That wasn't Lazlo, that was a caller. They went on to say,
Mom- Life doesn't have a reset button.
Lazlo- No, but shis show does. -Click- I love that button.
While the focus of that conversation wasn't the Maibotsu or anything, GTA3 criticised the SUV culture greatly.
I'm also wondering how important it is to have a rigid vehicle. Why go for a massive solid vehicle that you can't crash into rocks with, when you could get a massive crumpling vehicle that you can crash into anything with? That way if you crash into a rock or another Hummer, you won't be as badly off as if you are in a solid vehicle, and you are still well off if you smash a little hatchback up.
I don't like SUVs, and I feel very threatened when I see their driving, as I drive and like small cars. If I crash into one, I don't stand much of a chance. I digress.
Right. That will be why one third of all fatal motorcycle crashes in New Zealand are "single-vehicle, rider at fault";
Do you genuinely believe that they intend to die? I really don't think they got on their bike and decided to go and crash. While I agree that there are some suicidally stupid drivers out there, their intentions are (usually) always that of remaining alive. The same cannot be said about a chip, which will follow its settings regardless of whether it may be destroyed or not.
While there are cars with ABS and fly-by-wire controls out there, it's not really the same idea. ABS only takes effect when entering a skid, and is useful because a machine can pump the brakes more effectively and efficiently than a human foot. But the moment it has control is rare. I do not agree with fly-by-wire controls, and would opt to drive without its use, for the same reason: it's another thing that can go wrong. However, fly-by-wire controls are not something that is actually controlling the way you drive. It's a passive device, and does not directly affect control of the car, unless something goes wrong.
Any device that assumes control, during regular driving conditions, is adding another dimension of possible errors. Active speed control gives over a certain part of your driving to a computer chip, and it is akin to letting a programmer make your driving decisions. I'm not ready to let a digital chip apply my brakes.
I know of the people on the road. An anonymous coward left my passenger door smashed in earlier today, leaving nothing but a large bill for repairs. How he or she managed a license is beyond me, as well as how they had the gaul to guiltlessly flee the scene. But the point that I'm making is that it was damage done at low speed (you could tell), due to poor maneuvering and little driving skill. A speed limiter would not have prevented that.
Do you think that adding a new variable to vehicles will improve the safety? Especially an electronic variable. While both electronic devices and humans are capable of making errors, humans have the self-preservation failsafe, meaning that they will not put themselves in unnecessary danger, and will usually opt to prevent damage to their own vehicles. An electronic device making an error does not have the capability to feel that desire. I do not trust technology to start taking control of my vehicle.
In the paper this morning, they said that the device would have an override in case it was necessary to speed to stay safe. But I don't think that's a saving grace.
I think the most fearful part of this is that some drivers on the road will not be in total control of their vehicles. If you submit even some control to digital signals and outside influence, you add mechanical error to the already large scope of human error. Meaning to promote safety, it is adding a new dimension of things-to-go-wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
That wasn't Lazlo, that was a caller. They went on to say,
Mom- Life doesn't have a reset button.
Lazlo- No, but shis show does. -Click- I love that button.
While the focus of that conversation wasn't the Maibotsu or anything, GTA3 criticised the SUV culture greatly.
I'm also wondering how important it is to have a rigid vehicle. Why go for a massive solid vehicle that you can't crash into rocks with, when you could get a massive crumpling vehicle that you can crash into anything with? That way if you crash into a rock or another Hummer, you won't be as badly off as if you are in a solid vehicle, and you are still well off if you smash a little hatchback up.
I don't like SUVs, and I feel very threatened when I see their driving, as I drive and like small cars. If I crash into one, I don't stand much of a chance. I digress.
Right. That will be why one third of all fatal motorcycle crashes in New Zealand are "single-vehicle, rider at fault";
Do you genuinely believe that they intend to die? I really don't think they got on their bike and decided to go and crash. While I agree that there are some suicidally stupid drivers out there, their intentions are (usually) always that of remaining alive. The same cannot be said about a chip, which will follow its settings regardless of whether it may be destroyed or not.
While there are cars with ABS and fly-by-wire controls out there, it's not really the same idea. ABS only takes effect when entering a skid, and is useful because a machine can pump the brakes more effectively and efficiently than a human foot. But the moment it has control is rare. I do not agree with fly-by-wire controls, and would opt to drive without its use, for the same reason: it's another thing that can go wrong. However, fly-by-wire controls are not something that is actually controlling the way you drive. It's a passive device, and does not directly affect control of the car, unless something goes wrong.
Any device that assumes control, during regular driving conditions, is adding another dimension of possible errors. Active speed control gives over a certain part of your driving to a computer chip, and it is akin to letting a programmer make your driving decisions. I'm not ready to let a digital chip apply my brakes.
I know of the people on the road. An anonymous coward left my passenger door smashed in earlier today, leaving nothing but a large bill for repairs. How he or she managed a license is beyond me, as well as how they had the gaul to guiltlessly flee the scene. But the point that I'm making is that it was damage done at low speed (you could tell), due to poor maneuvering and little driving skill. A speed limiter would not have prevented that.
Do you think that adding a new variable to vehicles will improve the safety? Especially an electronic variable. While both electronic devices and humans are capable of making errors, humans have the self-preservation failsafe, meaning that they will not put themselves in unnecessary danger, and will usually opt to prevent damage to their own vehicles. An electronic device making an error does not have the capability to feel that desire. I do not trust technology to start taking control of my vehicle.
In the paper this morning, they said that the device would have an override in case it was necessary to speed to stay safe. But I don't think that's a saving grace.
I think the most fearful part of this is that some drivers on the road will not be in total control of their vehicles. If you submit even some control to digital signals and outside influence, you add mechanical error to the already large scope of human error. Meaning to promote safety, it is adding a new dimension of things-to-go-wrong.