The machine has already improved safety dramatically, so why not let it
take the next step? Currently, we surrender our safety to the other
driver, and even the best driver can be clobbered the worst one. I'm
looking forward to self-driving motorhomes, so I can ride in the back
with a nice Merlot while keeping up on RAS!

Dan Marotta wrote, On 2/5/2014 4:51 PM:
Luddite - one who fears new technology. I don't fear it, I just think
some of it is ridiculous. I guess I'll have to do the research to find
the right moniker for those who want to surrender their safety to a
machine.


wrote in message
...
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


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