Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
http://www.busyweather.com/
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.
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
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
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 :-).
Darn it, look at all the death, chronic pain, and permanent disability we could have if we just had more distractions while driving.
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.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
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.
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.
Mmmm.. Donuts
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.
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.
no taxation without representation!