wrote, On 2/5/2014 3:23 PM:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 6:16:07 PM UTC-5,
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:39:14 PM UTC-6, Bob wrote: On
Wednesday, February 5, 2014 10:50:25 AM UTC-5,
wrote: News article about vehicle to vehicle communications
to avoid accidents. Pretty much the same concept as Flarm.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/02/...to-each-other/
Gee wiz accidents won't be the drivers fault any more. The
OEM's will bear the liability. That's the kind of logic that just
about ended General Aviation. Imagine what the product
liability will contribute to the cost of the vehicle. Bob
To all the luddites commenting in this thread: I can easily imagine
hundreds or thousands of people not killed each year (including
potentially your children and family members ) because of the
proposed technology. Is that a bad thing? Most likely the collision
warning will be accompanied by cutting the car's throttle and
applying brakes, perhaps even putting pressure on the steering to
avoid danger. I look forward to car-Flarm. Herb

I look forward to it if it is interlocked so that it is not
functional if the safety belts aren't connected. Or better yet, it
locks the brakes. Luddite UH

The softer, persuasive approach: your mobile internet is reallllyyyy
slow until you buckle up, and your phone calls get dropped.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)