I'm talking about, but someone who did told me that "intent" is too high a burden for most plaintiffs to bear. The only people that can afford to prove intent are attys general. Insurance companies can't even afford it.

Dunno what "intent" is required for, but I think something relating to it might need to be added to your list.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[IronChef]

How about a "public defender" office for civil suits?

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[RocketScientist]

I've been in favor lately of redirecting any punitive damages in a tort case away from the plaintiff and towards either the government (as a 100% tax) or some crazy non-profit. I really don't care which, as long as it doesn't go to the plaintiff, and it goes away from the defendant.

This serves two purposes: It doesn't let corporations off the hook for doing bad things, and it keeps the system from working like a big lottery payout.

In addition, real (non-punitive) damages should be very strictly limited to the real damages involved. I don't buy the "emotional damage" stuff. I do buy the "couldn't work for 3 weeks because of treatment for diagnosed-by-board-certified-psychologist clinical depression". Heck, that could get to be more expensive than the "emotional damages" suit.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[doormat]

Plus, punitive damages should be paid to the state or federal govt (depending on juirisdiction) instead of the plaintiff, and some set amount (low or none) is deducted from the punitive damages for fees. Put the money into a fund depending on what its for (if it was for a car wreck, put it towards improving traffic conditions at the intersection, if it was for smoking or whatever, put it towards public health, etc).

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[glsunder]

"6% of doctors were causing 66% of the malpractice payouts"

If anyone can find a reputable link supporting that, that'd be great. If that's the case, it needs to be brought to public attention when politicians talk about tort reform.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[ChrisMaple]

Assuming your claim is true, there are two possible causes.

Incompetent doctors get sued often.

Doctors performing risky procedures have higher failure rates and get sued more often.

I've seen interviews with doctors who have begun refusing to do risky procedures due to the chance of suits.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[donutello]

One of the biggest problems with the current tort system is the cost of the proceedings in and of themselves. In many, many cases, it is far more economical for the insurance company to settle out of court even when the plaintiff has no case.

A couple of true stories I have personal knowledge of:
- A friend's girlfriend ate something that gave her food poisoning at a restaurant while traveling. On the flight back, she got violently ill and had to be admitted to a hospital. A few days later, the airline (I believe it was Northwest) called her and offered her $10,000 if she promised not to sue them. This, inspite of the fact that it was not their fault - she hadn't eaten anything on the plane.
- A partner in my brother-in-laws real estate firm took a client (a lawyer) out to look at houses. While they were driving, they got into a minor fender bender. 6 months later, the lawyer sued the real estate agent complaining of neck pain - inspite of the fact that a month after the accident the lawyer had fallen in her boat and broken her neck. His insurance company decided not to contest and settled for $150,000.

In both cases, the "plaintiff" was awarded/offered a undeserved large sum of money for something that was not the "defendants" fault. The reason? In most cases the cost of fighting the suit would be more than the settlement offered.

The tort reform we need is expediting the process and costs of tort suits rather than limiting the damages.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[toiletmonster]

Consumers should decide what they want in their car and vote with their own hard earned cash. Who are you to make that decision?

It should not be the tv companies' fault that a driver decided to put one in his car and then crashed into someone. How about a little personal responsibility? If a driver can't handle driving and watching tv, maybe just maybe its the driver's fault and the driver should be sued. If a driver can handle it, then leave them alone. We already have laws in place to deal with people who cause accidents. Why do we want to add new laws that do the exact same thing?

Creating laws to keep out an industry like this means less jobs and a poorer standard of living. How on earth can anyone be for that? In the end, this is just yet another example of how do gooders want to impose their idea of what is best on the rest of us. You may think you are helping victims, the poor, and consumers, but the result is just the opposite: less choice and more regulation mean prices go up and there are less jobs out there. And its not the rich and the big corporations who get hurt when there are high prices and less jobs. Its the poor, the middle class, and small business that get hurt.

This is the same tired argument regardless of whether you are talking about guns, encryption, cigarettes, mcdonald's hamburgers, hammers, or boxcutters. Just about anything can be abused. Stop trying to protect us from ourselves and stay the hell out of my life.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[Anonymous Coward]

if it is a risky procedure, the ability to sue SHOULD be lowered greatly.

it all depends if that statistic is accurate, if the doctors are just plain bad at their profession, or if they are involved with those riskier procedures.

if they are performing a risky procedure, it raises the bar whether it should be done in the first place, but if that is a viable option, then they shouldnt be that accountable when things go wrong.

idealism, isnt it great

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[gcaseye6677]

Rather than a straight loser pays system, I think it would be best to make a slight change to the existing system. If the plantiff's suit is dismissed before trial and the judge rules it has no legal merit, attorney fees are awarded to the defendant by default. The plantiff can file a response to petition the court not to award fees if they can show good cause. At the same time, when the plantiff prevails, attorney fees should be awarded by default unless the defendant can make a good case to the court otherwise. This would strike a balance between discouraging nuisance suits and not making the stakes too high for someone to sue a wealthy defendant.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[swb]

Medical malpractice would be over tomorrow if all of the local medical boards would be willing to honestly review cases and de-license members. Instead they shield their members, hand out wrist slaps only when they have to, and complain about how high their malpractice insurance is. I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if "clean" medical board reviews weren't affirmative defenses in malpractice suits, or at least admitted as evidence of peer review.

I had a friend who went to the dentist and had bleeding and pain for days afterwards. He went to a different dentist and the first thing out of his mouth was "Who the hell did this to you?" The second dentist fixed the hack job the first delivered, as well as signing the complaint forms and providing documentation for the written complaint he filed with the dental board.

The result? "Claims not sustained", despite needing fairly urgent additional dental work to fix the problems caused by the first dentist. It's kind of like Bill Gates having to earn +5 Insightful on Slashdot when complaining about Samba; not *impossible*, but if he did, he better go buy a lottery ticket, too.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[dpilot]

The hard part is telling the difference between the two groups. I'll certainly agree with that.

But it seems to me that it stands to reason that within ANY profession there is something of a bell curve. There have got to be some bottom-of-the-barrel doctors out there. The real question becomes, how bad is that. I would argue that bottom-of-the-barrel airline pilots are really pretty good, or there would be more crashes under less extenuating circumstances. I just don't know if a "sufficiently safe line of margin" is drawn for doctors, as it seems to be for airline pilots. I've heard anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

IMHO another part of the problem is the Legal profession trying to impose something like mathematical precision on *every* aspect of the real world. The real world just isn't that way.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[Anonymous Coward]

"shutting off the video when the car goes faster than 3mph"

Apparently some german roads (where this was first used) now have otherwise unnecessary 3mph traffic queues...

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[Grishnakh]

Maybe what we need is to use Ebay's feedback rating system for doctors. Before you go to a doctor, you check their feedback rating. If it's 99.5%, they're probably ok. If it's 80%, you might want to think about going to someone else. And if it's "private", definitely find another doctor.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[hackstraw]

If I mess up at my profession and am 'encouraged' to leave, the black mark would follow me. Doctors should be the same, if there's some clear indication of incompetence or negligence. I'll presume that that 6% of doctors isn't a matter of 'bad luck,' it's the bottom of the bell curve, and those people shouldn't be doctors.

I'm sorry, but no matter what criteria you have or whatever arbitrary cutoff you place there will always be a bottom 6%.

As far as the screwing up and black marks go, its just bad for the whole business. You see, in our society, doctors have some godlike quality because they make people die when they are old and cannot go to the bathroom for themselves anymore instead of dying "too young". Anyway, back on topic, if 6% of doctors were publicly black marked that would be bad for the rest of the 94%, and I would bet that the other 94% would pay dearly to keep this hush hush so that they don't get questioned. Its about trust and dignity.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[Alaska Jack]

I just have a simple question.

In Europe and Japan, has the result, in fact, been "carnage?"

- Alaska Jack

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[tsotha]

Last I heard, something like 6% of doctors were causing 66% of the malpractice payouts.

"Last I heard" is hardly a reputable source. In any event there are some innocuous explanations for this anyway. I have a friend who's a doctor in a poor community. She does obstetrics, which is a pretty high-risk specialty. She gets sued every time a baby comes out wrong. Her customers don't have any way to deal with the costs associated with a problem child, so they try to get the money they'll need from the legal lottery. The hospital's insurance company gererally settles for 10-20k since it's cheaper than going to trial and elimites the risk of a hundred million dollar judgement.

So yeah, she gets sued more than any doctor in her community. But then, she's the only obstetrician. When she decides it's all too much pregnent mothers in that community will have to drive forty minutes to deliver their babies. I hope they're glad the legal system is there to protect them.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[fermion]

But the claim is that 6% of the doctors cause 66% of the claims. Therefore, if the 6% were gone, insurance rates might drop at least 50%. So this becomes a good alternative to tort reform, which frankly, is just there to protect the negligent and maximize profits of insurance companies(states with tort reform have not seen insurance rates decline significantly).

and we can take this further with your 6%. Get rid of thoses and another 50% of the insurance rates goes away. Now a doctor is paying a quarter of what he or she was. Perhaps some that saving is passed to the patient. Perhaps some of that will pay the doctors who do the work well, rather than insurance companies that protect the incompetant.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen interviews with doctors who have begun refusing to do risky procedures due to the chance of suits.


This is not a bad thing. It fits in with the whole "Do no harm" vibe that many doctors have forgotten in their quest for godlike powers.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[Anonymous Coward]

"Last I heard" is hardly a reputable source.

Hell this is Slashdot. "Last I heard" is considered documented evidence here.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[hackstraw]

I guess your not too familiar with the 80/20 rule or the 90/10 rule which goes something to the effect in most situations that 90% of whatever is caused by 10% of the people, etc. Its that way with who pays taxes, who has money, who does drugs, which users on my system bitch to me, etc, etc, etc.

I meant to have brought that up when I posted the mail saying that 6/66 is actually low, and not that bad, and in fact interesting. I guess its because doctors are not that random of a sample of people.

Gotta go.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[Anonymous Coward]

When those 6% of doctors are eliminated, who will commit 50% of the remaining malpractice? the next 6%. Although it would probably be a good idea to get rid of the current "worst 6%" of the crop, where do you draw the line if you're basing your argument on a statistic like that?

I'm sure it would also alarm you to know that as many as 50% of all doctors graduated in the bottom half of their class.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[winwar]

"She gets sued every time a baby comes out wrong."

Certainly seems like a case should be made for more education. I have had doctors very clearly indicate risks involved in medical procedures.

"Her customers don't have any way to deal with the costs associated with a problem child, so they try to get the money they'll need from the legal lottery. The hospital's insurance company gererally settles for 10-20k since it's cheaper than going to trial and elimites the risk of a hundred million dollar judgement."

So, I assume they don't have insurance? Because if the medical problem is bad, 10 - 20K isn't going to do anything. Perhaps we need universal insurance? Perhaps there ought to be a higher standard of proof in these cases? Or perhaps your friend isn't a very good doctor (unlikely, but possible...)

Of course, if your statement is accurate, this is the reason that tort reform doesn't do much-a few large lawsuits aren't the problem, the sheer numbers are....

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[winwar]

Thanks for the info. I have always wondered how the costs of the procedings might affect insurance rates, rather than just the payouts, which everyone seems to argue about. I have always wondered if limiting damages would have much of an effect if there were still lots of cases...

It would be nice to have an actual study....

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[Mawbid]

If malpractice suits were all due to actual malpractice, then the eliminating of the bottom 6% percent would stop when the malpractice suits stopped, which is well before you eliminate the entire medical profession. This is because a lot of it is competent, which is a distinction mostly unaffected by how many qualify.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[hagbard5235]

My suggestion in general:

1) Do not limit punative damages. They are there for a purpose, to punish egregious behavior on the part of the defendant.
2) Do not pay punative damages to the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorneys. Pay them to a randomly selected peer juristiction.

Punative damages are there to punish egregiously bad behavior. They need to remain, and they need to remain uncapped, so that less scrupulous parties will have the threat of unlimited liability for malfesance. However, most behavior falls far short of malfesance, and is probably not a good candidate for punative damages. In order for punative damages to function effectively though non-punative incentives for awarding them (like sympathy for the plaintiff) need to be removed.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[jeff4747]

I think the best tort reform, which would handle both situations you described, would be to get the judge involved.

When a judge dismisses a case as being without merit, all he/she can do is bar the plantiff from bringing the same claim again.

Instead, you let the judge decide that the case was particularly without merit and award attorney's fees and some punitive damages to the defendant

So, say that girlfriend had actually sued the airline. As the case is obviously without merit, she'd have to pay up.

But if her food poisoning had been caused by negligence on the part of the airline, she'd still be able to afford to sue the airline. If the judge dismissed the case then but it was reasonable to file suit, then she would not be penalized as in a "loser pays" system.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[hagbard5235]

You do realize that if you systematically increase a corporations costs, then the corporation either passes those costs on to consumers or gets out of the high cost business, right?

So if I make a whole industry systematically prone to expensive lawsuits, then I either make that industries products more expensive, or I eliminate that industry.

I don't see making the tort system rational as corporate welfare. I see it as repealing the trial lawyer tax on consumers.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[dpilot]

Elsewhere in the thread, I brought up airline pilots. Somehow their bottom 6% seems to be well above some necessary floor level. Otherwise, we'd be having more accidents.

It's not just that it's the bottom 6%. It's that the anecdotal evidence I've seen in several places (though I cannot verify that they don't all have the same original source) indicate that the floor level on doctors isn't high enough.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[Mr. Slippery]

It's good that you are the one who gets to decide what's needed in cars and what isn't. I was wondering who was in charge of that, thanks!

If you only want to drive your car on your own property, hey, do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

But if you want the priviledge of driving on the public roads, yes, we the people through democratic representation will tell you that some things are needed in your car (brakes, speedometer, licence plate) and some things aren't (darkened windows, TVs visible from the driver's seat).

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[dpilot]

"Last I heard" is merely unsubstantiated, not necessarily disreputable. Just like someone else saying that caps will solve the problem.

I've no problem with your friend, and can agree with you that she's being singled out as a high-risk (and high-victim-sympathy, don't forget) profession. I have a problem in that there does appear to be anecdotal evidence of doctors (not your friend) being moved away from their mistakes, and the evidence hidden.

BTW, I likened lawsuits to the lottery in another response to the grandparent...

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[Azghoul]

Not only do you think so highly of yourself that you call your self "infamous", but you suggest that your desires somehow outweigh mine. How big is your head, exactly?

I hadn't heard that "we the people" had deigned what was "needed" in cars. Glad to hear it. Can you point me to the list of exactly what's needed and what isn't? Thanks.

And yeah, "the whole of the law" my ass... until the environmental nuts, the zoning board, and the eminent domain abusers come a-knocking!

Wouldn't a better, simpler way be to simply punish wrong-doing instead of trying to legislate behavior? I guess not, in your collectivist world.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[dpilot]

My case may not have been as disastrous as your friend's, but I personally had some not-so-competent work done by one dentist.

Years later, I had to have a "crown lengthening" and the crown redone. Fortunately at the time, my dental coverage was better than it is, today. The periodontist who did the lengthening looked at the work and asked who did it. I pointed, since the office was nearby. He told me that I was now with "a much better clinician."

My wife went to the same dentist for years - longer even than me. When she finally switched, my dental office discovered serious gum problems, and are still taking remedial action.

(No, the current office isn't milking it. Problems prompted both office changes.)

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[Anonymous Coward]

You make an interesting point, one that I hope is true, but that isn't supported by the statistic in question..

I'm only saying that it may be that the doctors aren't the problem at all.. 6%/50% may be a perfectly acceptable level of malpractice --suits-- given that various specialties are more exposed to risk and the suing may not be related to actual malpractice but simply undesired results..

The statistic does not reveal that bad doctors not being booted, It could also be explained as 6% of doctors in the riskiest specialties have 50% of the actionable---in the mind of lawyers---undesirable results. This Article: Trial Work or with pictures, Trial Work is indicative of the kind of cases that can be pressed. The lawyer involved may in fact truely believe he is helping to advance good medicine, however that is obviously not the motive behind all malpractice suits or suits in general.

If the claim is true that high-risk specalties are responsible for the majority of malpractice claims, then eliminating the most-sued doctors might only eliminate the doctors willing to take the risk of treating patients with questionable prospects for recovery.. only low risk patients---read: already healthy---will be treated. Risky procedures will always be exposed to risk medically as well as legally but risky procedures advance the state-of-the-art in medicine.

More information is required to qualify the OP's claims.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[dpilot]

Elsewhere I referred to airline pilots. There seems to be a reasonably well established minimum competence level, in that profession. When I get into an airplane, I don't worry, "Is this guy in the bottom half (or even bottom 6%) of his class?"

I'm not picking on the bottom 6% in particular, I'm picking on some number that appear to not be adequately competent. It's just that 6% is the anecdotal number I've heard.

Would you rather have some number of doctors blacklisted or de-doctored or sent back to school?
or
Would you rather know that just about no matter how poor a doctor was, he got to keep his job, and his mistakes kept secret?

I'd argue that the latter is where we appear to be today, and the former would be better for the good doctors.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[Anonymous Coward]

It should not be the tv companies' fault that a driver decided to put one in his car and then crashed into someone. How about a little personal responsibility? If a driver can't handle driving and watching tv, maybe just maybe its the driver's fault and the driver should be sued.

Great - if I ever get killed by someone watching TV instead of the road, I'll remember to sue them afterwards.

Certainly, blaming the TV-making companies would be pointless. But saying there shouldn't be any regulation of such things is absurd.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[joew]

http://www.amsa.org/hp/medmalfacts.cfm

5.1% of physicians account for 54.2% of the malpractice payouts.
Of doctors with two or more malpractice payouts since 1990, only 7.6% have been disciplined; of those with five or more, only 13% have been disciplined.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[arodland]

punative

You keep using that word. I do not think it's spelled how you think it's spelled.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[Anonymous Coward]

My father was a doctor. One of his favorite sayings was "You know what they call the guy who graduated last in his class at medical school? Doctor."

He was also a professor at a medical school for several years. He left after he was not allowed to fail somebody he didn't feel should ever be a doctor. The school wouldn't let him b/c it mould make them look bad.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[dpilot]

"You know what they call the guy who graduated last in his class at medical school? Doctor."

Maybe instead of "Doctor," it really turns out to be "Defendent."

My protest thoughout this thread is the lack of transparency in the whole process. My health plan for next year no longer requires a PCP, (Primary Care Provider) but last time I was looking for one, there was no "merit information" available. I ended up trying to infer merit from the other information they did have available.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, it's nice that you're happy to be killed by some retard playing with his new auto toys, thanks for volunteering!

Whether YOU can handle the responsibility isn't the issue, it has to be something EVERYONE can be trusted with. So install it as a DIY if you want.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Honest and dutiful peer review by things like medical and police review boards, can only happen when you hear people say "I received a summons for jury duty, and I can't wait!". Self-interested "peer review" mechanisms will always fail us ("us" = the people the boards try to defend against). We would have to re-connect to these mechanisms (putting a stop to exclusive peer review) and make citizen involvement a widely pursued duty.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[LaCosaNostradamus]

One aspect to this problem is that no one wants a doctor for themselves that is even just "average". Everyone wants a "good" doctor. But any educational system produces a range of people.

Hence, We The People have only helped create an environment where deceit is normal (medical review boards will continue to shield their members).

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[tsotha]

Certainly seems like a case should be made for more education. I have had doctors very clearly indicate risks involved in medical procedures.

I think it's less a case of education than desperation and greed.

So, I assume they don't have insurance? Because if the medical problem is bad, 10 - 20K isn't going to do anything. Perhaps we need universal insurance? Perhaps there ought to be a higher standard of proof in these cases? Or perhaps your friend isn't a very good doctor (unlikely, but possible...)

You are correct in your assumption - her clientelle is mostly poor with little or no education. The reason they settle for 10-20K is the hospital (actually the insurance company) has pretty much decided anything over that is worth taking to court. The lawyers want to settle the case because they can wrap the whole thing up in a couple of days and collect their contingency fee. And I agree with you on the universal health care.

Of course, if your statement is accurate, this is the reason that tort reform doesn't do much-a few large lawsuits aren't the problem, the sheer numbers are..

Oh, that is most certainly the case. The solution most other countries have is "loser pays", i.e. the loser of the suit pays the winner's legal expenses. That way the plaintif's lawyer won't take contingency cases they're not going to win.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[tsotha]

"Last I heard" is merely unsubstantiated, not necessarily disreputable. Just like someone else saying that caps will solve the problem.

I apologize for the poor choice of words. A cite would be nice if your going to make assertions of fact, though.

I've no problem with your friend, and can agree with you that she's being singled out as a high-risk (and high-victim-sympathy, don't forget) profession.

That's the worst one, but there are other specialties in a similar bind. The question is do we really want a system that punishes people for providing a public good? I can tell you she's very frustrated, and could make quite a bit more money doing cosmetic procedures without the risks she's taking now. Thankfully there seem to be a certain amount of personal satifaction in delivering babies.

I have a problem in that there does appear to be anecdotal evidence of doctors (not your friend) being moved away from their mistakes, and the evidence hidden.

The current system gives incentives for just that kind of behavior. It's very unusual for a doctor to criticize another for the simple reason he might end up in court repeating what he said. a Hospital will never own up to a mistake because it puts them on the hook for an enormous amount of money.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[dpilot]

Use google with terms: medical malpractice statistics

The first hit cites 5% of doctors responsible for 54% of malpractice payouts. Not exactly my numbers, but certainly in the same ballpark, and reasonable, considering I'd remembered some other source.

The same 5/54 number comes from Public Citizen, ( http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID =7232 ) and here's the key quote: "The fact is, only a small percentage of doctors account for most of the money paid out in malpractice cases. From 1990 to 2002, just 5 percent of doctors were involved in 54 percent of the payouts -- including jury awards and out-of-court settlements -- according to the National Practitioner Data Bank of the Department of Health and Human Services. (The data bank allows hospitals and medical boards to see the records of individual doctors but, thanks to pressure from the American Medical Association, Congress forbids it to release information to doctors or the public.)"

Elsewhere in this thread, I've cited airline pilots, as a profession that requires high standards and keeps their "bottom of the distribution" effectively policed. I wonder if it could be transplanted.

Here's something amazing my car doesn't do

[The_Rippa]

Here's something amazing my car doesn't do...it doesn't wrap itself around a tree while I try to check my email and read a fax at the same time.

Gee, I can't figure out why this is bad...

[codemachine]

From the article:

"In many vehicles nowadays, you can check your e-mail, view Web sites, even watch television, from the comfort of your driver's seat."

How can't it be a bad thing if US drivers start watching porn on the TV/web while talking on the cell phone while driving and listening to loud music?

I would think that even if these options started to appear in the US, that insurance for vehicles equipped with them would be expensive.

Re:Gee, I can't figure out why this is bad...

[3terrabyte]

First thing I thought of too. The only way to get around all this is voice activation / talking computer. Obviously, let the passengers surf, watch dvd's, whatever. But the drivers should have a handsfree phone connection, direction finding (GPS) , etc.

Notice how people can have normal conversations in the their car. But put that hand to their ear, and they're all over the road!

Re:Gee, I can't figure out why this is bad...

[1000baseFX]

Insurance, well that's when more people would go under or w/o insurance. As so many do already.

Re:Gee, I can't figure out why this is bad...

[southpolesammy]

Yeah, regardless of the safeguards they talk about (auto-shutoff after 3mph, etc), this is a bad idea, whether in Europe, AsiaPac, or America. Driving is a skill that requires dedicated attention and quick responses to visual stimuli. Providing a mechanism to divert that necessary attention is bad, even when stopped.

Even the heads-down navi systems that are in cars nowadays can lead to bad driving, and they're supposed to be driving aides -- providing web/email access while driving is a "Very Bad Idea".

Re:Gee, I can't figure out why this is bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. After all, the mom and pop types couldn't afford it (for the most part); only those with money could get it, and everyone knows they hardly pay anything for anything. End result: They get it, we pay for it. As usual.

Re:Gee, I can't figure out why this is bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha! I saw this pimped out caddy a couple years ago downtown at some festival thingy at my local big university campus, and the front seats had mini-TV's installed in the headrests. Wouldn't you know it, the dudes in the back seat were watching porn on 'em! LOL.

Re:Gee, I can't figure out why this is bad...

[godIsaDJ]

Driving is a skill that requires dedicated attention and quick responses to visual stimuli. Providing a mechanism to divert that necessary attention is bad, even when stopped.

Nahh... I can drive whilst braindead... It's skill just like playing piano or guitar blindfolded. You do it so much it becomes instict.

I can also surf the net without thinking! So, two things that don't need my attention can be combined!

I can shift my attention to the skimpy bikinis while I cruise along the beach... Just as usual :)

Re:Gee, I can't figure out why this is bad...

[dapyx]

Many streets in some large cities in Europe are crowded enough that you won't supersed those 5 km/h. :-)

Re:Gee, I can't figure out why this is bad...

[Epona]

Even the heads-down navi systems that are in cars nowadays can lead to bad driving, and they're supposed to be driving aides -- providing web/email access while driving is a "Very Bad Idea".

I wholeheartedly agree!

I had a friend who relied soley on their in-car navigational system when they drove, and apparently some systems show roads that used to exist, and he somehow managed to make a bad turn and end up in a man-made drainage lake where a road once was.

Call me old-fashioned, but I find it's easier to drive when I'm watching what's happening around me :)

Re:Wow... point and click parallel parking... COOL

[RetroGeek]

positioned where the vehicle should wind up

And we all know that this is 100% repeatable, don't we...

Re:Wow... point and click parallel parking... COOL

[StevenHenderson]

To activate it, the driver first pulls alongside the forward vehicle, then drags a picture of a flag marker

...Sounds like Minesweeper. :)

Car Insurance

[donnyspi]

My collision and comprehensive coverage are friggin high enough. Keep this distrating technology away or face higher premiums.

Re:Car Insurance

[Kazrath]

Insurance = Legal scam. We complain about the RIAA ect... While we let these insurance companies take our money for a "What if" If we should be targeting anything for reform its insurance companies who take a large chunk of our money.

Re:Car Insurance

[Anonymous Coward]

Your collision and comprehensive are high because your insurance company is playing a shell game with the stock market. Didn't you find it striking that everyone's insurance rates increased in the post 9-11 stock market crash?

Furthermore, insurance companies get away with the one thing society says we shouldn't do; base a decision on gender. Why should I have to pay more for the same coverage as my sister, yet we both have the same driving experience and history? It's amazing that they are allowed to get away with it at all, but not surprising, given their position (deemed mandatory in the U.S. for anyone unable to post a $30k bond) and lax regulations in pricing.

What we need is an open database with history and rates open for everyone to see. The ones unlikely to post their information are those with something to hide, so the insurance company would be free to dictate pricing for that sub-market. As for the general population of no-claims drivers, we would be able to put the hurt on the biggest offenders by voting with our wallets.

Another Big Reason...

[diagnosis]

The article suggests it's not just that obvious punching bag, litigation, that causes these features not to appear in the U.S. The real reason may be that people don't actually *want* the ability to watch broadcast TV in their car:

"Safety and security are our winning features," said Terry Sullivan, vice president of communications for OnStar, the communications system owned by General Motors and available on 50 of its models as well as those of other manufacturers.

"While customers can hear their e-mail using OnStar's Virtual Advisor service, the number that do is minuscule, in the low thousands," Mr. Sullivan said. "More telling is that 80 percent of its 2.7 million customers buy the air-bag notification system, which sends a signal to a central office when a car's air bag is deployed, to dispatch emergency services.

-----------------
Rate free iPod offers: RateTheOffers.com

(Flat screens and Desktop PCs too)

Re:Another Big Reason...

[Ironsides]

Yeah, well, as someone who grew up in the suburbs, I like this feature:

Fear of legal action has also stopped Toyota from offering its Intelligent Parking Assist feature, which is now available on the hybrid gas-electric Prius model sold in Japan.

This device automatically parks the car, maneuvering the Prius backward and into the space. To activate it, the driver first pulls alongside the forward vehicle, then drags a picture of a flag marker and parking triangle on the car's touchscreen display, until they are positioned where the vehicle should wind up.

While the system seems ideal for congested streets like New York's, "we have no plans for the U.S.," said Jon Bucci, corporate manager for advanced technology at Toyota Motor Sales. "This is a very litigious society."

Just cause some idiot gets himself killed doing something he shouldn't have been doing in the first place if he used an ounce of common sense and his family makes a rucus doesn't mean that I'm a moron thats going to do the same thing.

Re:Another Big Reason...

[Altus]

I dont watch broadcast TV IN MY HOME...

why on earth would I want to be subjected to it in the car?

I have no problem with stuff like this set up for passengers in an SUV or miniVan... must be great for dealing with the kids... but keep it out of the drivers hands

Re:Another Big Reason...

[DNS-and-BIND]

Wait 'til they figure out the fact that you can watch internet porn in your car.

Er, thanks, but no thanks

[Le Marteau]

In many vehicles nowadays, you can check your e-mail, view Web sites, even watch television, from the comfort of your driver's seat.

I would love to have this stuff in my car. However, it makes me tremble to think that the 'average' driver would have these things.

I'm glad it's not happening in the USA; it scares me enough already to see all the jackasses in mini vans with cell phones pasted to their ear yakking and laughing like fools as they try to merge onto the interstate. I don't want to see such simpletons watching a movie and surfing the web at the same time.

Re:Er, thanks, but no thanks

[xenoandroid]

Part of the problem is that a lot of average American drivers seem to think that the world revolves around them. Seriously, they're like, "I'll drive at half the speed limit in the left line while yacking on the phone if I want to, oh shit I needed to make a right, who cares if I can just turn at the next turn and make my way to the right street from there, I'll just cut across everyone else!

It's the inconsiderateness combined with the distraction. If a call is too involving for me to drive at the right speed for I say, "Hold on." Find a parking lot or a good out of the way place to pull off to then pick the phone back up. It makes me and the other drivers on the road more comfortable. If I'm on a time constraint then it's, "Sorry I can't talk now I'm driving." If they won't get off the phone, "I'm driving and I hate having long conversations on the phone while driving, talk to you later." I also have distinctive rings for people who I would want to pick up the phone for even when driving. The average call is ignored until I get to my destination. I might make an exception to listen to the message to determine if it's important or not at the next red light.

The only near misses I've been involved in were due to those very people who have their cell phone as part of the entire driving experience.

TV with a video cut off is not anywhere near as bad as cell phones, when the video cuts off I'd imagine it's no worse than radio. I personally would love to at least have these features available in cars, the parking one seems very useful to me too. Ever have those spots that you know you can fit in but are small enough that you have to be extra careful about parking (usually because of some other idiot who is too far past or too far back from his/her meter. I fear for those other drivers myself who would 1) Do stupid things because the technology is there (such as get out of the car while it's parking) and 2) Blame the company for their own user stupidity.

Driving courses and tests need to become more rigorous to include more common sense than memorized knowledge.

"If you're having a conversation on the phone while driving that is getting really intense what would you do?" No multiple choice, just written answer, if they say, "Keep driving" they fail, one common sense answer wrong, they fail. No exceptions.

Re:Er, thanks, but no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

...actually, most people in the US have problems merging onto the highway. Cell phones just make it worse.

Re:Er, thanks, but no thanks

[XPisthenewNT]

You seem to imply that you would love this stuff in your car, because you have such superior driving ability and your apparently larger brain than the "simpletons".

My not understanding why anyone is proud of being able to do something as mundane as driving not withstanding, it's a fact that it takes less than a few seconds for a car to go careening off the road.

In Wisconsin, if you leave the road you'll hit a tree. If you are driving through Montana and leave the road there's nothing to hit--so I might agree with you that I'd use such features there. However the "open range" and the possibility of hitting a cow might deter me even there.

Re:Er, thanks, but no thanks

[Le Marteau]

You seem to imply that you would love this stuff in your car, because you have such superior driving ability and your apparently larger brain than the "simpletons".

I'm sorry if I 'implied'. I meant to be more obvious. I've spent most of my life examining my conciousness. I've spent time in a Zen montastery. I'm proficient in two martial arts, and am an advanced hatha Yoga practitioner. So when I multi-task on the road, it is with an uncommon amount of awareness and conciousness. It is not bragging or deluded to say that I am a much better driver than most, but simple honesty. I would like all that neat stuff, because I could use it wisely and responsibly. Many others, however, cannot, and I'm not about to pretend that we are all equal out there.

My not understanding why anyone is proud of being able to do something as mundane as driving

Have you ever been in an accident? Do you have any idea of the physics behind something so 'mundane' as driving? It is not 'pride' in driving but simple abhorrance of inability and foolishness.

I take driving very seriously. Lots of people do not. These people are hazards to my and your well-being, and I find them reprehensible.

Re:Er, thanks, but no thanks

[XPisthenewNT]

Well, I guess I have to be more obvious too. Unless learning Zen means you are magical, your eyes can only be in one place at one time. If you happen to be looking at some pretty display in the dashboard during a second that a kid or an animal runs out, you will kill whatever is in front of you.

Oh, and I consider it bragging when people swing around degrees or accomplishments, but then I've not spent most of my life examining my consiousness or learning how to use my body to inflict harm: I've been reading a dictionary.

Stop sueing everybody!

[SteroidMan]

Darn it, look at all the cool toys we could have if we would just take some personal responsibility for our actions.

Re:Stop sueing everybody!

[temojen]

Darn it, look at all the death, chronic pain, and permanent disability we could have if we just had more distractions while driving.

Re:Stop sueing everybody!

[Anonymous Coward]

Darn it, look at all the cool toys we could have if we would just take some personal responsibility for our actions.

If you were to or kill or injure me or a member of my family playing with one of your toys, "taking personal responsibility for your actions" after the fact just isn't going to cut it.

Re:Stop sueing everybody!

[bcboy]

It's not really "our" actions when some nimrod plows into you with his SUV while reading his email. The driver isn't going to pay for the wheel chairs and change your colostomy bags for you. Or bring your child back to life. We need both a deterrent to keep people from doing this, and a way of funding the clean-up (which can last a lifetime) when it happens. More regulation of car insurance might cover the damage. More strict laws might be a deterrent (i.e. go directly to jail if you injure someone while reading email), but it could be difficult to determine negligence. How do you know for sure he was using the computer? Maybe he was driving safely and it was an honest mistake. ... not that I think the current practice of suing the manufacturers makes sense, but we have to address all of the requirements if we change it.

lawyer suck

[Anonymous Coward]

lawyers suck maximum vacuum

I ride a motorcycle

[Anonymous Coward]

I ride a motorcycle and spend enough time watching out for idiots talking on their cell phone who wander over into my lane. The last thing I need is someone singing a Jessica Simpson song turning me into roadkill. You are driving an automobile and are putting other lives as risk. You should not be eating a big mac while talking on the phone while you are crusing down the highway at 75mph.

Re:I ride a motorcycle

[Anonymous Coward]

"I ride a motorcycle and spend enough time watching out for idiots talking on their cell phone who wander over into my lane."

You forgot to mention while you were driving at 1.5 x the speed limit making your own lane Zipping between cars and basically driving like an ass, all because you are on that motorcycle

Re:I ride a motorcycle

[cmburns69]

Didn't you hear? Ashlee Simpson's songs are the preference of the karaoke set!

Re:I ride a motorcycle

[kraut]

You shouldn't be eating a bigmac while talking on the phone, full stop.

In fact, you probably shouldn't be eating a bigmac. Full stop ;)

the only thing I care about

[Anonymous Coward]

is whether or not it can fly!

Instead of adding, why not remove shit ?

[phoxix]

Lets start with those damn ultra-bright lights. Holy cow are those super annoying. I'm not even driving but walking down the streets with those suckers turned on is enough blind me.

Sunny Dubey

Re:Instead of adding, why not remove shit ?

[red floyd]

How do you carry the power supply for your ultra-bright lights when you're walking?

Re:Instead of adding, why not remove shit ?

[dfj225]

You forgot...this is America. [sarcasm]Who cares if everyone else is blind if you can see the road really well.[/sarcasm]

Re:Instead of adding, why not remove shit ?

[Lumpy]

Lets start with those damn ultra-bright lights. Holy cow are those super annoying.

most of the time it is because they are misadjusted. the biggest problem is the rednecks in the giant pickup trucks. they do not readjust their headlights after lofting the pickup another 4 feet for their extra cool big tires.

I have those insanely bright headlights in my insight. I adjusted them properly so that from oncoming traffic lanes, they look like normal brightness, and I get the benefit of extra light on the road shoulder and that side of my lane.

most people do NOT adjust their headlights. and many cars are misadjusted from the factory.

Re:Instead of adding, why not remove shit ?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Xenon headlights are what he's talking about, and even properly adjusted they are a pain to have come around a corner at you with the brights on.

They're just TOO bright, and have become more of a "status" thing.. Much like wings, rims, and mufflers for ricers.

Re:Instead of adding, why not remove shit ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets start with those damn ultra-bright lights. Holy cow are those super annoying. I'm not even driving but walking down the streets with those suckers turned on is enough blind me.

I've often thought that headlights should have a polarizing filter, preferably horizontal polarization. That way you could wear vertically polarized sunglasses at night and not get blinded by oncoming traffic, plus they are useful for getting rid of the glare from the sun shining on puddles and other surfaces.

Re:Instead of adding, why not remove shit ?

[Anonymous Coward]

it seems lately that the status symble for all ricers is the "running like crap and smoking" feature.

Almost every ricer I see belches smoke at the lights. nice to see they are spending it on tailpipes and wings insstead of maintaince, oilchanges, and brains.

Re:Instead of adding, why not remove shit ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Be thankful that we can actually see and avoid you when you're walking down the street instead of staying on the damn sidewalk.

Re:Instead of adding, why not remove shit ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can do even better. My dad helped out in a study in Sweden many years ago about something similar.

The trick is, you polarize the headlights and the windshield at 45 degrees.

The stuff that reflects back from your headlights comes through no probs, but the lights from oncoming traffic is completely blocked by your windshield, because it's at 90 degree polarization to your windshield!

He did test in the 1960s, and said the results were spectacular. The only downside was that headlights need to be a bit brighter to compensate for the polarized windshield.

Re:Instead of adding, why not remove shit ?

[Jameth]

I think you misunderstand significantly. If you ever end up walking down a country road (which usually has no sidewalk) and have a car come at you, you will soon realize that, if they have the brights on YOU CANNOT SEE.

When a car comes at me with brights on, I have to cover my eyes and look down just so I can safely step off the road and wait for it to pass. Even with my hand over my eyes, I can only see my feet because the lights have made them shiny enough to blind me. At most places, the ground is insufficiently reflective so that I cannot see it and am left to hope that I don't step in a ditch or something. It is completely ridiculous.

Re:Instead of adding, why not remove shit ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the same in Europe, at least where I've driven (most of the southwest).

Re:Instead of adding, why not remove shit ?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all fine for the folks who are inside similarly equipped cars and spewing pollution and overusing resources for their own fucking comfort. But what about the rest? The pedestrians, the cyclists, all these people who are being nice to the environment and using little resources. Are they supposed to be blinded even more by cars? Might as well drive an SUV with the stereo turned all the way up and be a complete asshole.

Re:Instead of adding, why not remove shit ?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a pretty darned clever addition I wouldn't mind paying a bit more for. For those who didn't want to go to the expense of retrofitting the windshield of their older car, the sunglasses option would work as long as you replaced the headlights (though there would always be some moron who put his headlights in the wrong way).

Re:Instead of adding, why not remove shit ?

[fr2asbury]

That's great except for not being able to see the headlights of the car coming at you. I know, that's what were complaining about, but there's a big difference between being blinded by the lights and having the car coming at you basically invisible to you. One badly timed left turn . . .(or right turn for our friends in the UK, Japan and the like).

Re:Instead of adding, why not remove shit ?

[Anonymous Coward]

He wouldn't be invisible, since your headlights would still reflect from the car. Plus, no filter is 100% effective, so you'll undoubtedly be able to see the oncoming headlights themselves, they will just be a lot dimmer head on.

Re:Instead of adding, why not remove shit ?

[retinaburn]

Slap those headlights on an SUV any higher vehicle, and sit in a 'normal car'. I think Aspirin & Optometrists lobbied for these things. I am just glad I don't wear glasses or I swear I would have burned another set of holes in my head.

Re:Instead of adding, why not remove shit ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine like the rear view mirrors that dim?

I haven't tried to see how they work, but there is a photocell (assumption) mounted with it.

Re:Instead of adding, why not remove shit ?

[Anonymous Coward]

90% of cars with HID lights (they use "xenon" gas, but nowadays some conventional bulbs do as well and those are very different), have conventional halogen high beams.

HID lights can't be used as high beams because they require 1-2 seconds to ignite and aren't designed to be "flashed" as high beams are. They would wear out way too fast.

The only cars that do use the HIDs for high beams are those that don't have a seperate bulb, but simply tilt the main headlight upward.

The only cars I've ever heard of that do that are only available in Europe. And there's even then only one model that I can think of with that so-called "bi-xenon" setup.

Re:Instead of adding, why not remove shit ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me explain this better for those that don't know much about headlight technology.

HID (High Intensity Discharge) lights use a xenon-filled bulb and a ballast (whereas regular headlights use xenon or halogen gas-filled bulbs using conventional technology and no ballast).

These lights usually burn at a color temperature of about 4300k, some a bit higher. That's perfectly white, nearly equilivant to the color of sunlight.

HIDs use 1/3 the power of conventional halogen bulbs, though they require a slightly higher amount of power for about half a second when they're ignited.

Some naive enthusiasts install 6000k or 8000k bulbs, thinking that the higher number means more light. That, however, is not the case. 6000 and 8000k bulbs simply produce a different color, and actually produce less overall light output. The ideal is in the 4000-6000k range.

If you buy "H.I.D." (the periods denote a trademark very different from HID designed to mislead customers) or "xenon" bulbs that plug in as a direct replacement for your conventional bulbs and cost you something like $20-50 each... you DO NOT have real HIDs.

HID kits usually run about $400-600 for 2 bulbs and 2 ballasts. They will not fit conventional halogen headlight housings or wiring.

The cheap fake-HID bulbs fitted to standard halogen housings provide a great annoyance to oncoming motorists.

**AIMING**

One problem mentioned here has been aiming. Most high-end sports and luxury cars that include HID lights include an auto-leveling system. These include any Audi/VW cars that come equipped with these lights from the factory. For the last couple years' models they even move the lights up and down to compensate for inclines (and on the 2005 models, laterally for curves).

If your HIDs are aftermarket products, like mine (likely taken from a higher or newer model of the same car), you may have to adjust them manually. A capable mechanic should know the standards for doing this.

**REFLECTOR vs. PROJECTOR**

New cars that include HID lights invariably also use a new style of headlight housing called a "projector."

Conventional "reflector" headlights, as seen on most American cars even today, have a halogen bulb mounted in front of a reflective surface that throws out light omnidirectionally. The cover of the headlight housing is usually plastic with a diffussion pattern that softens the appearance of the light output.

"Projector" lenses began in Europe with halogen bulbs, and are now standard on most, if not all, Eurpoean vehicles (and some luxury American cars like the Cadillac CTS, for instance).

These headlights contain the bulb behind a lense that focuses the light into a certain pattern. The cover of the housing is perfectly clear glass with no diffusion pattern.

The projector's light pattern in US projectors tend to look like this:

__
_| |_

Euro projectors (E-code) look like this:
____
__ /

If you point them at a wall you'll see what I mean.
Below that cut-off there is a flood of focused, pure white light about equilivant to daylight.

Above the cut-off the lights looks very dim and it's as if you can "see into" the headlight housing very easily. You may even think the headlights are off.

The E-code version is far superior and generally leads to far less blinding of oncoming traffic than with traditional halogen setups.

The "blue" appearance on the original HID lights (Audi, BMW, Merc) is actually not from the light itself.

The light is a pure white as said above. The blue appearance actually only happens at the "edge" of the projector cut-off, along with a range of other colors that are less noticeable.

Some more naive enthusiasts have taken to installing real HID setups into reflector housings. Or worse yet, reflector housings designed for low-intensity bulbs (ie. with a clear cover). The Acura RSX is one example.

Some manufac

Re:Instead of adding, why not remove shit ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah it messed up my drawing.
Just imagine the --- is inline with the top of the / =)

US look like: _/--\_

E-codes look like: ____/-----

Re:Instead of adding, why not remove shit ?

[renoX]

Well I French and I dislike very much HID that I find too bright, even on brand new cars (so this is not a mistake done by a modification), if it is even worse in the US, I pity you!

Re:Instead of adding, why not remove shit ?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not such a big problem... just polarize the lights and windshields at a 40-degree angle... just enough to let some of the light through, but not all of it.

Re:Instead of adding, why not remove shit ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, except for those models that come with HID headlights as standard equipment... and are presumably properly adjusted, and legal.

Re:Instead of adding, why not remove shit ?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

I never said anything was illegal or improperly adjusted.

I said that they're brighter than needed.

I can see just fine with my "old" lights.

And, people, turn your fog lights off if there's no fog. The Police can and WILL pull you over for it.

Paranoia

[fiannaFailMan]

Terrorism has also created a switch in what consumers deem to be necessary equipment as they drive. It is the ability to communicate, not to be entertained, that seems to matter most to Americans, some industry officials have concluded.

You know what? Please don't mod me troll, but do I wish USAians would get over this terror thing. Countries like the UK and Spain have had to put up with terrorism and the the threat of terrorism for decades, but they haven't developed a culture of fear, and it has not stopped them from getting on with their lives as normal. This 'but what would the terrorists think?' automatic reaction to just about everything is starting to get a bit old.

And another thing, I could have sworn that it was illegal in the UK to have a TV playing within view of the driver.

Re:Paranoia

[IncarnadineConor]

Do their leaders do everything in their power to reinforce the culture of fear?

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh, but without the culture of fear, the Bush administration would have to resort to having actual platforms to stand on. Instead we just get "The terrorists will attack us again if Kerry is elected."

Re:Paranoia

[jd]

I believe you are correct, but I think if the vehicle is stationary, some of the rules are loosened. It's telling, though, that all the examples are in countries other than Britain.

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

"Countries like the UK and Spain have had to put up with terrorism and the the threat of terrorism for decades, but they haven't developed a culture of fear, and it has not stopped them from getting on with their lives as ***normal***." [my emphasis on "normal."]

That's because other countries have redefined a lower standard of personal freedom as "normal." You hear so much about citizen surveillance and incommunicado arrests and censorship and "free speech zones" here in the USA because we've never had them before, while in the countries you've mentioned these things have been "normal" for a long time.

I'm GLAD we're not "over it" and when it comes to the erosion of our civil liberties for the purpose of gaining the illusion of increased security, I hope we never do "get over it."

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who uses USAians deserves to be modded as trolled. Do you also call the british the UKians? In case you don't know the A in USA stands for America. Thus the moniker American. If somebody wanted to refer to the entire continent it would be North American or South American. You don't get to decide what Americans should call themselves.

And the average person in the US really isn't obsessed with the terror thing. The media and politicians love to talk it up but we still go to work everyday, fly in airplanes, and visit large cities.

Re:Paranoia

[wdconinc]

Is American better than? The American continent has some 20 other countries in it! The OP was only talking about the US, so expanding to the whole continent would have been a distortion of the truth.

Re:Paranoia

[Peyna]

You don't get to decide what Americans should call themselves.

The funny thing is, that "Americans" have been doing the same thing forever. (Eskimos, Indians, etc).

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

And the average person in the US really isn't obsessed with the terror thing. The media and politicians love to talk it up but we still go to work everyday, fly in airplanes, and visit large cities.

You must not pay too much attention to the worries of the people around you then. There are far too many people out there who believe that The Terrorists(TM) have it in for them personally. There's a reason why they're generally referred to as sheep...

Re:Paranoia

[wdconinc]

Having lived in both the European Union and the US, I have to say that your 'personal freedom' is either very narrowly defined, or you know 'old' Europe from some biased media...

Re:Paranoia

[drinkypoo]

It's illegal in the US, too, or at least most of it, and certainly in California. Of course, it's illegal to talk on the cellphone while driving most places, but I've never heard of anyone getting a ticket for it.

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHAHA. The American continent? Which one? South or North? To refer to the continent would require specifying one of the other. There is no other country that's name ends in America and thus when referring to a country there is no confusion as to which is intended. I have never met a Candian, Mexican, Brazilian, Guyanese, Eucadoran, Cuban, Puerto Rican, etc. who called themselves an American until they came to live in the United States of America.

Re:Paranoia

[Le Marteau]

Countries like the UK and Spain have had to put up with terrorism and the the threat of terrorism for decades,

That should have clued you in. Americans have little experience in such things. Cut them a break, eh? Sure, lots of Americans are lacking in worldly wisdom, but you're exhibiting just that in your "oh how I do wish the silly little minds in America would grow up" attitude.

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhhh, "Americans" didn't come up with either of those names.

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi there! I'm guessing from your nick that you're an Irelandian! Or perhaps a Scotlandian. Walesian? Britainian?

Re:Paranoia

[Andy_R]

"I could have sworn that it was illegal in the UK to have a TV playing within view of the driver."

This old law was a victim of it's own outdated wording... it referred specifically to CRTs, so LED and LCD based TVs were techinally not illegal. It's been replaced with a new definition based around prohibiting 'distractions' that also encompasses hand-held mobile phones, but it's so impenetrable that we need some case law to know what is allowed and what isn't.

For example, the law states you can only operate a mobile phone that is in a ''specially designed holder' not one held in your hand. The way the law is drafted, you can design your own holder that consists of a piece of paper held on with a rubber band, and provided you only lift the phone to your ear by the 'holder' you can use it just like before, and that's only the tip of the icebeg...

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't really that stupid, right? Last time I checked Christopher Columbus was an Italian being financed by the Spanish. There was no such thing as an America back then. Americans now call "Indians" Native Americans (except for the pro sports teams).

And Americans are not unique in renaming indigenous populations. I think you will find that the Australian Aborigines don't refer to themselves as such.

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

However, there's a difference between thinking the terrorist have it in for us (which I do), and thinking that anything is likely to come of it to me personally. It's possible to seperate those ideas, which seems to be forgotten by many who despise a justified concern over terrorists. Yes, the odds of anything happening to any one of us personally are vanishingly small and we'd be a fools to live in abject fear of that. But dismissing the danger on a wider scale would be wrong as well.

Re:Paranoia

[yoshi_mon]

I'm pretty sure that the "USAians" term comes from K5 as I've seen endless threads there about such nonsence.

It is rather annoying but it does provide some insite into a posters though process when used which can be helpful in seeing what they really might mean.

Re:Paranoia

[RandomCoil]

Countries like the UK and Spain have had to put up with terrorism and the the threat of terrorism for decades, but they haven't developed a culture of fear, and it has not stopped them from getting on with their lives as normal.

Speaking as a US citizen, I agree with you that it would be "nice" if American culture was less terror-driven, but I think it's a tad unrealistic to compare the terrorism in the UK and Spain (ignoring, perhaps, the recent train bombing in Spain) to the effects of Sept 11th. The US culture weathered the Oklahoma City bombing and the first WTC bombing in a reasonable fashion. Having four planes, the twin towers, a portion of the Pentagon, and a few other sundry buildings fall out of the sky and/or collapse is, and I'm going out on limb here, a rather more disturbing event than what Britain and Spain experienced over a few decades. I'm not saying that to lessen the experience of the other countries, but there's not a lot of historical precedent for how a people should react to terrorism of Sept 11th's magnitude.

Is it really surprising that Americans are still a tad bothered by the whole terrorism thing?

And yeah, there's just gotta be a law against drivers watching TV...

Re:Paranoia

[Peyna]

My point was that often times people from one country refer to people from another country by a name different the people of that country refer to themselves. I don't think my use of a bad example negates that claim.

By the way, the appropriate term now for referring to the people that were in North America before Columbus showed up, is "American Indians." This is upon their request, with the general belief that the term "Native Americans" tends to imply some degree of inferiority by the negative connotation associated with the word "native."

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

I will state my semi-informed opinion..

Living in the U.S. all my life, I've come to the opinion that the 'average dumb-ass American' (which I am, from time to time, though I like to think that I make a worthwhile effort not to be) is just like the citizen of the Roman empire (or U.S. regional bell telephone companies).. Fat, Happy, Dumb.

The typical U.S. citizen who grew up post WWII has never 'suffered', so they are arrogant, impatient, (brain washed by the "media"), etc. Say the word radiation, they get all jittery.. 'duck and cover!'

I would generalize that those who grew up in the 1930-1940, don't have this 'personality feature'.

Perhaps this country needs a kick in the ass to bring them out of the clouds, not crippling, but.. move them out of the center of the universe. Suffer a bit, it will give you perspective.

I remember in the weeks after 11-Sep, Pres. Bush had approval rating of 90%ish. For what.. what did he do, other than maybe give a nice speech on national TV? I'm not bashing Bush, but the dumb asses who rally around the president the same way little kids hide behind their parent's when someone new comes to visit for Sunday dinner.

"Remember the Maine!"

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans have little experience in such things

Not as little as you would like to believe.
Just where does the IRA get it's funding? Noraid anyone?

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear hear!

Most of us do not live under any "fear" of terror. (No one that I know of personally) Just seems to be a tool of the government, and the battlecry for politicians.

Most people also would acknowledge that "fear" = giving in.

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

Not as little as you would like to believe. Just where does the IRA get it's funding? Noraid anyone?

Try "The American Public" not the government.

Re:Paranoia

[the_weasel]

There is no American continent. We have North America, and South America. Where you might use the term European, it is generally accepted to use 'North American' or 'South American'.

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

I work in New York and I can tell you that the fear of terrorism has not decrease people commuting into the city or the temporary hit on tourism has come and gone. And I never said that there aren't people out there who are obsessed with terrorism. I just said that the average person is not. If you look at the polls the big election concerns are the economy, the war in Iraq and then Homeland Security.

Re:Paranoia

[radish]

And another thing, I could have sworn that it was illegal in the UK to have a TV playing within view of the driver.

My parent's BMW has an LCD monitor in the dash. Usually it's used for the nav system, trip computer etc, but you can watch TV on it. However, the TV mode is not available when the car is moving. I'm not sure if it's a legal issue or just BMW being safety minded, but the dealer said the reason for the feature was because the monitor was visible to the driver and so could be a distraction.

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

I am an american, also a U.S. citizan, and I fully agree with you. Terrorism is nothing new. Nor are attacks against the United States. The White House being burned by the Brits in the early 1800s anybody? Yet now Britan is one of our favorite allies. *Waves happily across the pond* It is possible to get past it all if both sides work at it. I thought you would like to know, from my point of veiw, it isn't the average american who is screaming "Eeek! Terrorist!" and running from every small schrub that moves in the breeze. It is just several of the morons who are currently elected to various public offices. Thankfully there are a plethora of elections schedualed for the next few years. Maybe we can change out the over dramatizing paranoid monkeys while there is some sanity left around here. We shall see. Wish us luck.

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it definitely shows that the person has a definite Anti-American bias. It is a lot like putting a $ in Microsoft.

Re:Paranoia

[m50d]

Blair does. A few months back he even had a load of tanks drive around our biggest airport, because the public didn't seem scared enough.

Re:Paranoia

[Misch]

"We will not let fear be used as a weapon" - George W. Bush.

Notice he said nothing about "political tool"

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, you are right. That is definately A problem. You turn on the news and you either see GW spouting off about terrorism, or the media with "late breaking news" about the latest robbery or killing or rap or kidnapping. That has been going on for years. But what needs to stop is the constant litmus terrorist test. What's going to happen is the next item Wendy's decides to put on its super value menu is going to be critcized from being terrorist friendly. The shoes you buy are going to have anti-terror approved rubber that cant be used by terrorist for gun grips. The nylon thread used in the shoes will be quick breaking nylon incase a terrorist gets on your plane, takes the thread out and trys to strangle people. You will being buying anti-terrorist approved toys for your kids. Where does it stop? Well, it should stop soon. It's pathetic.

Re:Paranoia

[alexo]

We need a modern day analogy to Godwin's law concerning the mention of terrorism.

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, that coinage drives me nuts!

Awkward is right! You-ess-ey-ee-an is a monstrous mouthfull, particularly in the juxtaposition of the vowels between the third and fourth and fifth syllables as an English speaker would say them. The stop required between the third and fourth is attrociously uncomfortable. The usual term, Am-err-ih-ken, is far easier, smoother and faster to pronounce. On that basis alone this new coinage is silly.

Besides, the term American has been accepted in common use and understood to mean citizens of the USA for decades, if not hundreds of years. There's no need to go coining a new term when we have a perfectly good one already, political correctness be damned.

Re:Paranoia

[wintermute740]

"You know what? Please don't mod me troll, but do I wish USAians would get over this terror thing. Countries like the UK and Spain have had to put up with terrorism and the the threat of terrorism for decades, but they haven't developed a culture of fear, and it has not stopped them from getting on with their lives as normal. This 'but what would the terrorists think?' automatic reaction to just about everything is starting to get a bit old."

Don't worry. November elections are near. Hopefully the culture of fear that has been cultivated will end with Bush's presidency :) Not that I think Kerry is any better, but I'm getting tired of "terrorists this" and "homeland security" that... I'm no more or less safe than before 9-11, but I have less liberties than before. I wish they'd quit using the victims to get themselves (re)elected :(

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

> but I think it's a tad unrealistic to compare the terrorism in the UK and Spain

See, that's where you're wrong. I can't vouch for the UK except for what I hear in the news, from time to time, but Spain has dealt with terrorism for decades. Thousands of spaniards (and citizens of other countries, as well) died at the hands of (mostly) E.T.A. in the last 20 or 30 years. It's a very real problem that has afflicted Spain for a long time, every once in a while a bomb goes off in Madrid or any of the resorts in the south, killing dozens. Every once in a while a politician (either local or national), a military chief, a judge, a DA is assassinated. Every once in a while a handful of E.T.A. operatives are jailed and the organization deemed "decapitated" or "dead", but they manage to strike back.

Please don't think you are the sole bearers of the terrorist cross. Other countries have to deal with it on an almost daily basis for decades. It's downright insulting to dismiss others suffering just because you are not aware of it.

Thanks.

Re:Paranoia

[kraut]

Yes.

Re:Paranoia

[fiannaFailMan]

Anyone who uses USAians deserves to be modded as trolled. Do you also call the british the UKians?

And anyone who gets upset about such a non-issue needs to lighten up.

Re:Paranoia

[fiannaFailMan]

Well it definitely shows that the person has a definite Anti-American bias. It is a lot like putting a $ in Microsoft.

Forgive me. Let me re-phrase it.

I wish the yanks would get over this terror thing.

There. Happy now?

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

Did those countries ever lose 3000+ people in one single attack?

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

You wouldn't use it if you weren't flamebaiting. There is no logical reason to use it. I would also point out that begging not to be modded troll usually means that you are planning on trolling.

Re:Paranoia

[Greyfox]

We just haven't had time to get desensitized to it. Look at Israel right now -- someone gets blown up there and they don't even look up anymore. Ok, so they might notice for a minute or two, but it's pretty obvious that no one's getting worked up about it, or they'd be demanding real solutions of their leaders.

Give us a couple of decades of constant terrorism and we'll react with the same sort of "Oh my god, they killed Kenny!" reaction that you see in Israel.

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually that is fine. No different than saying Brits. Yanks and Brits don't have the derogatory tone that some other nicknames have (like Kraut, Guinea, Chink, Nip, etc.)

Re:Paranoia

[Idarubicin]

I think it's a tad unrealistic to compare the terrorism in the UK and Spain (ignoring, perhaps, the recent train bombing in Spain) to the effects of Sept 11th. The US culture weathered the Oklahoma City bombing and the first WTC bombing in a reasonable fashion. Having four planes, the twin towers, a portion of the Pentagon, and a few other sundry buildings fall out of the sky and/or collapse is, and I'm going out on limb here, a rather more disturbing event than what Britain and Spain experienced over a few decades.

There's some good statistics on the UK's conflict with the IRA here. In all, more than 3500 were killed by military and paramilitary groups between 1969 and 2001. The peak death toll was in 1972, with 479 killed--that's about three Oklahoma City bombings (168 deaths in that incident). In six consecutive years (1971 to 1976) there were more deaths due to terrorism than were killed in Oklahoma city; four additional years had terrorism-related death tolls above a hundred. Between 1969 and 2001 there were no years in which there were no IRA-related deaths in the UK.

Two members of Parliament and two British Ambassadors have been killed by the IRA, and in 1984 there was a bombing attempt directed at the Prime Minister and her cabinet.

There is evidence that the IRA received funding, weapons, and other support from Libya and from the PLO at times in its history.

That's three decades of terrorism, with hundreds of people killed in some of those years. Tens of thousands of people injured, above and beyond the thousands of deaths I've listed here. Targeted bombings of politicians and judges. Yeah, it's different from what the States experienced--but I wouldn't be so quick to say one or the other was 'less disturbing'.

How many terrorist attacks did the United States have in 2003? In 2004? The British had bombings--multiple bombings--each year, every year, for decades.

Re:Paranoia

[fiannaFailMan]

Er, I've seen this word used all the time and I never saw anyone else crying about it. And posting as an AC is usually a sure sign that you're trolling.

Re:Paranoia

[Firethorn]

And that'll piss off everybody below the mason-dixon line. ;)

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting AC on an off-topic thread is considered common courtesy. If I posted as a user the lowest I could post is at 1 and would require somebody modding me off-topic to get to 0 which I think is the appropriate level for an off-topic conversation. Posting +1 on something as inane as this is just a sign that you are abusing the moderation system.

And I guarantee you've only seen USAian used by someone with a strong anti-American bias. There is no logical reason to use it so why else would you use it? And I also was not the only one who commented on it.

I've looked at some of your past posts and I did not see one that was of any substance.

Re:Paranoia

[hackstraw]

Do their leaders do everything in their power to reinforce the culture of fear?

Bingo. And someone modded this as troll.

In similar news check out this http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/26/weapons.arrest.a p/index.html Also, check out a quick google news search on the subject. (Hint, few results, especially considering its an Asociated Press news release).

This terrorism thing is obviously completly BS, because here is a pretty servere arrest right here in the USofA and it barely gets headlines. I mean for the most part there is _nothing_ one can really do to scare or deter someone who is willing to die via suicide and meet religious goals from said death in the process of taking a few others out. Nothing, nope, nada.

I'm not that big of a guy and know no self defense, I do not carry a gun or any other weapon, and I could get the living shit kicked out of me at any time walking down the street.

Am I scared? Under very rare and specific circumstances, yes, but in general no, I figure I'll be OK.

Re:Paranoia

[b0s0z0ku]

Terrorism has also created a switch in what consumers deem to be necessary equipment as they drive. It is the ability to communicate, not to be entertained, that seems to matter most to Americans, some industry officials have concluded.
Bah. I actually *like* to be without communication when I'm driving. Gahdferbid someone can't reach me *right now.*

What if my car breaks down? I have tools and a simple enough car where I can jerry-rig many things if needed. Plus I have those two appendages on the bottom of me. They're called "feet."

-b.

Re:Paranoia

[Grishnakh]

Not only that, there's loads of countries where Americans call their inhabitants, and the countries themselves, something other than what the country's inhabitants call it: China, Japan, and Germany, for instance. But "Eskimos" is the worst; the Innuit consider that term very offensive. And "Indians" is just stupid. Just because Columbus didn't know where he was 400 years ago doesn't mean we have to keep repeating the same stupid mistake. Using that word now just creates a lot of confusion, especially in my area where we have lots of both Indians and Native Americans living in the state.

Re:Paranoia

[southpolesammy]

With all due respect to those lost to terrorism around the world, there has not been an incident with as far-reaching consequences as the 9/11 attacks, both economic and security-wise. Unlike attacks like the Madrid subway bombings or the PanAm 103 bombing, is wasn't just to strike fear into people's minds; it was done to cripple the American economy and a result, effect the overall global economic condition. No other terrorist attack in recorded history has had this broad-ranging effect.

And while the jury is still out on this, I'd have to say that it was very successful in achieving those goals. Things have permanently changed because of the 9/11 attacks, some for better, some for worse, but life as we know it in this country and around the world has changed as a result. It's a life-altering event on the scale of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that forces the world to play by new rules. And again, while I do not mean to belittle the terrorist attacks outside of 9/11, they just have not had the same significance or consequences that 9/11 had.

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

Again - This has nothing to do with Americans. The names were given before America existed as a country. How was British call Germany Deutschland ? How many Australians call Japan Nippon? Hell this goes all the way back to at least the Romans. Do you think the barbarians called themselves barbarians?

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

...That's three decades of terrorism, with hundreds of people killed in some of those years....

I think you have identified what people in the US have such a hard time grappling with: time scale. For example, the average Joe doesn't realize that approximately 40,000 people die on US road each year yet freaks out over flying in a plane.

On a related note, what is so astonishing is why someone in a random rural town honestly thinks terrorism will come to their doorstep. This is clearly a byproduct of the media and government furthering their own agendas. Whether you like the movie or not, Fahrenheit 911 (and Bowling for Columbine, for that matter), has a great snippet where such a resident displays outright fear that their little crossroad town will be invaded by terrorists. I lived in a first strike nuke zone and on top of a fault line for years and rarely thought about either. Truly mind boggling.

Re:Paranoia

[geekoid]

in the US mor then 3500 were killed all at once.

Thats the difference.

sure you run the numbers at it's horrifing, but you need to look at it historically.
You gte 100 peopl a year killed for 30 years, you become 'used' to it.(horrible way to put it). You start off with loosing two hugh building, an attack, on your main military building, and 3500+ deaths it's a little shocking.

Re:Paranoia

[Alaska Jack]

I basically agree with this, but RandomCoil (the parent) was right too.

You are right in that Britain did experience a high level of terrorism. But remember, RandomCoil was responding to a poster who essentially said the U.S. was overreacting to terrorism. He is right, in the sense that the people and government of the U.K. were in fact quite concerned and involved with fighting the terrorism, and did a lot of things that, at the time, were also condemned as "overreacting." I mean, it's not like the U.K. was all blase' about it or anything.

So I think you're both right. As to which is more disturbing, well, I suspect that strongly correlates to whether it was your nation or not that was attacked in any particular incident.

- Alaska Jack

Re:Paranoia

[tsotha]

You know what? Please don't mod me troll, but do I wish USAians would get over this terror thing. Countries like the UK and Spain have had to put up with terrorism and the the threat of terrorism for decades, but they haven't developed a culture of fear, and it has not stopped them from getting on with their lives as normal. This 'but what would the terrorists think?' automatic reaction to just about everything is starting to get a bit old.

You know what, it's getting old for us too. Every incompetant boob wants to blame his failings on terrorism or peoples fear of terrorism. In this case, American car companies are a little embarrassed that they're falling further and further behind the competition in the technology race. The solution? Tell the press we don't actually want new car technology because we're afraid of terrorists (it just wouldn't fly if he said "Americans don't want new technology" without some reason).

Believe me, Americans don't worry about Al Queda when we shop for a car. You shouldn't take this as a sign we're shaking in our boots.

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you suggest that because the misnomer started somewhere other than the United States, it's okay for the United States to continue usage of it?

Doesn't the term "barbarian" come from "Barbarosa"? Which may indicate that it was a name used by the people themselves?

Re:Paranoia

[kraut]

Counting attacks off against each other is a bit pointless. I think the key psychological difference was that 9/11 was completely unexpected.

For the American public, that is; apparently not for the intelligence services.

>There is evidence that the IRA received funding, weapons, and other support from Libya and from the PLO at times in its history.
Birds of a feather... Far more relevant is that the IRA for decaded received a lot of it's funding from Irish-Americans. Just goes to prove that one man's terrorist is (often) another man's freedom fighter.

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

In similar news check out this http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/26/weapons.arrest.a p/index.html

The last white supremecist to be caught with enough explosives to take out a small city hardly made the news either. And yet still the focus of US security is on Cat Stevens and Professors Abhoud Syed Lingga and Tariq Ramadan.

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

I've looked at some of your past posts and I did not see one that was of any substance.

Well then you're fucking blind.

Re:Paranoia

[QuantumRiff]

But what would happen to the Mcarthy hearings on comunism? oops, meant the Kenneth Star hearings on terrorism.. So easy to get the two mixed up..

I guess we could just ship all the middle eastern people to "camps." In fact, there was one about an hour from here in Lakeview California that they moved the japanese to in WW2. And theres one an hour north of here were they put those evil Indians a hundred something years ago.. Oops, thats right, we decided later on that these where mistakes.

Well, we could just grab people that the government thinks are bad, and haul them away in the middle of the night! Oh, thats right, we grew up learning that only evil Communist countries did that, and we never wanted to be like them..

Damn, I think our problem in America is we have the worlds shortest collective attention span and memories..

Re:Paranoia

[jrumney]

Don't worry. November elections are near.

No, do worry. On tonight's BBC News they interviewed 3 guys in small town Ohio, who all agreed that Kerry had better domestic policies, but seemed to think that "in a time of war" the US would be in danger if they didn't vote for Bush.

Scary stuff, and I don't mean the terrists.

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

So what were your quality posts? The one bitching about not knowing what PostNuke is? Or the one where you just wrote Why? It must be your one comparing Bush to Stalin. How far back do I need to go before I actually get a post of yours that is more than just claptrap?

Re:Paranoia

[ShadowFacts]

I can't speak for the rest of the USA, but during 9/11 when they first broadcast over the radio that Al Quaeda might be responsible, my reaction was "Huh? Who the hell are they?" And sure, I'm not the most informed person on Earth. But I started asking around that day, and not one person could tell me who bin Laden was, where his organization was from, or why he was so pissed at the US. So yes, I would say that qualifies as "completely unexpected". I'm not trying to say that this makes the terrorism in Britian or Spain any less sad. Abrupt death sucks no matter where you're from, and I think its important for everyone to remember that.

Re:Paranoia

[dajak]

Having four planes, the twin towers, a portion of the Pentagon, and a few other sundry buildings fall out of the sky and/or collapse is, and I'm going out on limb here, a rather more disturbing event than what Britain and Spain experienced over a few decades. I'm not saying that to lessen the experience of the other countries, but there's not a lot of historical precedent for how a people should react to terrorism of Sept 11th's magnitude.

It is not a very meaningful event in terms of risk suffered per inhabitant. A comparable event in terms of risk in my country would take 185 lives (because of the smaller population). That happens occasionally in the form of plane crashes, explosions, floodings, WWII bombings, etc.

It is shocking because of its absolute magnitude, but it hasn't made terrorism a huge risk to any individual, New Yorker, American, or Westerner, because the aggression is directed against a very large group of people.

It is shocking to find out you have enemies that will commit suicide to harm you.

It is also shocking because it happened to a country whose experience of being attacked at home is limited to an attack on its navy in a colony.

But you do have to take proportions into account. Everything that happens in the US is big, because its population is big. To get its attention, the enemy will hit it hard.

Take the Iraq body count and divide it against the size of its population (some 25 million). Compare that to the "terrorism" bodycount.

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

As if the Basque sepratists were like Al-Queda. Give me a break. I suppose you're going to tell me that the Basque separatists were attempting to acquire chemical, bioligical, and nuclear arms and had a willingness to use them, too? Give me a break. Al-Queda pulls off real terrorism. The IRA and Basque separatists want to hurt the government to get their demands, but don't really like killing people.

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

(1) British bombings were spread out over a long period of time. This means the British could expect 100 deaths +- 50 each year. For the Americans against Al-Queda it's "there will be no deaths or there could very well be tens of thousands of deaths this year" (the number of dead would have been significantly higher if the WTC fell immediately).
(2) Psychologists who studied British citizens during World War 2 discovered that the towns that had the most frequent German bombing did not have the highest stress levels. It was the towns that were hit infrequently that had the highest stress because the bombings seemed to happen so randomly that they were never certain of anything. Think about that in the context of American, British, Spanish terrorism.

Re:Paranoia

[really?]

That's just it though, in the UK an Spain and what-have-you this is old hat; they are now used to it. For the US it's a new thing. Have you seen how a kid reacts to a new toy, even if he has a bunch of other, perhaps better, toys.
With any luck this too it's going to pass.

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

> Just goes to prove that one man's terrorist is (often) another man's freedom fighter.

(bzzzzt!) Wrong. One man's terrorist can be PERCEIVED by another man as a freedom fighter. This happens because people refuse to see reality. It's also possible for one person to be a freedom fighter AND a terrorist. People want simplistic ways to view the world, however, and will view someone in one and only one light. As for Bin Ladin, you can't even make an argument that he is a freedom fighter - just take a look at the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. This was not a nation of freedom. It was one of the most controlling states in existence - no music, women not allowed to be seen, no kite flying, etc. But, this "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is both oversimplistic and counterproductive.

Re:Paranoia

[khallow]

You know what? Please don't mod me troll, but do I wish USAians would get over this terror thing. Countries like the UK and Spain have had to put up with terrorism and the the threat of terrorism for decades, but they haven't developed a culture of fear, and it has not stopped them from getting on with their lives as normal. This 'but what would the terrorists think?' automatic reaction to just about everything is starting to get a bit old.

When I read the article, I got the impression that the "industry officials" were the ones focused on the issue of terrorism, safety, etc not the customer who shoulders the blame.

Re:Paranoia

[bluGill]

Hmm,, 3500 spread over 30 years. Or 3000 spread over... one day.

Does that put it in perspective? One single day, with no real warning.

Perhaps we are over reacting, but that is a large blow any way you look at it.

Re:Paranoia

[G-funk]

In australia people get tickete for that all the time, it's something like $150 and two points I believe.

Re:Paranoia

[RandomCoil]

Thanks for replying.

Your points are well taken -- the site you linked was indeed informative.

I stand by my assertions primarily because it took al qaeda a few hours (not including planning, obviously) to accomplish what both sides did in N. Ireland over 30 years. They still have 25 years to top the N. Ireland death toll.

Re:Paranoia

[PantsWearer]

I definitely see your point, but you're focusing on the word "freedom" too much. How about "One man's terrorist is another man's patriot"?

Work better for you?

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

Scroll down the page and read the fucking thing ya lazy cunt.

Re:Paranoia

[Syrrh]

This raises a distinctly different point... the type of terrorism that everyone keeps squawking about is different than what you find in Ireland/Spain/etc. Those countries have civil problems as the cause, they're being attacked not by faceless foreigners but their own selves/neighbors.

So the big question is, what's worse? Constant threat, or random and high-profile?

At this point, I don't even think we HAVE a terrorism problem, except for the one that causes politicians to patronize us at every opportunity.

Gas

[StevenHenderson]

nifty automobile technology that isn't coming to the United States

Like fuel efficency, maybe? That *for sure* won't be coming to the US anytime soon!

Re:Gas

[NardofDoom]

Diesel engines in the US get horrible emissions ratings because we have shitty diesel. You can get around this by burning veggie or biodiesel, but it still keeps most car companies from send diesels or hybrid-diesels (mmm... 65 mpg in a family sedan on free fuel) our way.

Re:Gas

[Anonymous Coward]

Like fuel efficency, maybe?

"My car gets forty rods to the hog's head, and that's the way I likes it!"

Litigous == good?!

[stomv]

From the article...

---NY Times quote---
While the system seems ideal for congested streets like New York's, "we have no plans for the U.S.," said Jon Bucci, corporate manager for advanced technology at Toyota Motor Sales. "This is a very litigious society."
---NY Times quote---

So, to recap: the fact that the auto-parallel park will continue parking even if a 3 year old steps in the way is not a reason to withhold the feature. No, the threat of a lawsuit is the reason.

Seems to me like this is a classic example of why US lawsuits are a good thing (tm). They're preventing companies from rolling out products that could run over little kids without allowing the operator to override.

Re:Litigous == good?!

[vijayiyer]

Ummm...That's why there are the brakes.

And no, the brakes can't be overpowered by the engine.

Re:Litigous == good?!

[monoi]

Seems to me like this is a classic example of why US lawsuits are a good thing (tm). They're preventing companies from rolling out products that could run over little kids without allowing the operator to override.

Who said the operator couldn't override it? I think the point the article was making was that in the US, people like to look for someone to blame other than themselves. So, if a three-year-old did get run over because of the driver's negligence when using the system, a US citizen would be likely to blame the car manufacturer for their own failings.

Note that I am not a US citizen, and therefore may display bias in this interpretation :-).

Re:Litigous == good?!

[rale, the]

Assuming you actually stay in your car while its parking, which I'm guessing is a requirement, you can probably hit the brakes to stop all the same. My non-assisted car sure wont stop on it's own if a kid runs infront of it, thats my responsibility as a driver.

Re:Litigous == good?!

[Anonymous Coward]

another idiot that can't read for comprehension.

the article says that it would not stop by itself, NOWHERE does it say anything about not being able to be overridden.

Re:Litigous == good?!

[Bandman]

It's not the fact that the person couldn't over-ride the auto-park feature, it's that the average person in the drivers seat would be too busy watching Jerry Springer to notice that his autopark just ran over a 3 year old and soccerball.

Re:Litigous == good?!

[Cade144]

Perhaps the engineers at Toyota believe that all Nipponese 3-year-olds are smarter than to run into where a car is parking, or perhaps that there will be a parent watching over a kid that is playing near the street.

I, for one, would prefer an autodrive system that could safely and reliably take some of the decision making out of the hands of the driver.
It would be great if I could just sit back and relax while my car took the most optimal route to work, avoiding crazy drivers, potholes and anyother dangers allong the way.

Yeah, and my car should fly too.
And be powered by "Mr. Fusion"

Ah well.

Re:Litigous == good?!

[hatton64]

The toyota auto parking feature on teh prius does have a manual override, in fact in order to function the driver must have their foot resting on the break, pressing the break further overrides the autopark and stops the car.

Re:Litigous == good?!

[Kazrath]

No, There isn't any BIAS. You literally can sue for anything. If you are to stupid to open a door that says pull and hit yer head on the door and get a bloody nose. You can sue the store and with the right lawyers and judge/jury you can easily win. There have been cases of people breaking into a persons home. Hurting themselves. File a lawsuit and of course win.

Re:Litigous == good?!

[hchaos]

Assuming you actually stay in your car while its parking, which I'm guessing is a requirement, you can probably hit the brakes to stop all the same.

Don't forget the assumption that everyone continues paying attenion once you engage the autopark. My guess is that this is a bad assumption.

Re:Litigous == good?!

[CreatureComfort]

So, just as an aside, what does the typical euro-asia-etc-ian do when their 3 y.o. is run over by an automatic parking car, or is killed by someone sniping eBay as they do 50 kph down a residential street? Do you just accept it as a bad deal and move on? Just accept that the loser who killed your child has enough insurance to cover your loss? Accept that whatever jail term they are given is enough payment for your dead child?

Do you decide that the manufacturer of a system that common sense shows as dangerous has no responsibility? That a company that installs aftermarket add-ons that are likely to be misused is "just doing business"?

Just wondering.

Re:Litigous == good?!

[cranos]

As a non USian I might answer this one...

Learn a new concept - Personal Responsibilty. This means if you as the driver fuck up then you have to take the responsibility. Just because the car has in built web browsing doesn't mean you have to use it. Hell most cars can do well over the speed limit but you don't see people trying to sue the car companies when they get speeding tickets (Well maybe you do in the States).

This is what really bugs me, here in Australia we are starting to get US style "I Fucked Up But Its Someone Elses Fault" law suits and it really is giving me the shits.

As to your specific case, so long as I think the driver got what I think is a fair sentence for being a fuckwit then fine, but the car companies weren't the one driving the fucking car.

Re:Litigous == good?!

[CreatureComfort]

If you read my original post it said nothing about personal responsibility. I totally agree that people should accept personal responsibility. Unfotunately, niether I, you, nor either of our governments can force that to happen.

The problem of people sueing because they hurt themselves doing something stupid is a bad one, and tort reform can do wonders to limit that kind of abuse. What most of this thread is discussing, however, is the potential for someone to do something very stupid with the tools made available to them and causing great harm, or ruining, other, innocent lives. I don't know how it is in other countries, but here, it is all too common for the most irresponsible portion of society (who amazingly enough also tend not to carry insurance) to be the cause of many accidents. In most states, vehicular manslaughter (i.e. running over a 2 year old while you're busy talking on a cell phone) has a maximum sentance of 5 years in prison. In reality, that generally means for a first offender 2 years probation and time served during the trial. If it were your 2 year old, the driver had no insurance to even help pay for funeral expenses, let alone medical expenses prior to death, would that satisfy you? If not, what would you do? The only legal action available in the U.S. is to sue someone. Generally sue someone who, hurting them in the pocket book, might force changes to reduce the chance of anything like that happening again.

Have the most wonderful and insightful governments of Austrailia, Europe, Asia, or Canada found another alternative to offer their citizens? Or do people just not care enough to actually take action against a great injustice?

Re:Litigous == good?!

[evilviper]

I, for one, would prefer an autodrive system that could safely and reliably take some of the decision making out of the hands of the driver.

No, no.

It would be fine if a car could do a lot of things itself without driver intervention... However, I would NEVER want to see an automatic system that a human couldn't override. NEVER

Even the most spectactuarly perfect systems in the world are never going to be able to recognize everything a person can. Is this perfect system going to recognize that there are thousands of nails in the road, and slow-down accordingly? Is it going to know when a bridge has suddenly collapsed in-front of it? Is it going to be perfect at judging whether it's better to steer out of danger, rather than braking suddenly? There is never going to be a perfect automatic system.

Re:Litigous == good?!

[Jonathan_S]

So, to recap: the fact that the auto-parallel park will continue parking even if a 3 year old steps in the way is not a reason to withhold the feature. No, the threat of a lawsuit is the reason.

Seems to me like this is a classic example of why US lawsuits are a good thing (tm). They're preventing companies from rolling out products that could run over little kids without allowing the operator to override.

I didn't see anything in the article that even hinted that the operator couldn't override the auto park system.

I would be shocked if pressing the brake pedal didn't disengage the system just like it disengages cruise control. (And even if for some totally moronic reason the brake pedal didn't disengage the system, the brakes should be strong enough to stop the car anyway).

All the article said is that the system can't detect people or objects that obstruct the parking area.

This would leave the driver the responsibility of monitoring the area the car was entering and applying the brake if someone or something entered the area. Just like it is the drivers responsibility to correctly mark the opening for the cars computer. If you marked it wrong it would probably happily back into a parked car; but that would be the drivers fault as well.

Such a system could still be an improvement over manually parallel parking because it can free the drivers to more carefully monitor behind the car and not just where the curb is. Of course it could free the driver to totally ignore the operation which would be bad.

The key difference is that in Japan the automaker feels fairly confident that they won't be sued if a driver fails to stop for a child or moving car while using this system. But in the US they think they might very well be sued for was rightfully was the driver's negligence.

Um...

[Little_Grabbi]

Personally, I love gadgety cars... But the price tag is just a wee bit high unless you go hardcore and strap your old Slot-A computer in the trunk. Nevertheless, kudos to Fiat, Toyota, BMW (drool), and Mercedes... etc.

It's not all about legal liability

[lashi]

When I lived in London, I drove a Bora which is a European version of a Jetta. Now it had a 1.6 l engine vs Jetta's 1.8 turbo engine. But the Bora had a few nifty features like a rain sensor that controls windshield wiper speed automatically, an auto dimming rear view mirror that I didn't have to flip when someone highbeams me and it had a really informative display that tells me mpg, outside temp and so on.

A friend went to visit me and thought those features were really cool because he had a Jetta but didn't have any of those.

I don't see how VW would get sued for having those features. But I think in North America, the car makers think we don't care about knowing mpg, outside temp or having a rain sensor as much as like having a bigger engine and faster car. It's about preference.

Personally I don't agree with how car makers perceive NA market. My friend thought he would rather have a smaller engine but better features. He prefer the Bora to his Jetta. I think there is a good market for car that are not powerful but more high tech.

Re:It's not all about legal liability

[DNS-and-BIND]

Yeah, I always see cool stuff we don't have overseas. That, and a few amazingly cheap cars that don't suck entirely. I guess it is a function of the market. That, and a different corporate culture that makes different choices.

Re:It's not all about legal liability

[Altus]

all of those features were available on the passat and the jetta when I was shopping for a car in 1999. I didnt get them because they cost more.

the self dimming mirror was really cool though, but in order to get that you had to buy the top of the line package which came with other (admittedly cool) very expensive options.

Re:It's not all about legal liability

[BayBlade]

Most of those features have already hit the NA market. Its too bad VW doesn't sell them here, but I've driven GM cars with the dimming mirror, internal/external temperature gauge, recent mpg(l/km) and how far you can go and often you'll need to stop on a trip on a given tank of gas.

My own car has a couple of those features and also projects my speed, and minimal radio info into my windshield via a HUD, so I can see what they're at without having to take my eyes off the road.

Re:It's not all about legal liability

[lashi]

>all of those features were available on the passat and the jetta when I was shopping for a car in 1999. I didnt get them because they cost more.

You are right, I should have said those thing came on my Bora standard. I believe I had the cheapest Bora available while my friend had the second cheapest Jetta of the line.

Also, I don't see how the higher end Jetta would have the same display as the Bora since the Bora one is physically bigger.

For me, I would say the rain sensor is most useful. I never figure out why the car forgets the wipers are in auto mode when you turn off the car though. Every time you start the car, you have to turn the wiper off and turn it back on auto mode to get it working again. It seems pretty simple to just leave it in auto mode all the time. I am a controls engineer so I can say it would actually be easier to set it up that way.

Anyways, my point is that the automakers have perception of NA market that just isn't true. I know a lot of people who like European styling, who like smaller more fuel efficient engines, who like high tech features.

Re:It's not all about legal liability

[OzzyRulez]

Believe me, some American somewhere will file a lawsuit because the rain-sensor-controlled wipers came on when there was no rain, but rather because the sensors were dirty, and the driver had an accident blaming the distraction from the wipers unexpectedly turning on. Then when one gets away with it, a few thousand more will follow in a class-action lawsuit. This country sucks when it comes to stuff like this, and I don't blame carmarkers at all because they are exactly right.

Re:It's not all about legal liability

[grocer]

Want more car for less money?

Don't buy a VW in NA...besides the fact he could have gotten the 115HP 2.0L four offered here and skipped the 150HP 1.8L turbo...getting all those nifty features with more efficent engine (better gas mileage, runs on cheaper fuel)

He had the option to get what you describe and picked the big motor, more power car...

Re:It's not all about legal liability

[Muad'Dave]

...a rain sensor that controls windshield wiper speed automatically, an auto dimming rear view mirror that I didn't have to flip when someone highbeams me and it had a really informative display that tells me mpg, outside temp and so on.

I have all of those features plus GPS-based Nav on my US 2003 Mini Cooper S.

Re:It's not all about legal liability

[Quixote]

I don't see how VW would get sued for having those features.

A loser gets into an accident when its raining. Claims the wiper distracted him by speeding up/slowing down (or the wiper wasn't working or something). There ya go.

I'll give you an example. My friend was stopped at a red light. A pedestrian was crossing in front of him. He got rear-ended, and ended up hitting the pedestrian. The pedestrian turned around and sued both him and the person who rear-ended him. He had to waste a lot of time fighting the case, when it is obvious to anybody with a double-digit IQ or higher that it wasn't his fault. But he got sued nevertheless.

Re:It's not all about legal liability

[Altus]

I see... i was confused... and for the record, my passat has the trip computer with the milage calculator. thats pretty cool.

I think the reason for the different sales tactics is the markets. here in america most people are interested in performance and not extras. at least that is true in VWs market segment, while it would not be the case for say a Cadillac.

In europe I suspect the perception is different. possibly because people in europe dont seem to spend as much time on the highways as they do in the US. I can see why they would move certain features from the base model to the premium model.

Also... I really would have liked the auto wipers... but there was only one car that met my requirements within a hundred miles of my location... so I bought that one rather than order a car and wait.... I got a good deal too... so I guess its OK.

Re:It's not all about legal liability

[PitaBred]

But, he should have had his brakes on harder. He should have done more to control a situation he had no idea he was going to be in :) Don't you know? Someone is at fault for everything, always. It can't ever just be a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Re:It's not all about legal liability

[southpolesammy]

All of those features you mention were available on the 1999.5 VW New Jetta GLX (we had one for about 3 years, so it's first hand knowledge here).

Perhaps your friend just didn't get the right Jetta.

Re:It's not all about legal liability

[lashi]

>Don't buy a VW in NA...besides the fact he could have gotten the 115HP 2.0L four offered here and skipped the 150HP 1.8L turbo...getting all those nifty features with more efficent engine (better gas mileage, runs on cheaper fuel)

>He had the option to get what you describe and picked the big motor, more power car...

I am very sure he didn't have the option of a 105 HP 1.6 L engine that I had since it wasn't offered in NA at all. And none of the features I described was offered in the 2.0 L version either.

You are right about not buying a VW in NA though.

Re:It's not all about legal liability

[lashi]

>All of those features you mention were available on the 1999.5 VW New Jetta GLX (we had one for about 3 years, so it's first hand knowledge here).

Did you get extra add-on/option package? I just researched it (call me obsessive) but rain sensing wipers certainly wasn't in the GLX list of features I found. In fact it specifically say it's not a feature. And I just found out the GLX is 2.7 L engine. Pretty hefty.

Re:It's not all about legal liability

[southpolesammy]

Yup, it had the rain-sensing wipers as well. As far as I recall, it wasn't an add-on package, but part of the base package for the car (BTW, purchased in America, for those keeping score...) Pain in the ass though -- they're expensive to replace, and annoying when they keep wiping for no obvious reason after the rain has stopped (but I will give them credit for speeding up when rain was heavy).

Re:It's not all about legal liability

[Altus]

the 2.7L engine is the VR6... personaly I think the 1.8t engine is superior... sure it isnt as powerfull overall but it is lighter...

it just seems to perform better for the kinds of driving I do anyway.

And I think you are right about the rain sensors. I dont think you can get them here.

Karaoke??

[YrWrstNtmr]

Gimme a break. This is a car, fer crissakes. Not a mobile party room. What's next? A stocked wetbar that pops out of the glove box?

How about we drive, and not kill so many of us doing it.

Re:Karaoke??

[smooth wombat]

How about we drive, and not kill so many of us doing it.

So long as the ones dying are the idiots who think they need this stuff, I have no problem. The fewer idiots like this on the road the safer things will be.

Unfortunately, like with drunk driving, the ones who usually end up dead are not the drunks themselves but someone else.

Re:Karaoke??

[Bandman]

While we probably don't need any more distractions than we have (cellphone, radio, switching CDs, kids, other drivers, construction, radar detectors, etc etc etc), how many really bad drivers are there on the roads who don't need any of those to cause wrecks? Maybe you should be allowed to have those features if you have a good driving record. On my driver's license, I have a #2 restriction, Corrective Lenses. If I have gone 5 years with no accident, why can't I get some kind of bonus?

Re:Karaoke??

[YrWrstNtmr]

Maybe you should be allowed to have those features if you have a good driving record.

Unenforceable.
SpouseW has a clean driving record, her car has all the toys. SpouseH has had 4 speeding tickets in 3 years. Whats to keep him from driving his wife's car?

Or, due to a good driving record, you're allowed to have some video toys. After a couple of tickets/crashes (maybe because of the toys), are you going to be required to take them out?

Or...a new driver has, by definition, a clean record. Also, they are typically the worst drivers. Toys, or no toys? I guess you could put a 5 year clean record requirement on it. Only after the waiting period do you get to install the toys.

why can't I get some kind of bonus?

You do. Cheaper insurance rates. More toys for in the house.

Re:Wow... point and click parallel parking... COOL

[ppz003]

So what happens when you hit a bomb? Does the car crash into the vehicle in front of you?

I was hoping...

[soulctcher]

it would transform! Woohoo, two front page stories, same response! http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=127163&cid=106 30081

Top 10 Lists of Things Car Can't Do

[AtariAmarok]

10. Automatically incinerate Kerry or Bush bumper stickers placed on them.
9. Go to Hill Valley whenever the car reaches 88 mph.
8. Make really cool "putta-pa-put-put-putter-pa-pa-put-pa" bubbly sounds when Fred McMurray drives it through the air.
7. Make Steve Jobs shit his pants.
6. Not enough room on the hood for the Trump logo.
5. Why won't anyone invent the full-windshield TFT display so we can play Doom 3 while we drive? Come on now!
4. Annoy David Hasselhoff.
3. Get 400 miles to the gallon (we KNOW Exxon-Mobile has warehouses filled with home-garage built super carburetors).
2. where's the middle headlights??? Too bad Tucker is dead.
1. "Take out the trash".

Re:Top 10 Lists of Things Car Can't Do

[drinkypoo]

Just like the people who said "Rick James is dead, bitch!" (I'm one of them) are not Dave Chapelle, YOU ARE NOT DAVID LETTERMAN. He's not as funny as he used to be, and you're not as funny as he is now.

Automotive Technologies Slightly Ahead of Time

[jejagua]

Just about the time these technologies are officially outlawed, auto auto-pilot will become widely available. We'll have nothing better to do during our auto-commutes than pick our noses, floss or gawk at attractive female commuters....slightly less dangerously than we do currently.

Re:Automotive Technologies Slightly Ahead of Time

[b0s0z0ku]

Just about the time these technologies are officially outlawed, auto auto-pilot will become widely available.
They're already mostly illegal. Watching TV while driving will get you done for reckless driving in NJ if you get caught. Plus, if, I, on my bike see anyone doing that, I will teach them some sense :)

-b.

This is too bad

[Zilfondel2]

As a consultant who spends upward of 6-7 hours a day in my car driving to and from different clients, I would really like to see some of these features in cars in America. Currently, I already eat, shave, brush my teeth, change clothes, make phone calls, check email, etc on the freeway while driving at 60 mph. So I really don't see why I shouldn't have the option of watching a movie or having an auto-park option in my car.

Are people distracted while driving? Absolutely. In fact, I've heard of statistics saying that 90% of drivers on the road in America right now are unfit mentally to drive, either through emotional stress or just not paying attention. The result? We have the highest level of auto accident death rate in the entire industrialized world. 44,000 die each year. Well, that's what you have to pay for the luxury and freedom you get with a car. I fully expect one day that my mangled corpse will be pulled out of my car, electric razor still in hand with my brains splattered on my windshield. Too bad for the person I hit, but I'm sorry - this is technology that I need to use right now.

Besides, much of what they are offering can already be had in a car nowadays - albeit through laptop hook ups and stuff, which are a lot harder to use than a system that's built in. If you don't believe me, try using a laptop writing a document with the laptop in the passenger's seat while driving in stop-and-go traffic.
Much easier if the car were to allow you to do this with your eyes forward on the road.

I don't want to sound like a free rights bastard, but if you don't like other drivers doing other ativities while driving...then don't drive. You can ride the bus.

Re:This is too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

You're insane, that's what you are... your total lack of concern for anyone else makes me wish that you would smash your car into something, preferably a concrete wall and then kill you instantly, thereby relieveing the world of yet another moron...

if you're driving, then drive. If you have to do something else, then get off the road and let the rest of us get on with getting to where we are going. I am totally fed up of inconsiderate assholes like you... so why don't you get off the road and take the damned bus ? why do we have to get out of your way... eat my shit you self centered asshole ...

Re:This is too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Trouble is, if you're driving distracted, it's not endangering other drivers, you're endangering pedesterians, bicyclists, those bus-riders; not to mention SAFE drivers.

You do sound like a free-rights bastard, which is fine, except when your free-rights starts threatening my free-right to use public space safely. If the danger was limited to you wrapping yourself around a light-pole, then I'd have no problem what-so-ever. (I'd call it Darwinism...)

Re:Stop suing everybody!

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh. Why is it everyone is acting like you can only get these features if the car companies supply them?

Yer a slashdotter! Hack something together!

I think it's because of the infrastructure.

[Anonymous Coward]

You might be able to get away with this in big cities where traffic generally creeps along very slowly. But most people I know commute into the big cities from the suburbs. You can generally travel on a toll road around 60 MPH, where these kinds of distractions would be rather unsafe. Maybe I'm misinformed, but I think of Japan as being a very crowded place with very crowded streets and not a lot of vast open highways like the U.S. has. A lot of Europe seems to be the same way, though they do have more highways than Japan. Or maybe we are just a bunch of litigious bastards. Though I would be interested in some of this technology (NOT karoke), I can't blame the manufacturers for keeping it out. As usual, you have to blame the users.

Re:I think it's because of the infrastructure.

[Altus]

you are misinformed about the nature of japan... it is quite open with most of the population living in cities separated by open country. There are a lot of very big very nice highways (paid for by very expensive tolls)

but you are right that the Japanese don't really use these roads... they work near home or use trains for commuting primarily.

Re:Wow... point and click parallel parking... COOL

[Little_Grabbi]

It probably uses the same GUI, sans copyrighted parts.

More annoying than being regulated out...

[ivan256]

I just want the damned navigation system for my car. It's available in Europe and even Canada, but GM has decided that they'd rather sell OnStar in the US because it has a recurring revenue model, and that navigation systems interfere with OnStar premium subscriptions, so they decided not to offer the feature in the US.

The one thing I *don't* want is anything that requires a monthly fee. I'm sure I could come up with some choice words about where they can stick their recurring revenue.

Re:More annoying than being regulated out...

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a PocketPC, GPS Sensor and GPS Software. Your total cost will hardly be more than $250-300 if you catch a good deal on a PocketPC on eBay. This software is far more superior that the crap the put in factory-installed dashboard systems and it'll be removable so you can take it on vacations or road trips.

Re:More annoying than being regulated out...

[poot_rootbeer]

There's plenty of computer navigation systems available on cars sold in the United States right now; maybe not pre-installed on GM cars, but there's non-GM vehicles, and then there's aftermarket products.

Personally, I don't see how you could have a useful navigation system without recurring fees anyway. Roadmaps change all the time; if your nav system is assuming the roads are the same as they were five years ago when you bought the system, you could be in for some unpleasant surprises.

Re:More annoying than being regulated out...

[SmurfButcher Bob]

My GOD no!

Do NOT buy that GPS Sensor crap.

Get a serial Garmin OEM kit, like a GPS35. $25, it's the engine with no display, and no markup. The same engine you'll find in the $$$$ III, IV, V, streetpilot, etc. $25 bucks, and it's not a toy.

Pick your favorite of either serial (for Ipaq etc) or USB. Buying that trash you suggested is like paying $50 for a Belkin printer cable... or in this case, $150 for... uh, something that actually is worth less than $20.

FYI.

Re:More annoying than being regulated out...

[Zurk]

get a GPS 18 OEM unit. its RS232, and WAAS enabled and offers the same features as the GPS35, which is now close to being obsoleted.

Re:More annoying than being regulated out...

[fermion]

Ok, I am going into old person mode.

We do not need a fuckin' navigation system for a car. Learn to read a map. Write instructuion in 1 inch high letters so you can follow. Them. Turn off you phone and pay attention to the fuckin' street signs.

If you travel a lot in a city, get a key map. Pull over and figure out where you want to go. Do not, under any circumstances, pull accross five lanes of freeway traffic because you computer told you you are going to miss the exit.

If you can't read a map or plan a route, just buy a GPS and keep it your car.

There are cool things that should be in cars but are not. Like a proximity sensor when you are backing up. Or the BMW ajust your mirrors when you are backing up. Or a panic button that will connect you to your service provider, like mercedes.

What I don't want is anything that requires a driver to have less skills. Maximize a base set of skills yes. But if person of average physical abilities cannot parallel park with full power everything, then they probably should not be driving.

Re:More annoying than being regulated out...

[rcw-home]

I'm curious. Where? Froogle has listings for the GPS 18 starting at $78 and for the GPS 35 starting at more like $169. It looks like you can get the mount for under the $25 mentioned by the grandparent post, but that's about it.

Re:More annoying than being regulated out...

[Kiryat Malachi]

A nav system is a lot nicer than a map. It can actually plan a route. If its designed to grab updates over a cell network, it can adjust for traffic and construction, something a map will *never* be able to do half as well, even with human help. The good ones have voice prompts that tell you in advance, much like a human passenger who knew where they were going would, "right turn in a half mile... get in right lane... right turn in 100 feet... turn right" and then adjust the route when you (inevitably) miss the off ramp.

If you can't read a map or plan a route, just buy a GPS and keep it your car.

Uhm... no offense, but, doing that is better than a built-in navigation system *how*?

There are cool things that should be in cars but are not. Like a proximity sensor when you are backing up. Or the BMW ajust your mirrors when you are backing up. Or a panic button that will connect you to your service provider, like mercedes.

Proximity sensor: being added to cars, as is adaptive cruise control that uses a forward prox sensor to automatically maintain following distance from the car ahead of you. As to the panic button... OnStar.

I cannot WAIT for cars to be smart enough to drive themselves, because almost all people (and I would include myself in this) drive like shit. Let the machines have control, let the penis-rodders have tracks they can take their substitutes out on to race on weekends and then get drunk in a bar talking about the "good ole days" before their computer-controlled SUV deposits their binge-drinking ass back in their trailer for the weekend.

Re:More annoying than being regulated out...

[Shadowlore]

I just want the damned navigation system for my car. Then go buy one with it in it. I see commercials for it every day I watch much TV, which isn't much.

You can go down and buy DVD-NAV systems aftermarket. And despite your claims, GM does
actually offer it. So get a clue. or at least get updated.

And to top it off, it's available on systems that have OnStar available too.

And finally, OnStar and Nav are not comparable. Nav won't unlock your doors, notify the cops and ambulance where you are if your airbag goes off and you can't respond, read your email to you, and so on.

Indeed, I'll relay a story about OnStar and Nav from my wife. The place she wanted to go was a park. It wasn't on any maps. So what did OnStar do? They got on the phone and called the local parks department to find out how to get there from where my wife was at the time. One-time Nav purchases will not do that.

So take your apples and horshoes comparison and use your choice words about sticking things somehwere. ;)

Re:More annoying than being regulated out...

[ivan256]

Old person mode?

Get over yourself.

Just because it's possible to use a traditional map to find your way around doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to find better or more convienient methods of accomplishing the same thing. Not only that, but let's see your paper map route you around a traffic jam without you have to get stuck in said traffic to know it was there. Let's see you fit city street level of detail maps for ever town in a single state in your glove compartment, nevermind doing it for the entire US. Nobody said anything about not being able to read a map. Nobody said anything about using the technology irresponsiblly. If I wanted something that would make it so I didn't need as many skills, I would have gotten an automatic transmission.

I'll give you one guess about where I'm thinking about telling you to stick your assumptions about me before I call you a luddite.

As for buying a portable GPS device, that's all well and good, but since you're so concerned about safety I'm sure you can see how having a built-in device could be a much safer option to a hand-held one. I like to have one hand to steer and the other to shift with, thank you. Yeah, yeah, I could pull over. I bet the next thing you're going to tell me is that having your wife reading the map while you drive isn't safe either. Or are you one of those people who complains about people talking on the phone in the car while they yell over their shoulder at the misbehaving kids in the back seat?

Re:More annoying than being regulated out...

[ivan256]

So take your apples and horshoes comparison...

I wasn't comparing them. I can see how they could be complimentary and how they are different, however, in my 2004 vehicle that has a nav option in Europe and Canada, the dealer informed me that the nav system was replaced by OnStar in the US. Aftermarket nav systems don't offer nearly the same level of interface integration and aren't at all comparable to factory installed nav. Sure, I could have bought a different car, but there's more to choosing a car than the nav system.

As for your wife's park story, well... For the $700 it costs to have the OnStar option that's not guranteed to work beyond 2008, and for the rediculous anount they charge for the premium service needed to get more than door lock and ambulance service they damn well better bend over backwards for you.

Re:More annoying than being regulated out...

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of OnStar, you might want to rethink some of those options. I worked on the desktop application used by their operators a couple of years ago. Ignoring the fact that it was an absolute piece of crap architectually, there are some functions that, at the time, didn't have any hooks in the software, but were present in the hardware.

The one that stands out in my memory is the fact that an operator could shut off your engine remotely. No, the software wasn't there, but there's not a whole lot of difference between flashing the lights and the ignition.

I've always wondered why a competitor hasn't reversed engineered OnStar. It's just a cell phone with a modem built into your car. If you knew the specs, I doubt it would be very hard to call someone's car and unlock it remotely.

Can't you just see it now???

[DigitalSorceress]

d00d,I just r00t3d y0ur C4r

or even worse...

Road Rage takes on a whole new meaning after the first couple of "hot teen xxx site" "enlarge your %RND_BODYPART%" spams

No thanks, I'm happy with my handleld mapping GPS. If I really need to get on the net that badly while I'm traveling, I can always use that and the laptop to wardrive for a convenient unencrypted wap. (just kidding*)

*sort of

Re:Can't you just see it now???

[SmurfButcher Bob]

Driving would eventually become more more hazardous with the advent of "Popup Billboards".

Reason why the parking system is not in the US

[SmallFurryCreature]

Because it is fucking broken mister genius. Geez. A piece of heavy equipment that moves with crushing weight without a safety switch? Good fucking luck getting that passed.

It would be like making an elevator whose doors just close on time and don't bother with sensing if anyone is behind them. A train or similar wich is operated by a driver who cannot see what is happening behind them without an emergecy brake.

I can just see this parking sytem in use. Stupid car owner puts the system on, child gets in between the system whole idiot is on te phone, child gets crushed because the car can't sense a collision and just keeps pushing.

Isn't the whole point of parking helping system that they STOP PEOPLE FROM HAVING ACCIDENTS? A system that makes people give up control and not pay attention can only be successfull if the system can pay attention.

Like the elevator wich check if something is between the doors and does not work until everything is clear.

Surely I don't even have to explain why video for the driver isn't a good idea? Lawsuits are not all evil, often they are the only way for the average voter to influence society. For every frivolous lawsuit there important ones who get society or companies to clean up their act.

Re:Reason why the parking system is not in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be the stupid car owners fault, not the auto park feature. The owner trying to shift the blame is why the US is lawsuit happy. If people were responsible for their own actions, the US would be a better place.

Re:Reason why the parking system is not in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a couple weeks ago I saw a report (and the actual thing in action) about a system that basically, auto-piloted a car on highways.

I haven't seen the "auto park" system in action but I'm sure Japanese coould've figured out how to park a car without bumbing into something. The task is not trivial but hardly impossible.

Re:Reason why the parking system is not in the US

[hatton64]

Who ever said anything about the parking system not having a safty system, In the toyota prius parking assist system you have to have your foot resting on the break for the system to engage. If you press the break further it will disengage the system and stop the car. this isen't something where you just set the car to park and get out.

Re:Reason why the parking system is not in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Safety switch?

You mean the device commonly referred to as "the brake"?

Or are you one of those drivers who would just set your auto-park then go back to your latte because "the machine will take care of it"?

Blame lawyers!

[Ced_Ex]

If lawyers weren't so quick to find holes, and bend laws, we'd have all this cool stuff and more.

They should restrict lawyers to only the QA department. Their attention to details and ability to break what seemingly is good logic (No hot coffee in lap) should definitely improve software, both OSS and proprietory!

You and Tim Robbins, man

[I am the Bullgod]

"It's the corporatey corporate corporateness".... - Tim Robbins - Team America

(-1 Offtopic), Replied to sig

[BurritoJ]

I stole your sig... but I decided to stop. Please contact me for the address to send the $500.

Thanks,

Cell Phones - Hazard on the Road

[reporter]

We should ban anything that distracts the driver from the actual driving. The exception would be the radio.

Consider a study done by the American Automobile Association. Cell Phones are a distraction. Having prior experience with using such a phone during driving does not reduce the likelihood of distraction.

Some states now ban the use of a cell phone while driving.

If you hate what is happening to our nation, the USA, then write the following on the November ballot.

president: Bill O'Reilly
vice-president: Tammy Bruce

Re:Cell Phones - Hazard on the Road

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be a troll, given the O'Reilly reference.. What a joke..

Perhaps we should drive in white boxes on wheels without any lights or gauges.. those are such a distraction.

Re:Cell Phones - Hazard on the Road

[man_ls]

What I wonder is:

WHY is it so difficult to make my cell phone work with my car stereo.

When I'm in my car, right now, I have 3 options, excluding "don't take the call" which frequently, isn't

(1) Use the phone normally.
(2) Use oddly-shaped over-ear clip headset thing. Works okay but it's awkward to hear with, the phone's volume doesn't go up high enough to make it comfortable to use this.
(3) Pull over

1 is dangerous, 2 means I can't really hear the caller, 3 often isn't feasible (Interstate highway, busy road, no turn-offs, etc.)

I want my cell phone to connect via Bluetooth to some kind of in-dash mic and my car's speakers. Plus, this would allow in-car conference calls too.

Re:Cell Phones - Hazard on the Road

[The Flying Guy]

In the EU such kits are availible, mostly from cellphone companies like Ericsson, but some cars also have the option of such a BT kit.

Re:Cell Phones - Hazard on the Road

[Anonymous Coward]

lol u funny

Lawsuits

[slars]

This strongest point I got from reading the article (Yes, I actually RTFA!) is that auto makers, and probably many other companies, are hesitant to introduce new stuff to the US market, whether we need it or not or if it's stupid or not, for fear of being sued.

Our country has turned into a lawsuit machine. It's become too easy for Bubba to sue S&W and Coors for shooting himself in the foot after downing a 12-er or Coors Light. Who knows - he'd probably win.

Re:Lawsuits

[kamapuaa]

The strongest point I get from reading your post is that you make a knee-jerk reaction to the story, echoing the sentiments of the article description, and still gets rated insightful.

I agree that our legal system needs to be overhauled. But why are these specific instances a problem? Even a small child knows that watching TV while driving is a bad idea. It's already legal to have TVs in the front seat that work while not driving.

The technology exists to make thousands of other unsafe inventions (perhaps you could mod-up your car like Spy Hunter?), but manufacturers don't due to legal pressure. Why is this a problem? Do people have an inherent right to obviously unsafe inventions? Would there be something better about allowing them to be manufactured, but arresting anyone who uses them? Aren't you in favor of safe cars?

Re:Lawsuits

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes me think about the guy who was suing S&W because his gun had a defect in it that when you turned the saftey off it fires. I believe he turned it off when the gun was loaded and pointing at his son and the gun went off. His son died which was terrible. But the thing is that the first rule of having any weapon is that you never aim it at anyone especially when it is loaded. I don't remember if he won although he probably did but I think it is rediculus that when a person does something against comon sense can sue the manufacturer because they screwed up.

Re:Lawsuits

[alexo]

> The technology exists to make thousands of other unsafe inventions [...], but manufacturers don't due to legal pressure. Why is this a problem?

Because companies should not be liable for unsafe use of the technology.
Reading a book while driving is unsafe.
If you do so and it results in an accident, do you sue the author, the publisher, or the book shop?

> Do people have an inherent right to obviously unsafe inventions?

Yes!
There are very few inherently "unsafe" inventions. The problem is "unsafe" people.

> Would there be something better about allowing them to be manufactured, but arresting anyone who uses them?

Almost, but not quite.
Arrest only those that use them in a way that endangers others.

> Aren't you in favor of safe cars?

You forgot to mention "think of the children" and "the terrorists will win".

Go read this.

Re:Lawsuits

[Anonymous Coward]

The other day I was driving 220 Kmts/h on the highway north Hamburg, Germany while listening to music. While my Mercedes was flying, I was thinking how good was it to be in the "land of the free and home of the brave" ;).

Re:Lawsuits

[Anonymous Coward]

Who knows - he'd probably win.

Not a chance. However, they are large corporations and would gladly settle to some amount insignificant to them but a fortune to him in order to shut him up. That's the problem. People here in the US know that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, so when they find an opportunity they make as much noise as they can until someone pays them to shut up. It's not a "victory" legally, but it's good enough for that person every time it happens our "system" dies just a little bit more.

Re:Lawsuits

[Shajenko42]

Seems like a much better strategy for the large corporation is this: first time this happens, use the discovery process to get as much dirt as possible on this guy as you can (or even manufacture it). Drag up all this in court, get the papers to print all this guy's dirty laundry, and drag out the process until the guy is bankrupt. You can even countersue the guy a lot of times. Basically, ruin the guy's life. Get him fired if you can, and blackballed.

Then, the next time somebody sues your company, hand them a copy of the newspaper front page discussing the case.

It's unlikely you'll ever be sued by individuals again. Frankly, I'm surprised this doesn't happen more.

Re:Lawsuits

[Alaska Jack]

1. I have absolutlely no personal interest in any of the gadgets the article described. So I'm not biased that way.

2. Perhaps you could explain to me exactly how a system is unsafe, that prevents a TV from being on when the vehicle is driven more than three miles per hour. What if European/Japanese cars, thus equipped, showed no appreciable increase in accidents. Would you change your mind?

- Alaska Jack

Re:Lawsuits

[Java Ape]

I agree. We're rapidly approaching the point at which risk-aversion is king, and any action whatsoever opens up multiple opportunities for lawsuits. In such a society, it becomes impossible to invent, produce or innovate, which leads to trade deficits, unemployment and general malaise of spirit. The only ones making money in America are the lawyers and the big businesses who own an army of them.

One wonders that all of these digital toys can be used in Europe without a wave of bloody deaths caused by SUV-driving soccer-moms trying to browse the Opra website in traffic. Is their tort system better? Is the traffic slower? Or could it be that, having sent their lower-class criminals, drunks and flotsom to America, they are simply smarter than we are? Hmmmm. . .

Re:Lawsuits

[khallow]

One wonders that all of these digital toys can be used in Europe without a wave of bloody deaths caused by SUV-driving soccer-moms trying to browse the Opra website in traffic. Is their tort system better? Is the traffic slower? Or could it be that, having sent their lower-class criminals, drunks and flotsom to America, they are simply smarter than we are? Hmmmm. . .

More likely, the modestly increased rate of accidents is accepted by the European public.

Re:Lawsuits

[kamapuaa]

You seem to confuse dogmatic philosophy with how the world works. First, saying "yes" in bold isn't an argument, and comparing "cars should be safe" to "the terrorists have won" is just odd.

Secondly, cars are already regulated. Airbags are now standard, cars have lights indicating the brake. SUVs with high bumpers need a system to avoid automatically killing passengers of the other car. In short there is already a precedent for cars to have regulated safety measures, and most people approve of it, feeling it makes driving safer. Why should banning the watching of TV while driving, which is obviously unsafe, be any different? Because it has a vaguely high-tech aura about it?

If you're going to reply, please actually answer, instead of just posting some BS. I wonder if you're capable?

TV screen - that's nothing

[geneing]

I was driving a few months ago (in California) and a minivan in front of me had at least 8 TV screens: 1 for the driver, one for each passenger and one more big screen for everyone in the back.

Move over Audi... :) Custom mods rule :)

Re:Wow... point and click parallel parking... COOL

[compro01]

IIRC someone in the UK came up with the mathmatic
formula for parallel parking a car perfectly.
i'm pretty sure that everything in math is repeatable.
link here

Great....

[rsborg]

so we're gonna miss out on car based web-surfing (imagine a laptop keyboard "nipple" in your steering wheel!) when more distracting Car DVD players are available?

Sigh... I guess i have to get my commuting pr0n from dvds and not the web :-(

Re:Great....

[Anonymous Coward]

imagine a laptop keyboard "nipple" in your steering wheel!

Dude, it's not a nipple, it's a CLIT!

Re:Great....

[Zardus]

The difference is that those DVD players are generally in the back seat, at least in all of the non-modded cars I've seen, and in theory don't distract the driver. Putting in car-based web surfing for the driver would cause a good amount of distraction, and that's what the automakers are afraid of getting sued for.

Of course, I'm against the lawsuit-happy culture here as much as anyone, but I'm kinda glad that people won't be getting DVD and web browsers players in the front seat. The quality of drivers pretty much anywhere in America that I've been to isn't that great even without them.

Gets rid of those #&%! kids and their soccer b

[wsanders]

Also it can run over any annoying kids and soccer balls if they get in the way of your urban assault vehicle. Guess you don't get sued for that in Europe or Japan. Damn US legal system!

People in Europe or Japan spend most of their time crawling in traffic anyway, in their toaster size cars with 700 cc engines. I *like* that about Europe and Japan. Isn't there a nationwide 50 mph / 80 kph speed limit in Japan?

This Article is a POOR platform for Tort reform

[mekkab]

This balding guy (so you know he must be right!) confirms what the real car accident problem is; the driver is distracted. Cell phone, rubbernecking, in-car-Tivo, it doesn't matter.

From the article:
Besides nervousness over lawsuits, the American auto market has also been more cautious in offering features like television or karaoke, which are widely available in other countries. Some features will probably not be available here for years, if ever.

Uhm... what? Television?! STFU and drive!
As for karaoke, my car has a stereo; you KNOW I am screaming/singing at the top of my lungs!

Maturity and necessity ...

[fygment]

... differs between North America and the other G8's. Having experienced traffic jams in Europe (esp. Autobahn funnily enough) who wouldn't be relieved to be able to surf or watch TV? That isn't the situation encountered on North America's interstates and trans-Canada.
It seems a telling comment on national maturity when the US attitude is to sue ("It's someone else's fault, not mine!") to the point that it actually inhibits the introduction of technology to a market. Or maybe, the most mature and effective legal systems are found in the US. Sad, either way.

Nothing even remotely tantalizing...

[demonbug]

I was expecting to find at least one thing in the article that I would enjoy having in my car... but I didn't.
Cars are expensive enough as it is. Hell, I don't even want navigation - I've never really missed it yet, so all it would do is add a couple grand to the price of the car. I use my car to drive from point A to point B (although often by the most indirect route - driving is fun given the right roads).

I think one reason (beyond the obvious issues of litigation - isn't it nice to hear about places where people are actually assumed to be responsible for their own actions?) these sorts of systems haven't caught on in the U.S. is that the car is one of the last places we Americans can go to escape TV, email, etc., etc... we (I) don't want these things in our (my) cars.

This nailed it.

[poofyhairguy82]

Executives contend that most American drivers are more interested in advanced safety systems than in entertainment options.

Exactually. Thats why us Americans buy SUVs that "feel" safe and spend billions on another war against an -ism. This would be fine, except from the two examples I have given you can see that our collective motto is "a good offense is the best defense."

Don't bother

[GeckoX]

Any that are still and haven't blown up already are probably lemons anyways.

Lawsuit as the Jackpot

[dpilot]

Has the lawsuit taken on some of the roll of a lottery in the US? Winning a lawsuit becomes like winning the Jackpot.

In the old days, you worked hard, and you got ahead. IMHO, that's no longer true, for the most part. You usually can't get ahead without working hard, but 'merely' hard work is no longer sufficient. More and more, it also takes connections an luck - being in the right place at the right time with the right idea. Furthermore, simply knowing how to build the better mousetrap isn't enough either, you have to also know how to market that mousetrap, or at least license its IP.

All in all, I suspect the American Dream is getting farther and farther away, for most Americans. Is the increasing number of state-run lotteries because of legal relaxations, or is it because more people are giving up on earning their way up, and figure their odds are about as good gambling their way up? Consider lawsuits in that light...

Re:Lawsuit as the Jackpot

[cavemanf16]

I have no idea why this post got modded "Insightful." The most insight this poster displays is on his depth of knowledge of cliche ideas such as "In the old days, you worked hard, and you got ahead." or "...simply knowing how to build the better mousetrap isn't enough either..."

Give me a break!

Re:Lawsuit as the Jackpot

[Grey Tomorrow]

For the most part, state run lotteries are merely a way for the state itself to punish the stupid and those bad at math, for it's own personal gain. If it weren't for the tens of thousands of people buying those tickets, your taxes would be higher than they are now.

Re:Lawsuit as the Jackpot

[normal_guy]

You could never work hard your entire life as a coal miner and expect to get ahead. Connections, personality, and motivation have always been the hallmarks of those able to move up a rung. Many people still invent things then sell the patent to a corporation. Lotteries have always been around. People want to spend a few bucks for a chance to win a few million. Laws have relaxed because they're huge revenue draws for the state.

This Office Space philosophy smacks of wage slave desperation. There has always been a working class - and the need to claw your way up the way everyone else has, by buying a nice suit and playing golf with the boss once in awhile. Lawsuit-lotteries or no, there will always be those looking for the easy way out.

Re:Lawsuit as the Jackpot

[Lije Baley]

Maybe you missed his point about lawsuits feeding into the lottery mentality which seems to pervade much of lower income america. Opportunistic lawsuits are just another way in which poor people are only making themselves poorer in the end, and has the side effect of eventually devoting too much of our resources to navigating through legal minefields.

Re:Lawsuit as the Jackpot

[dpilot]

I guess I always considered lotteries to be voluntary taxation of the math-challenged. Same thing, though I do feel a little guilty about their children losing out even a little to subsidize my taxes. (little/no sympathy for the ticket buyers)

Re:Lawsuit as the Jackpot

[dpilot]

I agree, but I'm saying that the bar has also been moved upward. More people are in wage-slave desperation than were a decade back, and looking for the easy way out. BTW, I suspect insurance (and other forms of) fraud to be another 'escape strategy.'

Re:Lawsuit as the Jackpot

[Kohath]

All in all, I suspect the American Dream is getting farther and farther away, for most Americans.

This is because you can't be happy with the relative prosperity of middle-class like your ancestors claimed they were.

The American Dream used to be owning your own home. The home ownership rate is 69% now. But you're not satisfied, because buying a house was too easy. It didn't make you feel prosperous, even though you are very prosperous by historic or worldwide standards.

Re:Lawsuit as the Jackpot

[LaCosaNostradamus]

In the old days, you worked hard, and you got ahead. IMHO, that's no longer true, for the most part.

Although I agree in an important sense, I must ask what you think is "getting ahead"? Do you mean the American God-given red-blooded right to get so deeply in debt that you'll die owning money on your home, car, education and credit cards?

Americans used to live all their lives without health insurance, pensions and supermarkets ... while still living in a modern era with homes, streets, automobiles, phones, police and fire departments, etc. We are returning to those times (I call it "entering the 21st Century by forcing labor into the 19th Century using the capital gains of the 20th Century"). In accord, since Americans refuse to exert Socialist controls over Capital, then Americans either have to submit to the terrors of economic slavery, or they will have to reduce their standard of living.

One way of expressing "reduction" in this new (old) environment, is to save money instead of spending it all the time. Part of saving money is that you must be frugal, too. The end result of this viewpoint is that you can still "get ahead" ... as long as you avoid buying into the overconsumption lifestyle of McMansions, SUVs, private schooling, plastic consumer goods, and all the other trappings of unsustainable lifestyle. Over the course of your life, you can pay for things with cash that you accumulate diligently, and avoid the ruinous costs of credit. You are guaranteed to die firmly in the middle class, and will either leave enough for your children, or will have helped them through tough times without government welfare.

And (oh yeah) ... American frugality will decimate the ranks of the millionaires to make room for a vast middle class -- which is exactly the opposite of what is happening now, in which millions of middle class are being dropped into the poor zone just to mint another 50 millionaires each year.

Re:Lawsuit as the Jackpot

[dpilot]

You're trying to make sense. I was trying to portraying my perception of ordinary American thinking.

One thing that stuns me is this statistic that the *average* credit card debt is something like $7500, or more. (I've heard MUCH higher numbers.) The hard part is that a bunch of us are 'transactors' instead of 'revolvers,' and carry over zero credit card debt. So when you take the transactors out, the real average debt must be higher, yet.

Re:Lawsuit as the Jackpot

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Thanks. For the 3rd year running, my area (Toledo OH -- never come here, BTW) will set a record for filed bankruptcies. The harrowing stats you may have heard probably involve people who are in bankruptcy or are seeking "credit counselor" help ... those miserable folks are the ones who commonly carry over $15K revolving cc debt. The avg debt for those who seek help, is probably well over $20K.

I well recall many entrepreneur-worshipping articles in the 1990s that illustrated all the folks who maxed out their debt capacity to make their small businesses work. Credit became part of the culture.

With government spending being what is, and with the increased efforts to tax things to "make up for the recession", it's the government debt that proves equally harrowing, if not more. Local governments still think that home property taxes are a blank check. I have hopes that forced frugality upon the general population will lead to a civic movement to reduce government expenses in a similar manner.

Of course, people will die from all this. It's regrettable, but we seem to have chosen worker deaths over solider deaths, for this low-level American revolution.

It's too easy

[klugerama]

Keep in mind that almost anybody can get a license with minimal effort in America. It's not nearly as easy to get a driver's license in Europe - I've been told that in Germany, the written driver's test alone is practically a book, and takes several hours, as does the practical test. It's many pages, as opposed to the single/half page written multiple choice/multiple attempt joke here in California. I don't know about Japan.

Re:It's too easy

[deicide]

Yea, well, I'd spend weeks to study and hours to take a test if I was allowed to drive like Germans.

Too bad that even if I was allowed there would still be someone doing 60 in the left lane in a 65 speed limit zone.

Re:It's too easy

[Hessi]

uhm - not exactly.
In Germany, the actual written test is a simple 4-pages multiple choice test with some numbers to fill in (amount of meters you need for breaking at 100 km/h and so on), and the question are chosen from a...100 pages? catalogue of all possible questions. With average intelligence, it is possible to read all questions one time and pass the test with 0 errors (9 errors are allowed, one questions counts between 2 and 4 error points).

The practical test depends heavily on the examiner - between 15 minutes and 60 minutes of driving, with parking, city, Autobahn, everything. Everyone can have bad luck and spoil that.

The biggest difference between the US (at least what I know of it) and Germany is the driving school: You are not allowed to drive with your parents, you have to drive with a teacher. And you need a minimum amount of driving experience to do the test (12 hours, 3 hours Autobahn, 3 hours overland, 3 hours in the night). Most people use between 18 to 25 hours. It's really expensive to get a drivers license, it is not easy to stay within 1.500 EUR.

But in the end, nearly noone who just passed the drivers test is actually able to drive. You just need at least half a year of experience to know what you are doing, and after that, the most dangerous time starts - the kids stop using their brain while driving...and the boys start using their ... :-(

Re:It's too easy

[SmurfButcher Bob]

Yeah, well you left out the hardest part -

The damned tests are written entirely in German!

Re:It's too easy

[Kiryat Malachi]

US driving school rules where I grew up:

9 hours of teacher-supervised driving, 40 hours of parent-supervised driving, 10 of which must be at night. Teacher will do some night, some highway, some city. Fortunately, almost all public high schools integrate driver's ed into the curriculum (matched with a required health/sex ed course) which means that it winds up being free to the student to get the teacher training.

After the training, you get to take a written and road test, which are roughly equivalent to the German ones according to a German expat friend of mine.

And, much like Germany... no one can fucking drive.

Re:It's too easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Driving rules in Colorado:
(This is when I did it in late 2001)
1. Piss-easy multiple-choice test. Choose from A, b or C and you are allowed to get 20% wrong.
2. Driving test with instructor. Drive an automatic transmission vehicla around the block
3. Get fingerprinted and take your new licence which is valid for the next 10 years.

Then the next time it snows (we are in the Rockies, people) we wonder why there are so many shiny SUVs upside down in the ditch.

Who cares, it's just darwinism at work. Maybe in a few years all idiots who believe the salesman when he tells them that 4WD makes you immortal will have become extinct

Re:Wow... point and click parallel parking... COOL

[RetroGeek]

i'm pretty sure that everything in math is repeatable

Ok, but in the real world there are such things as potholes, curbs or lack of curbs, cats/dogs/people, weather, ....

Parking

[eadint]

This kinda sucks because my wife has a hard time parallell parking. this would be a good thing for her.
me i would prefere a gatlin gun that targets and fires on SUV's so that those fuckers wouldnt be crowding up the road.

Re:Parking

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the gatling gun option...I could mount it to the top of my SUV!!!

Eeeek

[admanb]

If I ever saw someone checking their e-mail on the road, I'd get myself at LEAST two blocks away from them ASAP.

I agree.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's funny is that I will flash my high-beams to tell the driver to turn his off, then he will flash his high-beams! His high-beams aren't even on and the lights are blinding me. Also, I hate it when people jack up their truck and don't readjust their headlights. Those things hit me in the face like a ton of bricks.

new drive dysfunction on the horizon?

[WormholeFiend]

from the article:
Meanwhile, Fiat is working with Microsoft's Automotive Business Unit to create the next generation of communications features for drivers. The goal, Mr. San Pedro said, is to use voice communications to control various features, like lights, air-conditioning or searching for the closest gas station

Clippy-rage, anyone?

Too much tech!!

[Anonymous Coward]

All this tech everywhere, wireless has killed my ability to have an undisturbed lunch. And now they are going to put it in cars too!? When will it end!?

DAMN!

[Altus]

and me without my mod points!

Wanna deploy advanced technology?

[Wapiti-eater]

Disable the lawyers first.

Some cool Braking functionality

[onpaws]

One functionality on Mercedes-Benz vehicles that has really changed brake technologies is Sensotronic Brakes (SBC). Many of the features of SBC have not been brought over and activated in the United States such as "Traffic Jam Assist" and "Soft Stop." These items help both to prevent fatigue and increase comfort, resulting in less stressful (and more relaxing) driving.

More about year 2003 SBC technology

another amazing thing that US cars cannot do

[Anonymous Coward]

drive more than 45 or 50 miles per gallon using standard internal combustion engine (and not these hybrid nonsense that don't do any better but cost a heck of a lot more); something my good ol' (and cheap) Nissan Micra (model not available in the US of course) could easily do back in late 80s... (and I was driving a lot faster, carrying as much cargo/people than I can with my appalingly inneficient chevy);

now if someone can tell me how I could get a Smart Fortwo over here in California (Smart brand will be available in the US market, but selling yet another gas guzzling SUV believe it or not); their marketting dept seems to have somehow missed the point; and no, I already called dealers in Canada and Mexico (where the Fortwo will be available) and they cannot sell them to US residents without loosing their dealership;

--

One thing I wish my car CAN do

[edko]

I believe in Japan they have an option (or a kit) that allows your side mirrors to fold up. It makes it easy to pass through narrow streets. In my case, it'll really help parking the cars in my small garage...

Re:One thing I wish my car CAN do

[Anonymous Coward]

The Hondas sold in Japan have mirrors that fold in at the touch of a button. Over in America only the more expensive Hondas have folding mirrors and even then you have to do it by hand.

Makes it a lot easier to squeeze between two cars in the garage while taking out the garbage, that's for certain.

Re:One thing I wish my car CAN do

[b0s0z0ku]

I believe in Japan they have an option (or a kit) that allows your side mirrors to fold up.
Many imports in the US have that as well. My Volvo does, as did my old Saab and my parents' VW Jetta. Just push back on the mirrors of your car - they might actually be foldable. (Or did you mean *motorized* folding?)

This is also a safety feature - if you're a pedestrian, it's better to get hit by something that folds than something that doesn't yield.

-b.

Re:One thing I wish my car CAN do

[Grishnakh]

In the 90's, all Hondas had folding mirrors, but lately they've removed this feature (probably to save money).

There's a lot of people that buy the power folding mirrors off ebay or through some importer who got them off a junked car in Japan and install them on their cars.

Re:One thing I wish my car CAN do

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, my bad. I meant motorized folding.

One more reason to vote for bush?

[hdd]

didn't he say he is gonna reform the tort laws?

Re:One more reason to vote for bush?

[Holi]

How does any president reform a law? I mean he can ask some congressman or senator to try and repeal/enact a law but he certainly does not have the power to propose a law.

Screw AutoParallelParking - but Internet... i like

[H8X55]

I'm not so sure about the Auto Parallel Parking feature. I'd feel more comfortable with that being in my hands - if the car nudges another in the front or back - i'd still be responsible for the ticket and/or repairs/insurance premium hike.

But Internet... that could be very good idea. And i don't just mean for pr0n, but on travel you could check reviews of resturants, buy tickets to a show you're on the way to, check driving directions and other useful activities you do in the office before you leave.

An easy safety feature could disable Internet connectivity while the car was in gear. So you could check out the 'net at a traffic light or on the side of the road. I spend a few hour a day in my car - a lot of time stopped in traffic, i do anything to make the time more enjoyable or productive.

Mods

[Anonymous Coward]

Please tell me exactly what part of the parent post is Insightful.

Re:Mods

[Anonymous Coward]

The part where after drinking more than one Coors Light, you would want to shoot yourself.

Blech.

legal liability prevents innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

Defending oneself in court takes time and money and prevents oneself from moving forward.

Being able to sue for any cause/action comes with higher costs to everyone.

Re:legal liability prevents innovation

[banzai51]

Taking responsiblity for your inventions is a bitch.

Re:legal liability prevents innovation

[nigelc]

Taking responsiblity for your inventions is a bitch

and taking responsibility for your own actions is even more of a bitch.

Oh sorry, I guess that's un-American these days.

Re:legal liability prevents innovation

[alienw]

It prevents innovation, and it also prevents unsafe products from getting out there. I don't know about you, but I don't think people should be able to watch TV while driving. Also, I value my safety a lot more than some useless car gadget that encourages bad driving.

Re:legal liability prevents innovation

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Damn straight! Mission accomplished!! Stay the course!!! Bring it on!!!!

{pant, pant} Just practicing to vote Republican this year.

Heads Up

[uberjoe]

I would really like a heads up display in my car, showing things like velocity, engine temp, fuel level, and the like. Imagine not having to look down at the dash or the radio. It seems a lot safer to me.

While I'm on the subject of safety I would also want foreward looking infrared radar, for the numerous foggy days we have in the califorina central valley. I can picture the dialogue with my kids now

KIDS:"I can't believe you guys didn't have a HUD or FLIR in your cars! How did you see in the fog or the dark?"

MUCH OLDER ME: "Well we couldn't really see anything, a lot of people died in accidents."

KIDS: "That's stupid!"

Re:Wow... point and click parallel parking... COOL

[compro01]

good point. but it seems to me, most of the people i know who drive can't componsate for the things you mentioned, so there wouldn't be a whole lot of differance.

plus, the car manufacturers wouldn't get sued by the idiot behind the wheel because they tried to park a 10 foot car in an 8 foot parking spot, as canada is statisticly alot less sue-happy and the "i'm-too-stupid-to-live" defence holds less water

Nice features...

[natron 2.0]

I was recently in Germany and had a BMW 325i as a rental, and to me the coolest feature it had (besides the DVD nav system) was a little red LED positioned in the upper console (sunroof controls) that shined down upon the lower console when the headlights/interior gauge illumination was on. It was just the right tone. Not distracting while driving at night and perfect for reading documents and finding my smokes, without needing to turn on the domelight.

How many Americas are there?

[Infonaut]

The American continent has some 20 other countries in it!

Quite true. But which other countries in the Americas have the name "America" in them?

Re:How many Americas are there?

[wdconinc]

Inference: Africans live by definition in South-Africa.

Re:How many Americas are there?

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume you meant that all Africans live in South Africa because Africans do live in South Africa and the dutch and french descendants who live in South Africa are refered to as Afrikaners.

Re:How many Americas are there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there exists another country in Africa that contains the word Africa... Central African Republic... and people from there are referred to as Central African (in nationality, not ethnicity). Thus the original question stands... http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ ct.html

'cause it would be stolen in 4, 3, 2, 1..

[caffeineboy]

I don't know about you guys, but if I had a plasma screen, GPS enabled, internet connected whatsamadoozit in my car it would be gone in about, oh, one night of parking near the damn section 8 housing up the street.

Actually, TVs are illegal in the front seat in Japanese cars. If you have a factory installed system it has to blank itself when the car is in gear. GPS is OK, but no TVs or DVD players. Of course, that's not to say that people don't put them in illegally. When I was in Japan in 1998, my boss had a hi-8 vcp and a 5" trinitron monitor bolted to the dash of his subaru. He would dub rented VHS tapes to hi-8 and watch them in his car.

Re:Gets rid of those #&%! kids and their socce

[anon*127.0.0.1]

You mean once the cars started its parking process, it can't be stopped? It's like some crazed, out of control parking cyborg, and the poor driver is trapped and helpless until its completed its mission?

I kinda figured they'd design so that doing something like stepping on the brake would halt the process. You know, like they do with cruise control. That way the driver could sit in the car and keep an eye out for trouble, and not be distracted by trying to maneuver the vehicle into a tight space without hitting something. Driver watches for trouble, car parks itself, everyones safer.

Granted, some people will hit the "Park" button, then start making phone calls or putting on makeup or hell, get out of the car and head into the mall and leave the empty car to park itself. I chalk those problems up to stupid people, not a stupid design.

As for your 700 cc engines and 50 mph speed limit... come vistit me in Dallas sometime. We'll make a day trip to El Paso, and along the way you'll have plenty of time to tell me how much you you enjoy driving at 50 MPH.

if you think that, then

[Anonymous Coward]

your mother was a soviet spy!

Sort of.

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Maybe. Its nice that it causes them to think about safety, plus less gadgetry should mean that the prices shouldn't go up as much. Also sounds like we won't be getting a microsoft car soon. But in general we do sue too much. That needs to be fixed without preventing good lawsuits from going forward. And telling the difference between them is the hardest part. We need some sort of impartial juding software to run through lawsuits and heurotistically determine their level of importance, chance of succeding. Plus it would be cool if the software could play DVD's and check my email at the same time. And what if it ran on a wearable computer? that would be sweet. And what if it could hook into a Segway as well. Then I'd be motoring around watching dvd's, reading email, while runing software that makes fun of people that file ridiculous lawsuits.

As long as the device isn't made by Apple or microsoft. I'll sue the crap out of them if it is.

You have to talk to the owners then.

[Pinkoir]

The vast majority of lamps which cause disability glare are doing so becuase they are:

a) Misaimed either intentionally to get better visibility or by accident because the driver or mechanic don't know what they are doing. You don't have to mis-aim a lamp by much to throw a lot of light at oncoming drivers...one degree too high is more than enough to do it.

b) Retrofitted with pumped-up aftermarket bulbs which the lamp was not designed to use. Even if you use a kit which claims that it's designed for the vehicle in question if you drill out a hole in your lamp to put in an aftermarket HID system you WILL screw it up. Get that sucker out of position by half a millimeter and you're going to blind everybody who looks at you.

Sueing the OEMs won't change the behaviour of the vehicle users.

In response to the article itself, the thing I most miss that the Euros have while we NAers tend not to is the mighty Rear Fog Lamp. Since certain states *cough*Virginia*cough* do not allow their use, most foreign OEMs disable the rear fog functionality on the cars the export to NA. I drive a Mini Cooper and it has a rear fog cavity in the tail-lights but the damn thing is turned off in the CAN-bus and there's a plug in my dash where the switch should be! Anybody who has ever driven behind a car that does have these in the rain knows how much we need to update the FMVSS code to explicitly allow them here.

-Pinkoir

Re:You have to talk to the owners then.

[JimBobJoe]

Since certain states *cough*Virginia*cough* do not allow their use, most foreign OEMs disable the rear fog functionality on the cars the export to NA.

Well Virginia...umm...is a very odd state. I will not make any apologies for it...it's oddly fascist.

At any rate, my Saab does have the working mighty rear fog lamp. I dunno if newer Saabs have it, but mine does, and I do use it when it's foggy and dark.

Re:You have to talk to the owners then.

[Grishnakh]

We can't have things like that in America. They make too much sense.

Another similarity is the DOT spec for headlights, which requires their beam pattern to be poor, and to blind oncoming drivers. The E-code spec used in Europe is far superior, and provides for a cutout that reduces the glare to oncoming drivers, and directs more of the light onto the road ahead. But of course, since we didn't invent it, we can't have it here.

Another one is the aspherical rearview mirrors used in Europe, in the side mirrors. Instead of just being flat, they are slightly convex at the ends, so that you can see vehicles in the blind spot. In America, these are illegal because they might confuse drivers.

Re:You have to talk to the owners then.

[RealUlli]

Anybody who has ever driven behind a car that does have these in the rain knows how much we need to update the FMVSS code to explicitly allow them here.

Anybody who has ever driven behind a car that does have these in dry weather knows how much they can annoy when used improperly, like when the driver forgets to shut them up (or is too lazy, or thinks it's cool...). While you're at it, adjust the FMVSS code to have a car set it's top speed limiter to something like 30 mph when the fog lights are on - if it's foggy, you shouldn't drive faster than that, if it isn't you should shut off these lights to keep from annoying other drivers...

Regards, Ulli

Re:You have to talk to the owners then.

[Anonymous Coward]

How does a rear fog light annoy you?

It looks almost exactly like a brake light except for the color, and fact that there's only one on the lefthand side (instead of the 3 brake lights you should have, one on either side plus the middle).

It's not like it's going to blind you or anything... not any more than someone's brake lights do.

Re:You have to talk to the owners then.

[renoX]

I disagree, I think that even normal installation is too blinding: I travelled with a guy which had a brand new car: on a 400km travel often one or two cars would flash their lights at him because they belieived he had forgotten to set them correctly..

Part of this was probably because the lamp were of a new type (much smaller than usual but very bright), but I really found its light too bright, and it wasn't only his car: all the same type of cars were similary blinding: laws are too lax here I think: car makers shouldn't be allowed to have so blinding lights!

Amusingly, he was very sensible to the 'mighty rear fog lamp' which he hated whereas I don't find them disturbing the least, on the contrary I find them useful..

Re:You have to talk to the owners then.

[RealUlli]

It's not like it's going to blind you or anything... not any more than someone's brake lights do.

In Germany, the 3rd brake light is not required, though new cars all have them. Now imagine driving at night, behind someone with his fog light on - how can you tell, at a glance, if he's braking, with one broken brake light, or if he just forgot to turn his fog light off?

The problem is not so much the brightness, it's the constant triggering of the "brake now!" reflex. Brake lights are designed to grab your attention even in bright sunlight - they definitely grad it at night. The same goes for the fog light, except it doesn't have to be that attention grabbing (it's designed to cut through fog, but the results are the same)... basically it keeps screaming at you "forget everything else, pay attention to ME, I'm about to do something dangerous!!!"

That's what annoys me about these light in clear conditions - they distract my attention from the rest of the traffic, which might actually be *doing* something dangerous...

Regards, Ulli

Slashdot user != USA resident

[sicking]

I'm not living in the US you insensitive clod! My Automobile will be able to do those things!

Uh-huh.

[jpellino]

This article begins with the musings of a guy from FIAT?

The same FIAT who - judging from the rust rate - apparently used to use their cars as pontoons and anchors on the salt-water boat trip from Italy to US?

The same FIAT who's name is an acronym for "Fix It Again, Tony!"?

That FIAT?

Pardon me if I don't finish reading.... OK - it says "Prius" somewhere further down... I'll get back to you.

Bzzt, try again

[Anonymous Coward]

"African" is a racial label. "American" is a nationality label.

Re:Bzzt, try again

[wdconinc]

1. Races do not exist. If intragroup variation is larger than intergroup variation, than a classification doesn't make sense. Ever tried to classify people according to their bloodtype? If you meant 'African is a *racist* label in the US' then I would probably agree... 2. Why would American be more or less national than African? You are using your premisse to prove it... Common fallacy. I just observed that 'USAians' is a better term to refer to people who live in the US (but not in Mexico,...), than 'American' because that term refers two whole continents.

Re:Bzzt, try again

[Anonymous Coward]

Name one other country that uses its initials to identify its citizens? People from the UK are British, English, Scottish, etc. When the USSR existed they were called Soviets. There is no historical basis for using USAian, it is difficult to say, and there is no logical reason not to use American since there is no other country that ends in America.

Re:Bzzt, try again

[Anonymous Coward]

Races do not exist.
If you close your eyes really tight and concentrate *really* hard, your wishes *can* come true, Tinkerbell!

African is a *racist* label in the US
Racist?? Ok, now you're just being stupid.

You're 0 for 2. Best 3 out of 5?

Re:Bzzt, try again

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. So you wont mind if we all call you a Stupidfuckian, since that's clearly where you're from.

Headlights

[nuggz]

How about this?

http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/041026-2.htm

I don't want it

[Rich Klein]

I don't want more crap built into my car! I apologize if this post is redundant, but if it is then maybe it's a sign that the market is changing, and the automakers should take notice.

Linguistic drift

[sbeitzel]

Yeah. The English word "American" denotes two classes of people: citizens (or denizens) of the United States of America, and citizens (or denizens) of any of the many countries in the Americas. Spanish resolves the tension with the word "estadounidense" to denote the former. Every once in a while I see somebody try to introduce this term into English, and it just seems dumb. It's clumsy. There are plenty of labels already available.

I'll take yanqui and just go home. ;)

Re:Linguistic drift

[Anonymous Coward]

American does not denote anything but the citizens of the United States of America. There is no continent that is named America. There is only North America and South America. You would no more lump the two together than you would lump Africa, Europe and Asia together (although there is Eurasian).

Re:Linguistic drift

[russotto]

Spanish-speaking Europeans might use it, but "estadounidense" wouldn't make too much sense to a resident of the Estados Unidos Mexicanos.

Re:Wow... point and click parallel parking... COOL

[LinuxHam]

So what happens when you hit a bomb? Does the car crash into the vehicle in front of you?

No, about 10 cars on that block suddenly blow up at once ;)

It's actually amazing...

[BlindRobin]

that most people are allowed to drive at all most people can't pay attention to what's going on around them with no distractions the other drivers they are all usually doing one or more of the following simultaneously. eating drinking / DRINKING "grooming" yellin at the kids yacking to someone in the car who is on the phone with someone else making friendly gestures to other drivers changing the cd's in the changer (or one at a time) while trying to solve some problem with the person on the other end of a wireless connection. and trying to convince your significant other that it's cool to service you at 70 mph while you pick your nose... -

Here's my 2 cents

[Anita Coney]

The article didn't mention the fact that cars (and trucks) are a heck of a lot larger in the US versus Japan and Europe. Thus, automboile accidents here are much more serious.

Getting hit with a Fiat would be nothing compared to a Hemi equipped Dodge 2500 truck.

Re:Here's my 2 cents

[CBravo]

And that Dodge probably comes with a 4 ton boat on an unbraked trailer... :-).

Btw for something completely irrelevant, some background on the Dodge. I guess there is one reason not to drive it: gas prices... In Holland...

Re:Here's my 2 cents

[Anita Coney]

And yet another guy who has never been to Michigan!

Misleading?

[SeanAhern]

I wish USAians would get over this terror thing.

The article mentioned that people have changed their desired automobile equipment due to terrorism. They say that communication is what's now important. How does that have anything to do with terrorism? The example that they call "more telling" is that people want the air bag notification system, which "sends a signal to a central office when a car's air bag is deployed" so emergency services can be dispatched.

That doesn't have to do with terrorism. That's a safety issue. I just don't see anything in this article that would lead me to believe that people are thinking of terrorism when they consider options for their car.

Self-piloting cars

[PerlMonkey]

And that is the reason why, barring an act of Congress specifically limiting automaker's liabiilty, we will NEVER see cars which drive themselves. Because any lawyer who even walked past his lawschool on the way to graduation will know that winning 18.9 million dollars in damages versus Ford is a good deal easier than versus Margaret Schummel, age 88. Car makers couldn't begin to charge enough to cover all the lawsuits arising from this.

Amazing Thing My Automobile Can Do

[Pan T. Hose]

It can drive. Imagine that. Call me old-fashioned but that is about the most amazing thing I expect from my automobile. Likewise, the ony amazing thing I expect from my phone is making phone calls. Yes, I that uncool.

Re:Wow... point and click parallel parking... COOL

[Anonymous Coward]

I follwed the exact instructions. However, I winded up in a ditch.

Driver distraction

[nuggz]

Of course when you're driving a multi ton death machine down the road, you wouldn't want to be caught watching Road Trip and kill someone would you?

http://www.videohelp.com/forum/archive/t231444.h tm l

Almost as bad as reading, putting on makeup, holding a dog on your lap, or just driving like an idiot.
It's scary enough how many friends of mine have been hit by someone on a cell phone.

Re:Driver distraction

[narcc]

It's scary enough how many friends of mine have been hit by someone on a cell phone.

I seriously don't mean to troll here, but what the hell are your friends doing running out if front of cars? -- or do you mean hit by another driver when they were driving?

Either way, I'm curious as to a count -- or more info of some kind.

Re:Driver distraction

[nuggz]

Mostly while driving, not many serious ones, but getting rear ended at a red light is somewhat annoying anyway.
I've personally been bumped by people who weren't watching while I was walking across the street.

oh boy...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Meanwhile, Fiat is working with Microsoft's Automotive Business Unit to create the next generation of communications features for drivers. The goal, Mr. San Pedro said, is to use voice communications to control various features, like lights, air-conditioning or searching for the closest gas station."

This seems to me like a deadly cocktail (you have to know what FIATs are like to understand what I mean...)

Thank Goodness for Litigiousness!

[Brandybuck]

Thank goodness for old fashioned American litigiousness! From the article:

But the system cannot respond to changing conditions, like the vehicle in front suddenly backing into the space the Prius is about to enter. Nor can the system respond to unexpected road obstacles -- a soccer ball rolling into the gutter or a child running in the way.

While I think self-driving cars are an awesome thing, I'll make sure to wait until the technology is good enough to avoid backing over small children. Unexpected road obstacles" happen, and every production self-driving technology needs to account for them. Frankly, I'm amazed no one in Europe and Japan is suing over this. Is it somehow okay to drive over children there?" Do they also accept power windows that slice arms off if they get in the way? Do they accept brakes that lock up if applied at too high of speeds? I don't think so.

A car that takes assumes the responsibility to park a car must also assume the responsibility to do so safely.

p.s. And for all of you nitwits out there saying "you need to monitor your children closer", it's obvious you don't know the first thing about children. To you proper childcare must consist of chaining them in their closets.

Re:Thank Goodness for Litigiousness!

[SuiteSisterMary]

Nonsense. I can say the same thing about Cruise Control. If you're booting down the highway on CC, and some idiot decides to run across said highway, CC will quite happily run the bugger down.

AS IT SHOULD BE. The driver maintains ultimate responsibility for the car; that brake pedal is there for a reason.

Re:Thank Goodness for Litigiousness!

[b0s0z0ku]

Thank goodness for old fashioned American litigiousness! From the article:

But the system cannot respond to changing conditions, like the vehicle in front suddenly backing into the space the Prius is about to enter. Nor can the system respond to unexpected road obstacles -- a soccer ball rolling into the gutter or a child running in the way.
In the system, the driver has control of the throttle and brake. The electronics just turn the steering wheel. If the driver sees an obstacle, he can stop the car the same way as if he were parking it "by hand." That being said, I've never really had a problem parking a car, even in places like NYC and Boston. Then again, I always buy cars with fairly nimble turning radii - maybe people who enjoy large SUVs and front-wheel-driven barges will like this (yes, I know, it's offered on the Prius in Japan :).

-b.

Re:Thank Goodness for Litigiousness!

[Brandybuck]

Comparing auto-park to cruise control is erroneous. With cruise control I am still driving. I'm looking out the window. I'm steering left or right. The driver can instantly resume full driving responsibility at any time. Auto-park is different, according to the description. It does all the driving. The automobile has assumed all control, and the driver has become a mere passenger for the next few seconds.

In fact, to initiate auto-park, you must look away from the outside of the vehicle and onto the nagivation controls where you manipulate some icons to indicate where you want to park. While I'm certain the driver can still instantly apply the breaks, I'm doubtful he'll be observing much outside the car during the operation.

Think about how you parallel park. The hardest part (after you learn how) is craning your neck around to see behind you. You're trying to see around the blind spots. But with auto-park, how may people are going to be turning halfway around in their seats to see behind them? I suspect most will be content with their rearview mirror, if they even bother to look behind.

I am not saying auto-park should be banned or anything like that. I'm just saying that the manufacturer needs to assume some of the responsibilities of the feature, simply due to the fact that the feature was designed to take responsibilities away from the driver.

p.s. Auto-park might come with a rear sensor to detect soccer balls and children. If so, I take back everything I said. Otherwise, though, the manufacturer is opening themselves up for a justified lawsuit.

How dare he.....

[SkyWalk423]

From TFA:

• "People in America tend to sue companies very easily"

A blanket statement from a European executive about Americans?? Libel! We'll see you in court, Mr. Seitner!

Re:Wow... point and click parallel parking... COOL

[Tenebrious1]

This device automatically parks the car, maneuvering the Prius backward and into the space

This won't work in NYC. I'm sure the programmers, living in a land where you immediately fix anything bigger than a microscratch, wouldn't allow the car to be parked in any spot where you don't have a good margin of error in terms of clearance.

Here in NYC it's common for the driver to back in until they feel their car make contact with the one behind. Then drive forward until they kiss the car in front. Then back. And front. And back, etc until you squeeze into the spot... leaving plenty of dings and scratches... but that's parking in NYC for ya.

Discrimination!

[TiggertheMad]

You read those comments by the Europeans in the article! Inflamitory! They are suggestiong that, we Americans, are irate little hot heads that would litigate for trifiling nusances. I won't stand for it, I'm going to sue them for slander!

...uh..never mind....

Re:Discrimination!

[pjt33]

Since the article's published or broadcast, rather than spoken, you can sue for libel instead. Bigger damages!

Re:Discrimination!

[sharkey]

hey are suggestiong that, we Americans, are irate little hot heads that would litigate for trifiling nusances.

Of course we are! Suing over duofiling is a bit over-the-top, but you should NEVER let them make it to quadfiling!

Re:Gets rid of those #&%! kids and their socce

[rworne]

I thought it was 100kph as a national maximum, about 60mph.

Still it isn't too bad, The country is small, roughly 90% of the size of California. Driving from Kagoshima on the southern tip of Kyushu to Aomori (northern Honshu) takes about 26 hours. From Kagoshima to Tokyo is about 13 hours -- not much different than a San Diego to San Fransisco drive (aside from the heavy tolls in Japan).

As a side note, cars have warning chimes when the national speed limit is exceeded. This can be highly annoying on long trips with a lead-foot. Other cars (Honda S2000 as one example) have speed governors built into the ECU to keep speeders in check.

And while we are at it,

[vakuona]

Why not ban billboards, especially those which feature next to nude women advertising some soap. It hink that is a real distraction. In fact, stop all roadside advertising, outlaw loud systems while driving. As soon as the car is moving, the volume on the stereo should go down to a level where the driver should be able to hear everything going on around him, and maybe have a system that lowers it further when it starts raining. Also have bright lights outlawed, and have autodipping mandatory. Hate idiots who leave their lights at full brightness on the road.

Re:And while we are at it,

[zmollusc]

If I drive past a billboard that is next to some nude woman advertising soap then I woudn't notice the billboard. And I have to turn my stereo up when I am moving to drown out the noise of my broken exhaust.

TVs for the driver?

[DrDebug]

Are they kidding? Here in America people think they can drive responsibly with a cell phone in their ear. Now they want to take our eyes off the road, too?

Yep, this is just BEGGING for a lawsuit.

Re:TVs for the driver?

[shplorb]

Here in Australia and probably everywhere BUT the US, the judge would say:

"Serves ya bloody right for having a crash because you were watching TV, yapping on your mobile and having a smoke whilst driving down the freeway at 100km/h in peak-hour traffic tailgating someone. You stupid bastard, I feel sorry for the people you hurt due to your stupidity. You are ordered to pay costs for the defendant and it's off to gaol with you for being such a dill!"

I miss Fiats

[gone.fishing]

Fiat pulled out of the US market years ago. I miss them. Over the years I've had several Fiat 850 Spyders and a coupe, I've had a 124 too.

They were good basic cars that were fun to drive and easy to work on. What more can you really ask for?

Now to see what they offer in Europe, hell, I'd kill for one of them.

Sometimes people would tell me that FIAT stood for "Fix It Again, Tony." I'll admit that I have my share of problems with the cars, but then I was really driving 'em a little harder than I should have too. Besides, they were fun to fix. I could lift the engine out of an 850 all by myself and a complete engine swap only took an afternoon or so. Frankly, I'd bet that had I been driving American cars I would have had as many problems and would have had to spend a lot more to fix 'em.

A junk yard I knew spliced a 124 and a 128 together, it was just sort of a joke but they had a two engined car to show off!

I only regret that I never got around to owning a X/19 or 2000.

Re:I miss Fiats

[YrWrstNtmr]

I only regret that I never got around to owning a X/19...

I had one (green '74), and my dad had one( red '75). Rusted like no tomorrow. Crappy electrics (bare wires leading into connectors). Suspension mounts could be stronger(one rusted clean away). Aluminum cyl head had a tendency to warp. Doors froze shut (upstate NY winter).

I want another one.

Re:Wow... point and click parallel parking... COOL

[DG]

Does it play "The Blue Danube"?

DG

Re:Wow... point and click parallel parking... COOL

[Tenebrious1]

IIRC someone in the UK came up with the mathmatic formula for parallel parking a car perfectly.

Heh heh... reminds me of a couch impossibly stuck in a stairwell.

Formulas for parking cars will be written to assume cars are solid, unmovable objects; of course who wants the program to cause contact and damage their cars? But in reality, cars are not completely immobile; you can back into a car and push it for a couple of inches. Moving forward, you can push that car for a few more inches, thus giving you much more room to maneuver into the parking spot. Well, anyway that's the way most people park in NYC, parking in spots where no computer would possibly squeeze you in.

Re:Gets rid of those #&%! kids and their socce

[ElGuapoGolf]

No, and No. You must have your foot on the brake pedal at all times. As soon as you take it off, the auto parking procedure stops.

Re:Gets rid of those #&%! kids and their socce

[MarkLR]

That seems like a bad design. In normal use of a car you press the brake to stop not take your foot off of it. Won't a person using them system and react by pressing down harder on the brake when they suddenly need to make an emergency stop (kid with soccer ball, etc)?

it's not liability, it's the law (and a good idea)

[Anonymous Coward]

In many jurisdictions, it is illegal to have a TV that is visible by the driver.

Re:Gets rid of those #&%! kids and their socce

[southpolesammy]

Ah, that's intuitive -- exactly what my first response would be as well. I always take my foot off the brake when I want the car to stop.

BTW, if this disengages the auto-park, how do you stop the vehicle from continuing to roll backwards? Hand brake? Seems flawed to me...

Mod parent up

[einhverfr]

It is not just being a risk adverse society, it is also being a society where we don't see the risks in purportion to what they are.

Re:Mod parent up

[orangesquid]

I think we should start tagging anyone suspicious with a No-Drive act. We should screen everybody much more carefully for a license, set up roadblocks every mile or so where officers can decide whether or not to allow you to keep driving. Additionally, for everybody who has a license, the cops should be able to search zor houses anytime, for any reason. Also, drivers should not be allowed to own cell phones. It should be illegal to have a stereo in your car, and it should be a felony for a car's driver to engage in conversation with a passenger, or through the window to other drivers or anyone outside of the vehicle.

See! It's a good idea I swear
No ulterior motives here
</sarcasm>

Re:Gets rid of those #&%! kids and their socce

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes you 13 hours to get from San Diego to San Fransisco??? Please stay out of the fast lane.

Distractions

[b0s0z0ku]

If I want to read the newspaper, play with my computer, or read a book, I either drive with someone else, or take the bus or train. Speaking as a frequent motorcyclist, having people watching TV on the highway while driving and being more distracted would be terrible. I'm sure some people will be "smart" enough to bypass the > 3 mph turn-off feature, too.

-b.

Re:Gets rid of those #&%! kids and their socce

[ElGuapoGolf]

Ah, that's intuitive -- exactly what my first response would be as well. I always take my foot off the brake when I want the car to stop.

Oh, you're one of those guys who parallel parks without the brakes. I've seen you. You're not good at it. The system is simple... you apply moderate brake pressure, and the system parks. Your foot pushes down, it stops. Your foot goes off the pedal it stops. Is it really that difficult to follow?

BTW, if this disengages the auto-park, how do you stop the vehicle from continuing to roll backwards? Hand brake? Seems flawed to me...

When you're parked, you hit the park button. Pretty 'effin simple.

Re:Gets rid of those #&%! kids and their socce

[ElGuapoGolf]

As posted below:

The system is simple... you apply moderate brake pressure, and the system parks. Your foot pushes down, it stops. Your foot goes off the pedal, it stops.

Slashdot, you oughta be ashamed

[Anonymous Coward]

This is lame republican propaganda that somebody thought we'd bite on because it involves technology.

I read the article only quickly, but I didn't see anything that was (to me) worth actually having on a car. But gosh, I sure heard the liability issue raised loud and clear.

Don't put those democrat lawsuit mongers in the white house, or you'll never be able to get to control the tailgate of your new SUV from the internet!

Sheer silliness.

rambling about PA drivers (sorta ot)

[ibennetch]

Hey, don't go making fun of the potholes in Lebanon county, we're proud of them (joking!!!!)

I can commiserate about the bad state of highways around central PA. The corridor between Harrisburg and the Maryland border is horrible, as are numerous other locations...way too many cars for the size and design of the roads. And I love 78 east (between Lebanon and Allentown) where the road has degenerated in to an endless series of potholes and bumps.

People in Berks county are just as bad...around Reading there are two places the highway merges with little room for an onramp and no one seems to know how to merge properly. I've seen some nutcases in Harrisburg (nearly got pummeled there just a week or two ago) but the stop-at-the-bottom-of-the-ramp and don't-look-before-merging Berks county drivers are worse.

Now I live an hour east and have to deal with people who drive 15 miles an hour under the speed limit on long straight back roads...

Re:rambling about PA drivers (sorta ot)

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Shit on a Shingle.

Half of Lebanon county is under a fricken' sink hole. Mebbe if PENNDOT would get off their collective shovel, drive the roads and fix some of them.

Yup. 78 is toast from Harrisburg to Allentown. I try to drive in the left lane to minimize the damage. Now US Rt 80 has gotten a little better. I drive that from the Mt. Pocono exit all the way to Crawford County near Erie. 80 used to have potholes that you could drop a cadillac into and still have room. Kidding! But the there has been a big move to fix that. Remember 80 mph on 80 unless you see a cop. : ) Actually, how about all of us slowing the fuck down and respecting the rigs on the road.

Then there's the death trap of 322 from Harrisburg to State College. It's gotten better since I was in college, but the bottleneck outside of Lewistown still clogs traffic in the fall.

Now, I've moved into the Philly area and you folks thought Boston and New York drivers are crazy! Here in good ol' Norristown there's a need for drivers to move into the intersection before the light turns green for God know what reason.

476 (aka the Blue Route) might as well be PA's version of the Autobaun unless you discover the hidden State Trooper(s) of the day. And 95? Forgeddaboutit. In the morning and evening 95 usually turns into PA own mobile parking lot. Along with all the yahoos on the PA turnpike. A big shout out to the PA Turnpike toll takers who were thinking about striking. Hello! Actually, I'm behind these guys even though there are a few apples that spoil the bunch.

I probably missed a few roads. Anyone /. lurkers out there care to comment on Pittsburgh roads? Or how about some folks from PennDOT?

Also, does anyone want to educate the PA public and tourists on how to merge from two lanes into one? It's like lines at a ski lift or supermarket. One lane goes then the other lane. Leave space ahead of time for the other person to go in? How fucking hard was that?

Wiat? Terhe's a periview btton?

It's not the uneducated that brought us here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Businesses and class-action lawsuits make up a huge portion of our legal issues. "Bubba" and his cohorts are not the issue... Bubba's a nice southern guy who actually understands that when he crashes his car while reaching for the stereo, it was his fault.

It's the guys that would say "no. This was a badly designed system. I should be able to manipulate my radio without taking my eyes off the road. This is *your* fault!" They create the issues. Thoughts and reactions like that are what create issues.

Or people like the woman suing some associates of mine. They own a building which she found to be "non-compliant" with the ADA (the ramp was too steep). They fixed it immediately upon learning of the issue, but she sued them anyhow using the legal recourse of the ADA.

This is something like her 400th lawsuit.

Many lawsuits are worthwhile endeavors. This woman should be shot in the leg and barred from exercising the ADA...

Re:Wow... point and click parallel parking... COOL

[ThosLives]

...reminds me of a couch impossibly stuck in a stairwell.

Sweet! I really enjoyed that book. Although I would be annoyed by the possibility of getting my car into a spot from which I could never extract it...

Maybe we should focus on building the thing that allows the secret door to open rather than automatically park the car?

Boy, howdy!

[Roadkills-R-Us]

Yeah, my first thought was that if they did allow those features in cars here, they jolly well better let me buy a car with VVM (vehicle to vehicle missles) and some serious armor. Or just sell me an M1 Abrams. Whichever.

Re:Boy, howdy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have any idea how much fuel your M1 Abrams would eat up?

A lot more than conventional cars...

Bittersweet revenge

[Anonymous Coward]

Oddly enough, last year's most-stolen models of cars (such as the 2004 Nissan Maxima) were targetted explicitly for having HID-lights.

Are these available in the UK?

[whoever57]

This seems amazing, given that a driver was prosecuted in the UK for drinking water while stationary at traffic lights

Re:Gets rid of those #&%! kids and their socce

[rworne]

Try doing it at 55-60mph. At 55mph it should take ~9 hours, provided there's no traffic and no stops. The travel times for Japan I posted do take into account the proper speed limits and traffic.

Re:Wow... point and click parallel parking... COOL

[Anonymous Coward]

ROTFL!!! Too bad I don't have mod points.

Re:Gets rid of those #&%! kids and their socce

[Anonymous Coward]

...come vistit(sic) me in Dallas sometime. We'll make a day trip to El Paso, and along the way you'll have plenty of time to tell me how much you you(sic) enjoy driving at 50 MPH.

Take a damn train!

More difficult driving tests...

[Anonymous Coward]

Get all the old people and idiots off the streets and we wont have to worry about accidents.

California legal codes

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget civil law. There is the small fact that many of these devices (such as the TV that allows you to watch as long as you're going

A person may not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other, similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at any point forward of the back of the driver's seat, or is operating and visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.

Parts (b) and (c) provide for some exceptions (like navigation systems), but they don't provide for such things as entertainment while the vehicle is moving at all.

(As a side note, the wording of this law is a little odd. It seems to indicate it would be illegal to operate a laptop and use Microsoft Word on it while driving, but it would apparently be legal to operate the same laptop and play a video game on it.)

Re:California legal codes

[Anonymous Coward]

Grr, I'm replying to myself because I screwed up the HTML there, but what it was supposed to say was that I was quoting from the California Vehicle Code, section 27602(a), and that many of the devices described (such as the TV that allows you to watch unless you're going 3 mph or over) would be illegal, not just lawsuit-prone.

While I'm posting, here are the California legal codes in general, and here is the specific one I quoted.

Sure, those Europeans have all sorts of cool tech

[multiplexo]

But I have a piece of cool tech in my car that you can't get in Europe or Japan. It's a Ruger KP90DC, eight shots of .45 lovin, and as soon as they're released I'm putting a set of Crimson Trace lasergrips on it. So if I see some moron driving down the road and playing Doom III or watching reruns of Friends on his center console monitor I can bust a couple of caps into him and improve road safety.

US bombs are OK

[Anonymous Coward]

The IRA was of course largely funded by Republican sympathizers in the USA who wanted British troops to get out of Dublin.

Re:US bombs are OK

[Anonymous Coward]

A very informative post. Informative about the level of ignorance in the USA.

I suppose next you're going to tell us that Al Quaeda is funded by Islam sympathizers who want US troops to get out of Tehran?

Re:US bombs are OK

[Anonymous Coward]

The IRA was of course largely funded by Republican sympathizers in the USA who wanted British troops to get out of Dublin.

I hope this is a typo, not massive ignorance? Of course, there was no official British presence in Dublin in that time period (apart from an embassy). The IRA terrorists, who were largely funded by Americans as you say, wanted to detach northern Ireland from the United Kingdom, against the wishes of the majority of inhabitants of Northern Ireland.

Legal System

[Thunderstruck]

Contrary to the majority here today, I really think the legal system used in most United States today is in very good shape. The court rules in place frequently provide for summary judgment where there is a complaint made without merit, and even call for legal fees and costs to be paid by the person who filed the frivolous complaint.

We can't limit the system without taking away a man's rights. If there is a problem, it lies with the prevailing attitudes in your jurisdiction, not with the law.

How about just the simple stuff?

[Quila]

Like a small, very light sports car being able to come over here without throwing 200kg of extra weight on it, thus ruining the whole point of the car? I speak, of course, of the Lotus Elise.

Re:How about just the simple stuff?

[kraut]

Much as I love the Elise, I wouldn't want to take it out on the road where a huge proportion of vehicles consists of multi-ton monster trucks that wouldn't even notice if they drove over you. ;(

Besides, the roads are way too straight, and the speedlimit is too low :) (Hell, I got stopped twice in a one week vacation in CA!)

Re:How about just the simple stuff?

[Quila]

Much as I love the Elise, I wouldn't want to take it out on the road where a huge proportion of vehicles consists of multi-ton monster trucks

I drove it around lots of semis and large work trucks, never had a problem. You are far quicker than them and can easily make up for their mistakes.

And the Elise isn't a good straightaway car, so the long-straight roads aren't too disappointing (got blown away by a Golf TDi on the Autobahn). 120hp just can't drive something with that bad of a drag coefficient much past 120mph, although it does stick to the road like glue at that speed (it takes drag to create downforce).

Re:Gets rid of those #&%! kids and their socce

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the basic car controls are a bad design. They aren't failsafe. If my foot slips off the clutch at a light, I'll roll into the crosswalk or the intersection if I'm not holding the brake hard (I know someone who had an accident that way. Didn't hurt the car he hit, but it could have hurt a pedestrian.) Same applies to an automatic, except if your foot slips off the brake it actually drives forward and won't stall.

Now, I wouldn't want to have to hold the clutch IN the whole time I'm driving, so I don't really have a better solution, but I have to recognize it as flawed. This guy's suggestion (medium brake pressure to park) seems like a decent idea for a parking bot to be failsafe, but it is pretty counterintuitive.

er...

[MenTaLguY]

How can't it be a bad thing if US drivers start watching porn on the TV/web while talking on the cell phone while driving and listening to loud music?

I know you're joking, but I've SEEN that happen. All of the above simultaneously, plus rowdy passengers.

Driver distraction not a big thing?

[real gumby]

From TFA:

"In the United States, driver distraction is a bigger thing than in Europe"

Err, for years it's been illegal in all EU countries to drive and use your handheld phone (unless you have a handsfree kit). While in the US few states have such a rule.

{ Slashdot Users } ^ { USA residents }

[Anonymous Coward]

but some slashdot users are in the set of usa residents and vice versa.

My Automobile will NOT be able to do those things you even equally insensitive clod.

Re:Gets rid of those #&%! kids and their socce

[anon*127.0.0.1]

And once you're there, I'm sure El Pasos excellent pubic(sic) tranportation system will whisk you anywhere you want to go, quickly and conveniently.

Re:Gets rid of those #&%! kids and their socce

[southpolesammy]

I think you're missing my point. Taking your foot off the brake to stop the vehicle is counterintuitive. This isn't like when ABS was introduced and people had to retrain themselves to keep pressure on the brakes during a skid rather than pump them. In those siutations, you're still hitting the brakes to stop. Now if, as you say, stomping on the brake will stop the motion as well, then that's good design because people are conditioned to do that already, but not taking your foot off the brake altogether.

BTW, I'm at least as good and probably better at parallel parking than you. Try doing it with a stick shift truck and let me know how you fare. Otherwise, leave the personal attacks at home -- my driving ability is not the subject of this thread.

OK, true story...

[schon]

a motor home company got sued by someone who put his vehicle in cruise control, then went to the back to sleep

OK, true story here. This happened around 1981 or so (I was in boyscouts.) The scout troupe was going on a fishing expedition - the scout leader (a dentist) took us in his new motor home (although just for transportation, it was a 4 hour hike from the parking lot to the campsite.)

A couple of us were playing cards in the berth above the driver/passenger seat, when one of the boys looks up to see the scout leader pouring himself a cup of coffee at the kitchenette. In a slightly panicked voice, he asked "hey! Who's driving!"

The scout leader shrugged and said "I've got it on cruise!"

The kid freaked out, screaming "it doesn't work like that", and jumped down to see the other scout master behind the wheel - at which point we all burst out laughing.

Whenever I hear the story of the "cruise control accident" I always think "you know, not even a 10-year-old kid would believe that."

Re:OK, true story...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

However- given a nice straight highway, bungees on the steering wheel, no traffic, and cruise control I'd imagine this working for several hundred miles before an actual accident occuring.

welcome

[gowmc]

land of the free, home of the brave

Better

[Anonymous Coward]

The amount should be decided by the judge, as part of his/her ruling.

If he feels someone is filing a nuisance suit, hit 'em hard (say, 100% of attorney costs). If it's reasonable, then they pay a smaller percentage (down to 0%.)

Distracted drivers & cycling

[fbg111]

I'm certainly not crying over this. Enough American drivers suck anyway, and don't need any added distractions. For example, a few days ago on the road where I live, a cyclist was hit and killed by a woman who "lost control" of her car. She was driving on a straight, 35mph, 6-lane road with a median on a lazy Sunday morning, and somehow lost control, swerved into the 5ft-wide bikelane and mauled the cyclist. My question: what in the hell was she doing that caused her to lose control? And there have been several other cyclist deaths similar to that in the past year. So, as a cyclist myself, I hope the lack of distracting car gadgets stays that way.

Re:Gets rid of those #&%! kids and their socce

[jrumney]

Isn't there a nationwide 50 mph / 80 kph speed limit in Japan?

No. If no other speed is posted on motorways you can legally do 65mph/100kph, though like in Europe, there is little enforcement outside urban areas, so traffic flows at about 140km/h where conditions allow.

Navigation systems

[jesser]

"In the United States, driver distraction is a bigger thing than in Europe," said Norbert Seitner, head of product planning for Audi North America. "People in America tend to sue companies very easily," he added, if something goes wrong with the technology.

That is why many car navigation systems in the United States display terms and conditions on the screen before they can be used, a requirement not done in other markets.

Thus further distracting the driver, or causing the driver to become lost. Good job, courts.

Re:Wow... point and click parallel parking... COOL

[Anonymous Coward]

but it seems to me, most of the people i know who drive can't componsate for the things you mentioned, so there wouldn't be a whole lot of differance.


Big difference.

Without the gizmo: (Oh no, that spot is too small to pull forward into and I feel stupid when I try to parallel park... I think I'll keep looking)

With the gizmo: (Cool, that space is almost as big as my car... RAMMING SPEED!)

Re:Gets rid of those #&%! kids and their socce

[Anonymous Coward]

If my foot slips off the clutch at a light, I'll roll into the crosswalk or the intersection if I'm not holding the brake hard


Ummm... That's sorta why you leave it in neutral with your foot off the clutch until the light turns green and you want the car to roll forward.

I'd settle for AWD

[AndyChrist]

I'd settle for AWD Corollas, Civics, Camrys, Mirages, Lancers (well, normal lancers), Accords, and Sentras...and well...just about EVERY damn car. Like they're available in in Japan. (INCLUDING the tiny little Kei cars)

There's hardly a car in Hokkaido that isn't 4WD. And those that aren't mostly aren't driven in winter.

Contrast that with Alaska. Those few affordable 4WD cars that ARE available are popular, where most passenger cars (not that SUVs aren't passenger cars, despite what the law says) are FWD. Hell, there are a lot of 2WD SUVs in Alaska.

What the FUCK is wrong with this picture?

Someone want to explain this to me?

[nwbvt]

On including TVs (and they say Americans watch too much TV)...

Yet even with a feature that shuts off the video once a car moves faster than three miles an hour, Audi has no intention of offering it here.

It turns off at 3 mph? First of all, I didn't realize cars in Eurpose reported speed in terms of miles per hour. Second, what is the point of setting the restriction at this speed? Do they expect people to slow down to walking speed while they are driving down the highway to catch the end of the cricket game (or whatever they watch in Europe)? When would anyone ever be driving at such a slow constant speed? Possibly a parking lot? Thats when you need to be paying the most attention! During a traffic jam? You still need to be paying attention to the road, even though there likely won't be kids running across the road like with a parking lot. Why not just shut down whenever the car is in motion period (or at least shut off the video and keep the audio)?

Look at me!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in my car!! AND I'm posting on slashd

Re:Gets rid of those #&%! kids and their socce

[superpeach]

Some cars use the brake pedal for starting the engine, you stick the magnetic card in, press the brake pedal down and push the start button. Wont start unless the brake pedal is down. If you don't know the car now it's a bit like figuring out nintendo cheat codes to get things to work. Brake, Brake, Start, Clutch, seat forward 2, indicate left, 1st, 3rd, handbrake, horn.. god mode enabled.

Re:Gets rid of those #&%! kids and their socce

[ElGuapoGolf]

I think you're missing my point. Taking your foot off the brake to stop the vehicle is counterintuitive. This isn't like when ABS was introduced and people had to retrain themselves to keep pressure on the brakes during a skid rather than pump them.

I'm missing your point, you're not reading. What to do. Your foot is lightly on the brake, yeah? Just like it would be when you really parallel park. Unless you gun it in. Which you shouldn't.

To stop, you PRESS THE BRAKE. 'Kay?

If you take your foot off the brake, the entire operation stops, because it wants you watching and able to stop it if necessary.

Easy enough to understand, really.

Re:Wow... point and click parallel parking... COOL

[smallstepforman]

Clever :-) Pity most /.-ers will miss the reference.

Can I get....

[teslatug]

...a simple freaking linein jack to my stereo system?

Re:Can I get....

[evilviper]

Can I get.... ...a simple freaking linein jack to my stereo system?

You could if you were smart, and bought an AIWA car stereo, as I did.

It seems insane to me that after-market car stereos are getting less and less useful. I looked at Pioneer, Sony, and lots of other major brands of car stereos, and none of them have a volume control knob, a POWER BUTTON, or any of the most basic features you could expect. Want to listen to one of your preset stations? No problem, just hit Menu, Next, OK, and then hit the up or down arrow keys a number of times until you find the right preset. GAH!!!

Is it just me or do companies get far STUPIDER as they grow larger? The Aiwa stereos were the only ones I could even stand to use, and they aren't perfect either. The one tolerable model I found doesn't show the time when the stereo isn't active, and you have to hold the power button for 4 seconds before it'll shut off... It's only a minor annoyance, but any idiot could use it for 10 seconds and tell them what they've done wrong.

Perfume dispenser

[GolfBoy]

And of course, we're missing the essential perfume dispenser.

http://www.automobilemag.com/auto_shows/paris_2004 /0411_citroen_c4/

Amen!

[quarkscat]

For those who don't know, the Washington DC
Metro area has the third worst traffic in
the nation (behind LA & NYC). In my commute
to work one day on the I-495 Beltway, I saw
a man weaving between two lanes -- as I sped
by him, I noticed that he was changing clothes
(with another pair of slacks hanging over the
passenger seat) while driving. I'm quite
happy that he wasn't also watching the morning
news while driving. He also had what looked
to be an electric razor sitting on the dashboard.

what about street advertising

[wadiwood]

There are billboards now that look like TV to me. And all sorts of advertising along the sides of road, deliberately designed to distract drivers. Why ban the in car stuff when you still allow the stuff outside the cars.

45,000 dead people from traffic accidents in the USA alone EVERY year. That's the real terror.

Re:Wow... point and click parallel parking... COOL

[Anonymous Coward]

> Clever :-) Pity most /.-ers will miss the reference.

Only the elite will get it...

Fix It All-a Time vs. Blue Screen Of Death

[LifesABeach]

From the article:

"...Fiat is working with Microsoft's Automotive Business 'Unit'..."

Gene Splicing, gone bad.

Re:Gets rid of those #&%! kids and their socce

[JuggleGeek]

I think you're missing my point. Taking your foot off the brake to stop the vehicle is counterintuitive.

I think you are missing his point. In order for the auto-park to work, you foot must be lightly on the brake. If you want to stop, you can slam down on the brake. Or you can take your foot off the brake. Either way, the car stops.

Making the driver keep light pressure on the brake is a good plan. That avoids the "driver gets out of the car" thing that someone else mentioned.

If stomping down hard on the brake wouldn't stop the process, I would agree with you, but since it does, then I don't understand all your complaining.

Personally, I don't see this as a useful feature. Also, I think some safety should be added to it to handle unexpected movement of other cars, people, etc while the process is going on.