People scramble for stability and name recognition.
What stability? When the rest of the world knows the FBI and every other US TLA can hack their phones, how many phones do you think Apple will sell overseas? I think that many of the reasons Tim Cook gives are ones he believes in, but the one I haven't heard yet is: if we do this, our overseas sales are going to tank. People are already sick of the idea of the US government being able to peek into their data/devices. If Apple doesn't take a strong stand here, a foreign competitor will arrive and start taking Apple's mobile market away.
For that matter, how many people in the USA will continue to buy Apple phones if they think every divorce lawyer and traffic cop can supena the contents of their phone? Or secretly turn on the microphone 24/7? If that starts to be the norm I'll be in line to buy something else that does offer security/privacy.
I've been thinking about a little phone case with some Thermite in it so I can melt the phone when I need to, but I'm afraid I'll set it off in my pants pocket;-)
For the FBI or NSA, you want legislation to back up your tech. That way, it's not even legal for them to try to break into it.
This brings up a question I've had for a while: what's the chance that the NSA doesn't already have the signing keys?
And... I really don't think NSA/FBI cares about legislation. At this point I think they do whatever they want. I'm sure they don't think they're criminals, but the evidence (Snowden) sure seems pretty clear to me that they routinely break many laws by arguing that they're not really breaking them. And, they'll continue to do that whatever new laws you pass.
Oh, I have no doubt that you are a more careful rider than the average person is a careful driver. Being on a motorcycle tends to force you to focus on what you are doing, and as you said, be aware of your surroundings.
That said, this article claims motorcycles experienced 26 TIMES the number of deaths per mile in 2013 (i.e. 2600% the fatal accident rate). Another Wikipedia article claims 30 times the fatal accident rate.
So, you might be a more careful rider, more aware of your surroundings, paying more attention to the road, but you're not safer. Also, wearing gear other than a helmet almost certainly does not reduce your risk of death (but probably makes for a prettier corpse). You can wear the nicest pair of leathers, but when that Volvo driving soccer mom blows through the intersection and t-bones you none of that stuff is going to help (even the helmet isn't going to save you in a head on collision). Quiz: where is the crumple zone on a motorcycle? Answer: You're it.
And seriously, my experience is that most bad motorcycle accidents are caused by cager drivers doing something unexpected (half the time because they just didn't see you). So, it's good that you're aware of your surroundings because you can avoid a lot of accidents by having your head on swivel. But... don't think that you are safe. Just enjoy riding and realize
I'm not trying to say don't ride. I've been riding since I was 14 (and I'm 59 now). I raced when I was a kid, and I've owned 1 liter crotch rockets since the 80s... Still riding a 1000RR Fireblade. I'm also a commercial helicopter pilot... and, there's no doubt in my mind, riding motorcycles is the most dangerous thing I do.
Ride safe, and keep your life insurance paid up! Cheers! Check out this fun page.
In a previous reply I referred to a graph here that has some interesting info, and would suggest that the average driver is safer in a modern car.
On the subject of airbags, I'm not a huge fan. One 1997 article I read shows only a 5% decrease in fatalities versus just a lap+shoulder belt. I religiously use my seatbelt, but recognize that a lot of people don't (the same article claimed a 13% fatality reduction if you had airbags but no seatbelt but why wouldn't you wear your seatbelt and enjoy a 45-50% reduction in risk?). I had a 4 point seatbelt in one of my cars and I would order that again in a heartbeat if it was an option on cars (and if I get the Lotus I want I'll probably make sure it has a 4 point system). Seat belts have saved my life at least a couple times I believe.
ABS I am a fan of, having driven for decades with both I think that in panic situations ABS is much more likely to result in the driver retaining control of the car. The only thing I hate is that (at least my Subaru STi) sucks in snow with ABS - I think there should at least be a defeat switch (this is legal, but I don't think any shop will install it for fear of being sued). Very experienced drivers can lock up the wheels in a non-ABS car to slide straight while spinning, but I think the number of drivers who actually have that skill set is extremely small. Again, I think all cars should have an ABS defeat switch, but I would probably only use it in snowy conditions myself). An article in Wikipedia on ABS reinforced my feeling that on pavement it's a net gain, but in snow/gravel/sand it may actually hurt.
Another thing to mention is that brake systems are much better today than the 70's when most passenger cars used drum brakes. They were very prone to fade and in my opinion did not typically give you the kind of braking force that you have in a modern car with disk brakes.
Electronic stability control gets high points... NHTSA says ESC reduces crashes by 35% and as much as 67% in SUVs. US Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said (according to Wikipedia) that ESC can prevent up to 10,000 fatal USA crashes annually. This sounds believable to me.
In any case, I tend to think you're safer in a newer car, and you don't so we can agree to disagree. Luckily we can both purchase the cars we want!
So, one article I found said 68 people died because of Toyota unintended acceleration.
On the other hand, from here we see estimates that Standards 203&204 saved 21,600 people from death or injury in 1978 alone. From the article:
"In 1978, when nearly 90 percent of the passenger car fleet had complied with Standards 203 and 204, 41,400 drivers of passenger cars were killed or hospitalized as a result of contact with the steering assembly during the crash. This number would have increased to 63,000 if the steering assembly improvements required by Standards 203 and 204 had not been made"
Later it says "if all passenger cars had complied with Standards 203 and 204 in 1978, there would have been 1300 fewer driver fatalities than if none of the cars had complied".
Wow. In fairness, the study says that these were implemented by 1968, so if we had been discussing 1960s cars this would be relevant, but since we're discussing 1970s cars, it isn't really. I just thought you would find it very interesting. These standards concern collapsing steering wheels and not having the steering wheel displace into the driver's space (crushing him). Surprisingly, it said that in about 50% of the accidents the steering column energy absorbing devices didn't work.... so I'm left wondering how many more lives would have been saved if a 100% effective design had been implemented! By the way, it mentions that the estimated cost per vehicle of implementing these changes were $10.46 (in 1978 dollars).
Turns out seat belts were also required to be fitted, but it wasn't until much later that most states required them to be used (I remember as a kid we always used them because my Dad worked for the phone company and they stressed the use of seat belts, but many many people back then didn't use them).
It wasn't until 1979 that NHTSA started crash testing cars.
Besides seat belts, steering columns, and air bags, the biggest "modern" safety feature I usually think of is the crumple zone. When I was a kid in the 60's & 70's most cars were built rigidly. You could crash into stuff and the car would look fine (but the people inside would be dead). The development of the side crumple zone didn't happen until the early 1990s...
Here's a graph of annual deaths per billion miles traveled: here (chart by Dennis Bratland found in Wikipedia).
I'm glad you mentioned this - I was going to as well. I've had plenty of close calls with birds, but only one bird strike. In most cases they duck out of the way when you get close. Obviously they have an incentive to do so! Someone else mentioned the squirrel-on-the-road-dodging effect: the guy I hit dodged left, dodged right, and, at the point where most of them dive he... dodged left again!
The main rotor strike turned him into a fine mist of blood and feathers which was a mess to clean up but didn't do more than put a dent in the rotor blade. I worry more about them coming through the canopy and hitting the pilot.
Drones, I suspect, would not do such a good job of dodging and ducking as birds do. I suspect that without regulation, when there are a lot more drones we'll start having a lot of collisions with them. And, as someone else stated, I think drones probably have more massive parts to them such as the battery and perhaps a camera that might do more damage than a bird carcass would.
Oh, and I meant to respond to the motorcycle part... not sure if that was trolling or not on your part! But as a motorcyclist, I'd like to point out the obvious that those of us who ride motorcycles just.... must not care that much about safety otherwise we would never ride them! (but they sure are fun!)
Yeah, I didn't mean to say you shouldn't be allowed to do it... just saying probably not a very good tradeoff if you're just worried about software safety issues. As bad as we all know software bugs can be, I seriously doubt we'll see bugs that take safety levels back to those of the 1970s (when we didn't even have seatbelts in lots of the cars!).
If I'm not being targeted then it would make no sense to indiscriminately mess with cars. You're not going to make much money attacking cars directly when instead targets exist that have personal / banking information or high bandwidth which can be used to stage further attacks.
Uh, ransom the manufacturers? I'll kill one of your customers per day every day until you fork over 10 million?
I'm staring to think more and more about buying instead, and older late 70's muscle car..spending the cash to restore it, modernize the suspension, etc......and have a fun gas burner that way that is simpler, and much less connected.
A cool idea, but you give up a lot of safety doing that. As much as I agree with you about not wanting my car talking to outside agencies without my permission, driving an older car seriously compromises your safety.
I guess I'm hoping that people will figure out which wire to pull to disable the cellular connection so I can disable that and still have all the modern safety and convenience without my car ratting me out to the powers that be.
The FAA has a pretty good system for certification of flight software, why not use that as a starting point? Systems such as steering, braking, acceleration should be as foolproof as a Level-A system on an airliner. While a failure in one of those systems probably won't kill hundreds of people like it would in an airliner, if it's me, I want the same level of safety. I want the chance of my steering, braking, and acceleration systems to fail because of a software or hardware bug to be extremely remote.
The FAA approach is to classify systems by the effects of a failure: (from Wikipedia:)
Catastrophic – Failure may cause a crash. Error or loss of critical function required to safely fly and land aircraft. Hazardous – Failure has a large negative impact on safety or performance, or reduces the ability of the crew to operate the aircraft due to physical distress or a higher workload, or causes serious or fatal injuries among the passengers. (Safety-significant) Major – Failure is significant, but has a lesser impact than a Hazardous failure (for example, leads to passenger discomfort rather than injuries) or significantly increases crew workload (safety related) Minor – Failure is noticeable, but has a lesser impact than a Major failure (for example, causing passenger inconvenience or a routine flight plan change) No Effect – Failure has no impact on safety, aircraft operation, or crew workload.
Software Level A (Catastrophic) is intensely reviewed and tested to make it extremely unlikely that a software bug can cause loss of life. I don't think it needs to be that expensive: most likely a few vendors would produce software and adapt it to vehicle manufacturers platforms so that it doesn't need to be recreated for each new model.
In any case, I'd like to see a very formal approach to automotive software & hardware for these type systems.
I agree with the sentiment of much of what you say but:
The car I driver has a manual key-start. In an emergency, I just turn it off. There was an option for remote-start, touch-start, etc. That's dangerous. I said no.
So, just guessing, but knowing how engineers think, if the car has an option for touch-start, don't you think the key is probably just an input into the computer system? What makes you think the key will actually kill the engine if the computer malfunctions? Even if that's how it works in your car, don't you think it's unlikely to be true in most new cars?
Manual transmission is a different story. Nothing like having a manual clutch... I don't care if the engine goes full throttle, I can disconnect it from the drivetrain without the computer being able to override me. Unfortunately, electric cars don't have clutches, so as we switch over to them there's a question in my mind of how I can possibly override the computer system in the case of unintended acceleration.
The car I drive had an option for automatic lane control. NO. Not a chance in hell. Able to fight my steering, even slightly, is not going to happen. But people obviously still buy that option.
Again, like the key, just because you ordered it without that option, do you think the manufacturer removed the bits that can turn the steering wheel? They may have... it might save them some money. But my guess is that as electric power steering (as opposed to hydraulic) becomes more common, and as more and more people want lane assist, you simply won't have the option to order a new car where the computer can't muck with the steering on you. Sure, you might have the OPTION turned off. So, that's just a little flag someplace in the computer memory... Nothing a little hacking can't fix! And I'm not happy about that, but I don't see it going another direction. Increasingly everything is run by software and other than buy an old car, I'm not sure what to do about it.
As for the larger issue this article is about (hacking/malware in cars) at a minimum I think three things:
1) The National Highway Safety Board should have certification standards and review for automobile software at least as rigorous as FAA has for airplanes. 2) By law, the software shouldn't update unless I okay it first. Otherwise I don't really own the car. 3) There should be a way to disable any cellular connection to the car, i.e. a switch I can throw or a fuse I can pull that absolutely prevents the car from talking to the outside world unless I allow it to.
Yeah, one of the Gulfstream's in our hanger has one. I believe they cost about a million dollars right now. I'm sure the price could come way down if they started selling in volume.
On the first day they ran, they also violated the minimum altitude rules flying over my house on approach, as they used a loose approximation of AGL ignoring the mountain peaks. I had helicopters a few hundred feet off my roof ALL DAY long. You try working under those conditions.
Not to belabor a point, but if they were on approach, they weren't violating minimum altitude rules:
91.119: Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
So, on approach to landing or while taking off, the minimum safe altitude regulation really doesn't apply. At best you could try to get them under 91.13 for careless and reckless, but honestly they probably weren't.
That said, it seems like what you really were upset about was the noise and that is something that while they were probably legal, just isn't that nice of a thing to do. It is something that the helicopter pilot organization stresses - that basically we should be good neighbors and that repetitive noise is the worst. Without seeing the landing area I can't really comment, but they probably could have varied the approach path from time to time, and flown their approaches to minimize noise (and, hey, maybe they did and it still sucked?).
Helicopters are not nearly as safe as winged aircraft. Their crash rate is far higher than fixed wings and their crashes are often far more violent.
This is pretty much untrue. Single engine helicopters are (according to Bell Helicopter statistics from a while back) safer than single engine airplanes. So, unless you're comparing landing a helicopter in your backyard to landing a 747 in your backyard, it's not accurate to say they're not nearly as safe as winged aircraft. The problem with this is statistics... It's difficult to determine what you're really trying to measure, but in general you are pretty darn safe in a professionally flown helicopter.
Likewise, saying that their crashes are often far more violent is arguably wrong, but I guess it depends on what your definition of violent is. If you are trying to argue that the fatal accident rate is much worse in helicopters than similar airplanes, or the rate of serious injury is much worse in helicopters, that is almost certainly a false statement. Again, cherry picking statistics you can probably prove any statement but in general single engine helicopter crashes tend to be safer than single engine airplane crashes, and this almost certainly has to do with the speeds involved. First of all, helicopters that have an accident while hovering get counted in the statistics just like any other crash, but it's relatively unlikely to kill you (even though it typically destroys the aircraft, it's simply not all *that* dangerous to fall 3 feet to the ground while not moving at all and while strapped into a seat belt). When a helicopter experiences an engine failure at altitude, figure the landing speed at the end of the glide is going to typically be between 0-15 mph versus 50-80 mph for an airplane. Keeping in mind V(2) (v-squared) there is a *lot* more energy being dissipated in a single engine airplane engine out landing than in a single engine helicopter engine out landing (so again, while not perfectly safe, "crashing" from an altitude of 5 feet and 5 mph in a helicopter is almost always going to be safer than landing an airplane off airport at 50 mph).
To reiterate: if you are saying "helicopters are not nearly as safe as airliners" I totally agree with you.
If you are saying "helicopters are not nearly as safe as similar airplanes (i.e. number of engines, size, etc). then I don't agree.
One NTSB statistic I saw says fatal accident rate is 1.3/100,000 for helicopters vs 1.4/100,000 for aircraft in general. But it doesn't say what "aircraft in general" means which makes it pretty hard to interpret.
Another problem when you look at statistics is how the aircraft is being used. I'm sure that helicopters fighting forest fires are probably not as safe as flying Mr. Big from his office to his castle, even though it may be the same make/model aircraft. Logging with helicopters (at least used to be) downright dangerous. Fixed wings and helicopters are simply not used for the same sort of work, and this can definitely skew the statistics. But taking off with a few passengers on board from an airport and then landing in a small field... that's pretty darn safe.
Most people do seem to assume that helicopters are more dangerous than airplanes, but I think a lot of that is due to the way that Hollywood portrays helicopters, and the fact that large numbers of people have flown in airliners but not in helicopters, so airplanes are a little more familiar to them.
And this is exactly as it should be as one property owners rights to use his property as he see's fit doesn't allow him to infringe on the rights of his neighbors to not have helicopters hovering over their homes.
I snipped out the parts I don't necessarily agree with, but this statement is demonstrably wrong. Neither the property owner nor the state or local government have any say about a helicopter hovering over their homes. That is definitely controlled by the FAA, and you don't have any rights to s
While not a specific height low flying is usually prosecuted as reckless operation.
It's not correct to say "usually" unless you mean by low flying really really low. The regulations are pretty clear about minimum altitudes for helicopters. Whether the pilot can be prosecuted would depend on things like whether he is flying a multiengine helicopter that can fly away after an engine failure, or operates a single engine helicopter in such a manner that he can safely perform an autorotation if required. Also keep in mind that the entire minimum safe altitude regulation is prefaced with "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing"... so it's really intended more as minimums for en-route.
I would probably state it as: "While no specific altitude is mentioned for helicopters, a pilot who flies so low as to create a hazard to persons or property on the ground could possibly be prosecuted for reckless flying".
Whether or not a particular altitude is considered safe probably differs a lot between the helicopter community and the populace at large. Over lightly populated areas 500 feet is often a safe enroute altitude for a single engine helicopter. Over densely populated areas (like city centers) it might require a couple thousand feet, depending on whether there are open areas to land in event of an engine failure. Multiengine helicopters are given a lot more latitude and are often operated at very low altitudes over populated areas. I think in general people underestimate a helicopter's ability to be precisely landed in autorotation when flown by a competent pilot. There are plenty of videos on YouTube (including one of mine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ) that demonstrate precision autorotations.
I really think that noise is a much bigger concern, but people probably think they'll get more response to a safety concern. There is a lot a helicopter pilot can do about noise, unfortunately there are quite a few who are not really all that concerned about how their noise is perceived. HAI tries to raise awareness on this subject, and I know a lot of pilots who try really hard to minimize the impact their helicopter noise has on others.
As for the subject of who controls where you can land, it depends on the state. Most (all?) states have a state aeronautics department/commission which controls this, and which may or may not allow local government to have a say. It is definitely not true that only the FAA can say where you can/can not land. Just ask the helicopter pilots in New Jersey... Here in Massachusetts it is possible for the local government to work with the state aeronautics commission to make more restrictive rules about landing within a particular town.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but US government by-and-large simply does what US voters want it to do. And that includes getting tough on crime, getting tough on countries that threaten us, and handing out money to tons of special interest groups. Of course, businesses profit from many of these policies, but that's a secondary effect.
Depending on how you read this, it may be true or it may be false. If you assume that the US oligarchy are all registered voters, then yes, the US does what (some) of it's voters wants it to do.
If you read it as "US government by-and-large simply does what the majority of the voters want then I think it is false. To a very large degree, the people who are in power do what is good for the people in power. They don't do what is good for the common person.
The asset forfeiture program seems similar to the Executive branch's justification for torture: someone wanted to do something, they came up with a crazy rationalization for how it could be legal, and for some reason, nobody stopped them. If you need some examples of government totally out of control... there you go.
At first I was going to flame you a bit for saying that by purchasing a ticket I'm waiving my rights to not be unreasonably searched. But I'm really just tired of the whole police state thing. I just won't fly commercial. It won't change anything - there are too few people who are willing to be inconvenienced in order to preserve our rights, so Police State wins, I lose.
Why do I need to charge my car in 1-5 minutes? It charges while I'm not in it so it takes effectively 0 minutes as far as I'm concerned. The problem with the way you're thinking about it is that you're imagining refueling your EV the way you do a gas car - run it until it's empty and then wait for it to be refilled. That's just not the way EVs get used. I get home, plug it in, and when I want to go out again it's fully charged and ready to go. I seldom charge while away from home, but when I do it's while I'm someplace I'm spending a while at, i.e. if I was running in to shop for 5 minutes I wouldn't bother. But if I'm at the mall for an hour I can plug in and generally have 100% charge available by the time I return to the car.
My car has 100 miles of range (84 EPA). That ends up being enough for me to do all but about 1-2 trips a month. 300 miles would be awesome, but when the Tesla Model 3 and Chevy Bolt come out with 200 miles of range, that will probably be enough for all but 1-2 trips a year. I don't mind renting 1-2 times a year if it means I get to enjoy an EV the rest of the time. They're that nice to drive.
Experience with the Tesla Model S would say you're probably wrong about the longevity of battery packs. What I've read suggests they'll have similar lifespans to ICE engines.
I guess one question is what you define as "significant traction"? Around here I see Tesla Model S's all the time, lots of Leafs, lots of BMW i3s. When I've let people drive my car (Honda Fit EV) they love it. I think you'll find demand for EVs increase quickly. It will take a long time for the entire fleet to be electric (30/40 years?) but it won't take nearly as long for a large percentage of new cars to be EVs, IMHO.
I have a Fit EV (which is rated at, I think 84 miles by EPA). If you don't have to drive on the highway, it gets closer to 105. You're right about the range reduction in winter. My car loses about 50% of it's range in the really cold weather. People with Teslas I talk with say they lose more like 20-30%. I doubt it's really 5 months unless you live in Minnesota or something (it's probably 3 months here in Boston) but that doesn't matter - even if it was only a month, if you're using the car to commute you need it to work 12 months a year.
I'm eagerly awaiting the Tesla Model 3 and the Chevy Bolt. I figure that with 200 miles of range, even if they have a 50% hit in cold weather, that's still 100 miles I can do (i.e. 50 miles each way). It's very seldom that I would need more than that (maybe a couple times a year) and I'm willing to rent a car twice a year to have an EV the rest of the year.
The Fit EV is not a sports car by any means (and I drive sports cars) but it's a lot of fun to drive. The boatloads of torque, smooth acceleration, and maybe most of all the quietness of the electric drivetrain all make it a fun car to drive.
The average commute is less than 20 miles round trip. An electric car may not be right for you, but it would work just fine for a whole lot of people.
Sure, the commute might be less than 20 miles round trip but people who own cars generally drive places other than work at least weekly. Also don't forget about being stuck in traffic, driving at slow speeds, etc... A vehicle that's only good for approximately 80 minutes of driving is pretty lame when the average car/truck carries about 400 miles/minutes of driving.
Except that electric cars are great stuck in traffic, driving at slow speeds, etc. What kills their range is driving fast on the freeway, so the stuff you're mentioning isn't really a problem.
I have a Fit EV which is very similar to the Leaf in terms of range. In practice, I have about 1 trip a month that isn't convenient to do in the EV (because it's too far). Yesterday was a good example, though. Normally I commute to/from the airport I work at (about a 50 mile round trip) and it usually uses about 1/2 of a charge for the round trip. Yesterday I knew I needed to drive into Boston after work to do some Christmas shopping. This would have been at the limit of my range, maybe even a little beyond. So, I had to charge the car while I was at work.
Now, there happens to be a charger about a 10 minute walk from work, so I usually don't use it but yesterday I did, so that by the time I finished work I had a full charge, did all my shopping, picked up my daughter from her work, and got home with about 1/2 charge left. If there was a charger at my work, it would have saved me walking 10 minutes each way to get to my car. So, as more and more EVs get purchased and the charging networks expand, I think this will be less and less of an issue.
I'm planning on buying a Tesla Model 3 when they become available (and a Bolt if the Model 3 is delayed too long). I figure with 200 miles of range there will only be 1 or 2 trips a year that I can't reasonably make with the EV. For those I will either borrow my wife's car or rent from Avis. This works for me because I live in a sub-urban/urban location (suburbs of Boston). It won't work for people who live out in the boonies, but a large percentage of the US population is like me: living where distances aren't huge. Electric cars don't have to work for 100% of the population 100% of the time to have a big impact on air pollution / greenhouse gasses. You can always construct a scenario that won't work even if you have 500 miles of range in your EV. But, for 99% of what I do, it works great.
Ok, fair enough. Previous poster said "Until some pilot decides to switch the transponder off" which to me meant "decides to intentionally switch the transponder off" and I thought you were saying that wasn't a possibility. Even in a transport category aircraft, I'm sure the pilot can pull the right breakers if he wants to go invisible.
I'm not sure that ADS-B was really designed with anti-hacking in mind. It seems to be designed to work as long as everybody is playing nicely. I'm wondering how long it will take people to realize they can create phantom aircraft to confuse and perplex both aircrew and ATC, and other such exploits.
ADS-B Out, which is the system I'm talking about, cannot be switched off. It becomes active as soon as the avionics stack is powered up.
What happens if I:
1) Hit the "off" button on my Garmin GTX-330 ES (1080 extended squitter)? 2) Pull the breaker? 3) Turn off the GPS that is feeding it data? 4) Similar stuff if I have a 978 UAT ADS-B out?
Sure *seems* like I can turn it off if I want to. I'd be breaking a rule for sure, but not sure what you think prevents me from turning it off?
Slashdot Mirror
You're welcome to your opinion, but I think he's a hero.
People scramble for stability and name recognition.
What stability? When the rest of the world knows the FBI and every other US TLA can hack their phones, how many phones do you think Apple will sell overseas? I think that many of the reasons Tim Cook gives are ones he believes in, but the one I haven't heard yet is: if we do this, our overseas sales are going to tank. People are already sick of the idea of the US government being able to peek into their data/devices. If Apple doesn't take a strong stand here, a foreign competitor will arrive and start taking Apple's mobile market away.
For that matter, how many people in the USA will continue to buy Apple phones if they think every divorce lawyer and traffic cop can supena the contents of their phone? Or secretly turn on the microphone 24/7? If that starts to be the norm I'll be in line to buy something else that does offer security/privacy.
I've been thinking about a little phone case with some Thermite in it so I can melt the phone when I need to, but I'm afraid I'll set it off in my pants pocket ;-)
For the FBI or NSA, you want legislation to back up your tech. That way, it's not even legal for them to try to break into it.
This brings up a question I've had for a while: what's the chance that the NSA doesn't already have the signing keys?
And... I really don't think NSA/FBI cares about legislation. At this point I think they do whatever they want. I'm sure they don't think they're criminals, but the evidence (Snowden) sure seems pretty clear to me that they routinely break many laws by arguing that they're not really breaking them. And, they'll continue to do that whatever new laws you pass.
That said, this article claims motorcycles experienced 26 TIMES the number of deaths per mile in 2013 (i.e. 2600% the fatal accident rate). Another Wikipedia article claims 30 times the fatal accident rate.
So, you might be a more careful rider, more aware of your surroundings, paying more attention to the road, but you're not safer. Also, wearing gear other than a helmet almost certainly does not reduce your risk of death (but probably makes for a prettier corpse). You can wear the nicest pair of leathers, but when that Volvo driving soccer mom blows through the intersection and t-bones you none of that stuff is going to help (even the helmet isn't going to save you in a head on collision). Quiz: where is the crumple zone on a motorcycle? Answer: You're it.
And seriously, my experience is that most bad motorcycle accidents are caused by cager drivers doing something unexpected (half the time because they just didn't see you). So, it's good that you're aware of your surroundings because you can avoid a lot of accidents by having your head on swivel. But... don't think that you are safe. Just enjoy riding and realize
I'm not trying to say don't ride. I've been riding since I was 14 (and I'm 59 now). I raced when I was a kid, and I've owned 1 liter crotch rockets since the 80s... Still riding a 1000RR Fireblade. I'm also a commercial helicopter pilot... and, there's no doubt in my mind, riding motorcycles is the most dangerous thing I do.
Ride safe, and keep your life insurance paid up! Cheers! Check out this fun page.
On the subject of airbags, I'm not a huge fan. One 1997 article I read shows only a 5% decrease in fatalities versus just a lap+shoulder belt. I religiously use my seatbelt, but recognize that a lot of people don't (the same article claimed a 13% fatality reduction if you had airbags but no seatbelt but why wouldn't you wear your seatbelt and enjoy a 45-50% reduction in risk?). I had a 4 point seatbelt in one of my cars and I would order that again in a heartbeat if it was an option on cars (and if I get the Lotus I want I'll probably make sure it has a 4 point system). Seat belts have saved my life at least a couple times I believe.
ABS I am a fan of, having driven for decades with both I think that in panic situations ABS is much more likely to result in the driver retaining control of the car. The only thing I hate is that (at least my Subaru STi) sucks in snow with ABS - I think there should at least be a defeat switch (this is legal, but I don't think any shop will install it for fear of being sued). Very experienced drivers can lock up the wheels in a non-ABS car to slide straight while spinning, but I think the number of drivers who actually have that skill set is extremely small. Again, I think all cars should have an ABS defeat switch, but I would probably only use it in snowy conditions myself). An article in Wikipedia on ABS reinforced my feeling that on pavement it's a net gain, but in snow/gravel/sand it may actually hurt.
Another thing to mention is that brake systems are much better today than the 70's when most passenger cars used drum brakes. They were very prone to fade and in my opinion did not typically give you the kind of braking force that you have in a modern car with disk brakes.
Electronic stability control gets high points... NHTSA says ESC reduces crashes by 35% and as much as 67% in SUVs. US Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said (according to Wikipedia) that ESC can prevent up to 10,000 fatal USA crashes annually. This sounds believable to me.
In any case, I tend to think you're safer in a newer car, and you don't so we can agree to disagree. Luckily we can both purchase the cars we want!
On the other hand, from here we see estimates that Standards 203&204 saved 21,600 people from death or injury in 1978 alone. From the article:
"In 1978, when nearly 90 percent of the passenger car fleet had complied with Standards 203 and 204, 41,400 drivers of passenger cars were killed or hospitalized as a result of contact with the steering assembly during the crash. This number would have increased to 63,000 if the steering assembly improvements required by Standards 203 and 204 had not been made"
Later it says "if all passenger cars had complied with Standards 203 and 204 in 1978, there would have been 1300 fewer driver fatalities than if none of the cars had complied".
Wow. In fairness, the study says that these were implemented by 1968, so if we had been discussing 1960s cars this would be relevant, but since we're discussing 1970s cars, it isn't really. I just thought you would find it very interesting. These standards concern collapsing steering wheels and not having the steering wheel displace into the driver's space (crushing him). Surprisingly, it said that in about 50% of the accidents the steering column energy absorbing devices didn't work.... so I'm left wondering how many more lives would have been saved if a 100% effective design had been implemented! By the way, it mentions that the estimated cost per vehicle of implementing these changes were $10.46 (in 1978 dollars).
Turns out seat belts were also required to be fitted, but it wasn't until much later that most states required them to be used (I remember as a kid we always used them because my Dad worked for the phone company and they stressed the use of seat belts, but many many people back then didn't use them).
It wasn't until 1979 that NHTSA started crash testing cars.
Besides seat belts, steering columns, and air bags, the biggest "modern" safety feature I usually think of is the crumple zone. When I was a kid in the 60's & 70's most cars were built rigidly. You could crash into stuff and the car would look fine (but the people inside would be dead). The development of the side crumple zone didn't happen until the early 1990s...
Here's a graph of annual deaths per billion miles traveled: here (chart by Dennis Bratland found in Wikipedia).
I'm glad you mentioned this - I was going to as well. I've had plenty of close calls with birds, but only one bird strike. In most cases they duck out of the way when you get close. Obviously they have an incentive to do so! Someone else mentioned the squirrel-on-the-road-dodging effect: the guy I hit dodged left, dodged right, and, at the point where most of them dive he... dodged left again!
The main rotor strike turned him into a fine mist of blood and feathers which was a mess to clean up but didn't do more than put a dent in the rotor blade. I worry more about them coming through the canopy and hitting the pilot.
Drones, I suspect, would not do such a good job of dodging and ducking as birds do. I suspect that without regulation, when there are a lot more drones we'll start having a lot of collisions with them. And, as someone else stated, I think drones probably have more massive parts to them such as the battery and perhaps a camera that might do more damage than a bird carcass would.
Oh, and I meant to respond to the motorcycle part... not sure if that was trolling or not on your part! But as a motorcyclist, I'd like to point out the obvious that those of us who ride motorcycles just.... must not care that much about safety otherwise we would never ride them! (but they sure are fun!)
Yeah, I didn't mean to say you shouldn't be allowed to do it... just saying probably not a very good tradeoff if you're just worried about software safety issues. As bad as we all know software bugs can be, I seriously doubt we'll see bugs that take safety levels back to those of the 1970s (when we didn't even have seatbelts in lots of the cars!).
If I'm not being targeted then it would make no sense to indiscriminately mess with cars. You're not going to make much money attacking cars directly when instead targets exist that have personal / banking information or high bandwidth which can be used to stage further attacks.
Uh, ransom the manufacturers? I'll kill one of your customers per day every day until you fork over 10 million?
I'm staring to think more and more about buying instead, and older late 70's muscle car..spending the cash to restore it, modernize the suspension, etc......and have a fun gas burner that way that is simpler, and much less connected.
A cool idea, but you give up a lot of safety doing that. As much as I agree with you about not wanting my car talking to outside agencies without my permission, driving an older car seriously compromises your safety.
I guess I'm hoping that people will figure out which wire to pull to disable the cellular connection so I can disable that and still have all the modern safety and convenience without my car ratting me out to the powers that be.
The FAA has a pretty good system for certification of flight software, why not use that as a starting point? Systems such as steering, braking, acceleration should be as foolproof as a Level-A system on an airliner. While a failure in one of those systems probably won't kill hundreds of people like it would in an airliner, if it's me, I want the same level of safety. I want the chance of my steering, braking, and acceleration systems to fail because of a software or hardware bug to be extremely remote.
The FAA approach is to classify systems by the effects of a failure: (from Wikipedia:)
Catastrophic – Failure may cause a crash. Error or loss of critical function required to safely fly and land aircraft.
Hazardous – Failure has a large negative impact on safety or performance, or reduces the ability of the crew to operate the aircraft due to physical distress or a higher workload, or causes serious or fatal injuries among the passengers. (Safety-significant)
Major – Failure is significant, but has a lesser impact than a Hazardous failure (for example, leads to passenger discomfort rather than injuries) or significantly increases crew workload (safety related)
Minor – Failure is noticeable, but has a lesser impact than a Major failure (for example, causing passenger inconvenience or a routine flight plan change)
No Effect – Failure has no impact on safety, aircraft operation, or crew workload.
Software Level A (Catastrophic) is intensely reviewed and tested to make it extremely unlikely that a software bug can cause loss of life. I don't think it needs to be that expensive: most likely a few vendors would produce software and adapt it to vehicle manufacturers platforms so that it doesn't need to be recreated for each new model.
In any case, I'd like to see a very formal approach to automotive software & hardware for these type systems.
I agree with the sentiment of much of what you say but:
The car I driver has a manual key-start. In an emergency, I just turn it off. There was an option for remote-start, touch-start, etc. That's dangerous. I said no.
So, just guessing, but knowing how engineers think, if the car has an option for touch-start, don't you think the key is probably just an input into the computer system? What makes you think the key will actually kill the engine if the computer malfunctions? Even if that's how it works in your car, don't you think it's unlikely to be true in most new cars?
Manual transmission is a different story. Nothing like having a manual clutch... I don't care if the engine goes full throttle, I can disconnect it from the drivetrain without the computer being able to override me. Unfortunately, electric cars don't have clutches, so as we switch over to them there's a question in my mind of how I can possibly override the computer system in the case of unintended acceleration.
The car I drive had an option for automatic lane control. NO. Not a chance in hell. Able to fight my steering, even slightly, is not going to happen. But people obviously still buy that option.
Again, like the key, just because you ordered it without that option, do you think the manufacturer removed the bits that can turn the steering wheel? They may have... it might save them some money. But my guess is that as electric power steering (as opposed to hydraulic) becomes more common, and as more and more people want lane assist, you simply won't have the option to order a new car where the computer can't muck with the steering on you. Sure, you might have the OPTION turned off. So, that's just a little flag someplace in the computer memory... Nothing a little hacking can't fix! And I'm not happy about that, but I don't see it going another direction. Increasingly everything is run by software and other than buy an old car, I'm not sure what to do about it.
As for the larger issue this article is about (hacking/malware in cars) at a minimum I think three things:
1) The National Highway Safety Board should have certification standards and review for automobile software at least as rigorous as FAA has for airplanes.
2) By law, the software shouldn't update unless I okay it first. Otherwise I don't really own the car.
3) There should be a way to disable any cellular connection to the car, i.e. a switch I can throw or a fuse I can pull that absolutely prevents the car from talking to the outside world unless I allow it to.
Yeah, one of the Gulfstream's in our hanger has one. I believe they cost about a million dollars right now. I'm sure the price could come way down if they started selling in volume.
On the first day they ran, they also violated the minimum altitude rules flying over my house on approach, as they used a loose approximation of AGL ignoring the mountain peaks. I had helicopters a few hundred feet off my roof ALL DAY long. You try working under those conditions.
Not to belabor a point, but if they were on approach, they weren't violating minimum altitude rules:
91.119: Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
So, on approach to landing or while taking off, the minimum safe altitude regulation really doesn't apply. At best you could try to get them under 91.13 for careless and reckless, but honestly they probably weren't.
That said, it seems like what you really were upset about was the noise and that is something that while they were probably legal, just isn't that nice of a thing to do. It is something that the helicopter pilot organization stresses - that basically we should be good neighbors and that repetitive noise is the worst. Without seeing the landing area I can't really comment, but they probably could have varied the approach path from time to time, and flown their approaches to minimize noise (and, hey, maybe they did and it still sucked?).
Helicopters are not nearly as safe as winged aircraft. Their crash rate is far higher than fixed wings and their crashes are often far more violent.
This is pretty much untrue. Single engine helicopters are (according to Bell Helicopter statistics from a while back) safer than single engine airplanes. So, unless you're comparing landing a helicopter in your backyard to landing a 747 in your backyard, it's not accurate to say they're not nearly as safe as winged aircraft. The problem with this is statistics... It's difficult to determine what you're really trying to measure, but in general you are pretty darn safe in a professionally flown helicopter.
Likewise, saying that their crashes are often far more violent is arguably wrong, but I guess it depends on what your definition of violent is. If you are trying to argue that the fatal accident rate is much worse in helicopters than similar airplanes, or the rate of serious injury is much worse in helicopters, that is almost certainly a false statement. Again, cherry picking statistics you can probably prove any statement but in general single engine helicopter crashes tend to be safer than single engine airplane crashes, and this almost certainly has to do with the speeds involved. First of all, helicopters that have an accident while hovering get counted in the statistics just like any other crash, but it's relatively unlikely to kill you (even though it typically destroys the aircraft, it's simply not all *that* dangerous to fall 3 feet to the ground while not moving at all and while strapped into a seat belt). When a helicopter experiences an engine failure at altitude, figure the landing speed at the end of the glide is going to typically be between 0-15 mph versus 50-80 mph for an airplane. Keeping in mind V(2) (v-squared) there is a *lot* more energy being dissipated in a single engine airplane engine out landing than in a single engine helicopter engine out landing (so again, while not perfectly safe, "crashing" from an altitude of 5 feet and 5 mph in a helicopter is almost always going to be safer than landing an airplane off airport at 50 mph).
To reiterate: if you are saying "helicopters are not nearly as safe as airliners" I totally agree with you.
If you are saying "helicopters are not nearly as safe as similar airplanes (i.e. number of engines, size, etc). then I don't agree.
One NTSB statistic I saw says fatal accident rate is 1.3/100,000 for helicopters vs 1.4/100,000 for aircraft in general. But it doesn't say what "aircraft in general" means which makes it pretty hard to interpret.
Another problem when you look at statistics is how the aircraft is being used. I'm sure that helicopters fighting forest fires are probably not as safe as flying Mr. Big from his office to his castle, even though it may be the same make/model aircraft. Logging with helicopters (at least used to be) downright dangerous. Fixed wings and helicopters are simply not used for the same sort of work, and this can definitely skew the statistics. But taking off with a few passengers on board from an airport and then landing in a small field... that's pretty darn safe.
Most people do seem to assume that helicopters are more dangerous than airplanes, but I think a lot of that is due to the way that Hollywood portrays helicopters, and the fact that large numbers of people have flown in airliners but not in helicopters, so airplanes are a little more familiar to them.
And this is exactly as it should be as one property owners rights to use his property as he see's fit doesn't allow him to infringe on the rights of his neighbors to not have helicopters hovering over their homes.
I snipped out the parts I don't necessarily agree with, but this statement is demonstrably wrong. Neither the property owner nor the state or local government have any say about a helicopter hovering over their homes. That is definitely controlled by the FAA, and you don't have any rights to s
While not a specific height low flying is usually prosecuted as reckless operation.
It's not correct to say "usually" unless you mean by low flying really really low. The regulations are pretty clear about minimum altitudes for helicopters. Whether the pilot can be prosecuted would depend on things like whether he is flying a multiengine helicopter that can fly away after an engine failure, or operates a single engine helicopter in such a manner that he can safely perform an autorotation if required. Also keep in mind that the entire minimum safe altitude regulation is prefaced with "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing"... so it's really intended more as minimums for en-route.
I would probably state it as: "While no specific altitude is mentioned for helicopters, a pilot who flies so low as to create a hazard to persons or property on the ground could possibly be prosecuted for reckless flying".
Whether or not a particular altitude is considered safe probably differs a lot between the helicopter community and the populace at large. Over lightly populated areas 500 feet is often a safe enroute altitude for a single engine helicopter. Over densely populated areas (like city centers) it might require a couple thousand feet, depending on whether there are open areas to land in event of an engine failure. Multiengine helicopters are given a lot more latitude and are often operated at very low altitudes over populated areas. I think in general people underestimate a helicopter's ability to be precisely landed in autorotation when flown by a competent pilot. There are plenty of videos on YouTube (including one of mine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ) that demonstrate precision autorotations.
I really think that noise is a much bigger concern, but people probably think they'll get more response to a safety concern. There is a lot a helicopter pilot can do about noise, unfortunately there are quite a few who are not really all that concerned about how their noise is perceived. HAI tries to raise awareness on this subject, and I know a lot of pilots who try really hard to minimize the impact their helicopter noise has on others.
As for the subject of who controls where you can land, it depends on the state. Most (all?) states have a state aeronautics department/commission which controls this, and which may or may not allow local government to have a say. It is definitely not true that only the FAA can say where you can/can not land. Just ask the helicopter pilots in New Jersey... Here in Massachusetts it is possible for the local government to work with the state aeronautics commission to make more restrictive rules about landing within a particular town.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but US government by-and-large simply does what US voters want it to do. And that includes getting tough on crime, getting tough on countries that threaten us, and handing out money to tons of special interest groups. Of course, businesses profit from many of these policies, but that's a secondary effect.
Depending on how you read this, it may be true or it may be false. If you assume that the US oligarchy are all registered voters, then yes, the US does what (some) of it's voters wants it to do.
If you read it as "US government by-and-large simply does what the majority of the voters want then I think it is false. To a very large degree, the people who are in power do what is good for the people in power. They don't do what is good for the common person.
The asset forfeiture program seems similar to the Executive branch's justification for torture: someone wanted to do something, they came up with a crazy rationalization for how it could be legal, and for some reason, nobody stopped them. If you need some examples of government totally out of control... there you go.
At first I was going to flame you a bit for saying that by purchasing a ticket I'm waiving my rights to not be unreasonably searched. But I'm really just tired of the whole police state thing. I just won't fly commercial. It won't change anything - there are too few people who are willing to be inconvenienced in order to preserve our rights, so Police State wins, I lose.
I'm really tired of this crap.
Why do I need to charge my car in 1-5 minutes? It charges while I'm not in it so it takes effectively 0 minutes as far as I'm concerned. The problem with the way you're thinking about it is that you're imagining refueling your EV the way you do a gas car - run it until it's empty and then wait for it to be refilled. That's just not the way EVs get used. I get home, plug it in, and when I want to go out again it's fully charged and ready to go. I seldom charge while away from home, but when I do it's while I'm someplace I'm spending a while at, i.e. if I was running in to shop for 5 minutes I wouldn't bother. But if I'm at the mall for an hour I can plug in and generally have 100% charge available by the time I return to the car.
My car has 100 miles of range (84 EPA). That ends up being enough for me to do all but about 1-2 trips a month. 300 miles would be awesome, but when the Tesla Model 3 and Chevy Bolt come out with 200 miles of range, that will probably be enough for all but 1-2 trips a year. I don't mind renting 1-2 times a year if it means I get to enjoy an EV the rest of the time. They're that nice to drive.
Experience with the Tesla Model S would say you're probably wrong about the longevity of battery packs. What I've read suggests they'll have similar lifespans to ICE engines.
I guess one question is what you define as "significant traction"? Around here I see Tesla Model S's all the time, lots of Leafs, lots of BMW i3s. When I've let people drive my car (Honda Fit EV) they love it. I think you'll find demand for EVs increase quickly. It will take a long time for the entire fleet to be electric (30/40 years?) but it won't take nearly as long for a large percentage of new cars to be EVs, IMHO.
I have a Fit EV (which is rated at, I think 84 miles by EPA). If you don't have to drive on the highway, it gets closer to 105. You're right about the range reduction in winter. My car loses about 50% of it's range in the really cold weather. People with Teslas I talk with say they lose more like 20-30%. I doubt it's really 5 months unless you live in Minnesota or something (it's probably 3 months here in Boston) but that doesn't matter - even if it was only a month, if you're using the car to commute you need it to work 12 months a year.
I'm eagerly awaiting the Tesla Model 3 and the Chevy Bolt. I figure that with 200 miles of range, even if they have a 50% hit in cold weather, that's still 100 miles I can do (i.e. 50 miles each way). It's very seldom that I would need more than that (maybe a couple times a year) and I'm willing to rent a car twice a year to have an EV the rest of the year.
The Fit EV is not a sports car by any means (and I drive sports cars) but it's a lot of fun to drive. The boatloads of torque, smooth acceleration, and maybe most of all the quietness of the electric drivetrain all make it a fun car to drive.
Except that electric cars are great stuck in traffic, driving at slow speeds, etc. What kills their range is driving fast on the freeway, so the stuff you're mentioning isn't really a problem.
I have a Fit EV which is very similar to the Leaf in terms of range. In practice, I have about 1 trip a month that isn't convenient to do in the EV (because it's too far). Yesterday was a good example, though. Normally I commute to/from the airport I work at (about a 50 mile round trip) and it usually uses about 1/2 of a charge for the round trip. Yesterday I knew I needed to drive into Boston after work to do some Christmas shopping. This would have been at the limit of my range, maybe even a little beyond. So, I had to charge the car while I was at work.
Now, there happens to be a charger about a 10 minute walk from work, so I usually don't use it but yesterday I did, so that by the time I finished work I had a full charge, did all my shopping, picked up my daughter from her work, and got home with about 1/2 charge left. If there was a charger at my work, it would have saved me walking 10 minutes each way to get to my car. So, as more and more EVs get purchased and the charging networks expand, I think this will be less and less of an issue.
I'm planning on buying a Tesla Model 3 when they become available (and a Bolt if the Model 3 is delayed too long). I figure with 200 miles of range there will only be 1 or 2 trips a year that I can't reasonably make with the EV. For those I will either borrow my wife's car or rent from Avis. This works for me because I live in a sub-urban/urban location (suburbs of Boston). It won't work for people who live out in the boonies, but a large percentage of the US population is like me: living where distances aren't huge. Electric cars don't have to work for 100% of the population 100% of the time to have a big impact on air pollution / greenhouse gasses. You can always construct a scenario that won't work even if you have 500 miles of range in your EV. But, for 99% of what I do, it works great.
Ok, fair enough. Previous poster said "Until some pilot decides to switch the transponder off" which to me meant "decides to intentionally switch the transponder off" and I thought you were saying that wasn't a possibility. Even in a transport category aircraft, I'm sure the pilot can pull the right breakers if he wants to go invisible.
I'm not sure that ADS-B was really designed with anti-hacking in mind. It seems to be designed to work as long as everybody is playing nicely. I'm wondering how long it will take people to realize they can create phantom aircraft to confuse and perplex both aircrew and ATC, and other such exploits.
ADS-B Out, which is the system I'm talking about, cannot be switched off. It becomes active as soon as the avionics stack is powered up.
What happens if I:
1) Hit the "off" button on my Garmin GTX-330 ES (1080 extended squitter)?
2) Pull the breaker?
3) Turn off the GPS that is feeding it data?
4) Similar stuff if I have a 978 UAT ADS-B out?
Sure *seems* like I can turn it off if I want to. I'd be breaking a rule for sure, but not sure what you think prevents me from turning it off?
You normally aren't allowed to kill people because you think they'll try to kill you.
Unless you are a cop. Then apparently you can kill anyone that instills any fear in you, whether they are armed or not.