New Driving Technology in Cars - impact on Motorcyles?

[Aasland]

I have to disagree. As soon as you say 'most people will make the wrong decision' you are implying that you know what the right decision is for someone else, even if that person disagrees. The real issue is that everyone has to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions and decisions. By making the decision for them you relieve them of responsibility.

Yeah, I shouldn't be making such general statements. I should have said "enough people will make the wrong decision".

You are also correct, it does imply that in some cases I do know what the right decision is for someone else. Not every decision, not all the time. At least often enough to make me wonder "what the h3ll where they thinking".

And I too wish that the poor decision-makers WOULD universally take reponsibility for their actions.

 

[Bokerfork]

They would take responsibility for their actions if the collective would stop doing it for them.

 

[Bugnatr]

Taken from BMW's auto side/industry, they now have keyless ignition on the GT-E Motorcycles. Just like a car, simply have the Key-FOB on you (jacket pocket?) and you can start/run bike as if the key is in the ignition. Sure makes it simple especially when going in and out of diners, touristy look out spots etc.
I can see this as a future Yami addition

The Connie and Diavel have it too. I rented a Nissan a few years back and loved it. How many times you get all geared up, gloves on and after you sit on the bike the key is in your pocket. I like the FOB.

I believe part of the poor drivers is due to a lack of quality drivers ed. Back in the day when the public schools did the training it was much more involved than today's private lessons. Heck, do they even show the bloody crash aftermath or someone getting their brain drilled to relieve pressure after a wreck? Boy that was rugged to watch, Loren Newberg passed out next to me during the showing in the 9th grade.

And most sure as hell don't know what a clutch is for.

With all the new tech coming will we get to smart for ourselves?

 

[Fred W]

Many reasons but what it all comes down to in this day and age is a willingness to accept whatever the government mandates.

Just remember who "the government" is.

The invasions of privacy and sharing of (what should be) private personal information about individuals "for their own benefit" has already gone too far.

Case in point: Just a couple of weeks ago I received a letter from a company called ****** Health Management. They are associated with a big drugstore company that my employer has contracted to handle our drug insurance benefits. In this letter they spelled out a possible diagnosis that I may want to discuss with my doctor at the next opportunity. I found this completely incredible because I have never had that diagnosis before (though my doctor and I had discussed it privately) and I have never had a prescription of any drug towards that diagnosis. So, how exactly did this company arrive at that conclusion?

I called the 800 number provided and spoke to a customer service agent and she forwarded me to a "nurse" who informed me they get Insurance diagnostic codes and test results indirectly from my employer's benefits administrators so they can provide this valuable service to me. Of course I have registered a privacy complaint with my employer and we'll see where that gets me. Probably nowhere.

I have to disagree. As soon as you say 'most people will make the wrong decision' you are implying that you know what the right decision is for someone else, even if that person disagrees.

Yeah, I shouldn't be making such general statements. I should have said "enough people will make the wrong decision".

You are also correct, it does imply that in some cases I do know what the right decision is for someone else. Not every decision, not all the time. At least often enough to make me wonder "what the h3ll where they thinking".

I disagree. It implies more that you think you know what's right for others. I don't mean to pick on you, but you are making a great example.

Who's to say that there is a single right thing or a wrong thing for everyone? Or that what one person believes is right for them has to be right for everyone else?

To put it in the proper forum context, the increased risk of riding a motorcycle on the open road are very well known and statistically provable. The majority of people in our society know that the right thing for them is to never ever ride a motorcycle. It is just too unsafe for them to even consider. Do you want those people deciding what is right for you?

 

[Daniel78362]

Hey All,

Great thread, Question:

Does "technology" really make our roads/life safer or has it simply increased the ability to survive the stupidity of daily life

 

[Aasland]

I have to disagree. As soon as you say 'most people will make the wrong decision' you are implying that you know what the right decision is for someone else, even if that person disagrees.

Yeah, I shouldn't be making such general statements. I should have said "enough people will make the wrong decision".

You are also correct, it does imply that in some cases I do know what the right decision is for someone else. Not every decision, not all the time. At least often enough to make me wonder "what the h3ll where they thinking".

I disagree. It implies more that you think you know what's right for others. I don't mean to pick on you, but you are making a great example.

Who's to say that there is a single right thing or a wrong thing for everyone? Or that what one person believes is right for them has to be right for everyone else?

To put it in the proper forum context, the increased risk of riding a motorcycle on the open road are very well known and statistically provable. The majority of people in our society know that the right thing for them is to never ever ride a motorcycle. It is just too unsafe for them to even consider. Do you want those people deciding what is right for you?

My sister in law is a dolt. She makes many bad decisions. It doesn't matter whether we are her safety net or not .. she's just a dolt. She doesn't have the mental capacity to make important decisions, or get an advanced degree and have good job security. But she tries, and then we clean up her mess, pay her mortgage, change her oil, be good to her and make sure she has money for birth control. We know what's right for her.

She's gullible; walks in to a dealership with $7000 after an insurance settlement and asks "what can I buy" and that $7k is down payment on a crappy old Taurus for $15k, 15% interest or 4 years and pre-payment penalties. T-Mobile sweet-talks her into an $800 phone and a 5-line family plan. She thought she was getting a "special deal" and we would all join her on her plan save money. Never mind that two of us are on TMobile already paying less than her. That was a fun one to unravel. If we had our way, she wouldn't be able to get financing without us signing off on her.

We aren't meanies and won't let her end up homeless, depressed, dejected to "teach her a lesson". She is family and we take care of her, she is not a burden on taxpayers (beyond what our progressive tax laws enforce).

Fortunately not everyone is like her. Unfortunately there are many people like her. When I point out that some people should be protected from their own decisions I am not implying that all people should be protected from their own decisions. I don't have a workable public policy proposition to differentiate between those types of people, but it's not a far stretch to suggest that people have different capabilities.

 

[Fred W]

Ummm... she's your family. Of course you look out for her. We all have some folks in our inner circles that we help from themselves. That is not a reason to enact laws, IMO

 

[HotRodZilla]

Hmmmmmmm...This from the same Forum where there is constant bitching about people using their cell phones and making left turns in front of motorcycles. Yet the argument now seems to be that all those people are making good decisions.

Really, I'm neutral in this, because if your bad decision affects my family too negatively, I'll make sure it can't happen again. All other stupidity is manageable.

However, it is still funny to see the wagging over the fence and back peddling when it is convenient.

 

[RichDoyle]

Been through this exact discussion before on another MC site. Deja Vu all over again, as Yogi supposedly said. But just to prod the hornet's nest, think of the possibilities, depending on one's dissatisfaction with life:

1. Competency quiz before being allowed to even start the car. Aimed at the folks that claim they can't function before their 3rd cup of coffee. Three seconds to answer questions like: "What is the Capital of Nevada?"
2. What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
3. Who wrote the Book of Love?

[*]Worthiness to drive. Test based on the ID chip embedded in your spleen, checked in the government's all-inclusive database:

1. Child support current?
2. Car insurance payments current?
3. No outstanding warrants?
4. Tithes to your Church satisfactory?

[*]Example questions available to one's spouse or SO to enter:

1. What was the last thing I said to you when you went out the door?
2. Where were you again last Wednesday night?

[*]Security questions (prior to implantation of security chip):

1. What was the name of your mother's first pet?
2. What was the name of the first school of your first-grade teacher?
3. What was the name of that guy your first girl friend dumped you for?

 

[Aasland]

That is not a reason to enact laws, IMO

And therein lies the challenge: In some cases there is and some cases there isn't. Figuring out how to help those who need the help without hamstringing the rest of us. Hell if I know where that dividing line is.

 

[Fred W]

I think 'Zilla captured the critical difference (in a roundabout way).

When one person's choices (or actions) infringe on another person's rights, that is when the government should get involved by setting laws and enforcing them. So yes, there should be laws prohibiting distracted driving, and idiots who smash into another vehicle due to some fault in their operating it (inadequate attentiveness) should be prosecuted.

OTOH, laws should never be in place to protect those people actually making the decisions from themselves. So, as an example, a helmet law is bad government, IMO. As are mandatory seat-belt laws. However I am in favor of car seat or seat belt laws for minors because that is a case where the parent is making the choices effecting the child.

 

[Geezer]

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." - attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

 

[Lauren_TK]

What is the impact on motorcycles?

Depends on how you hard you throw it. Certainly, since I've never had a good throwing arm, I'm sure the motorcycle won't even notice.

Give the technology to someone who has great throwing arm, say Roger Clemens in his prime, and the motorcycle is likely to sustain a good deal of damage.

 

[Shel_TK]

I just read another article about the technology improvements coming in automobiles. I'll bet we have black boxes for accidents soon enough.

Goodman4,

Most cars newer than 2000 (and before) have black boxes now. They ran it through the airbag system, so it can't be disconnected easily. Many insurance companies will not pay an accident claim until an insurance "adjuster" downloads the black box information from the wreck, usually at the wrecking yard or shop, and they will not ask you for permission first.

Be careful what you wish for . . .

Infrared

Where did you hear this? I work in the insurance industry, and it is certainly not something my company does. I could see it happening in extreme cases, where the witness statements make no sense, or a large claim where there are no witness statement, but for the average accident? Not happening.

 

[infrared]

I just read another article about the technology improvements coming in automobiles. I'll bet we have black boxes for accidents soon enough.

Goodman4,

Most cars newer than 2000 (and before) have black boxes now. They ran it through the airbag system, so it can't be disconnected easily. Many insurance companies will not pay an accident claim until an insurance "adjuster" downloads the black box information from the wreck, usually at the wrecking yard or shop, and they will not ask you for permission first.

Be careful what you wish for . . .

Infrared

Where did you hear this? I work in the insurance industry, and it is certainly not something my company does. I could see it happening in extreme cases, where the witness statements make no sense, or a large claim where there are no witness statement, but for the average accident? Not happening.

Shel_TK,

Okay, I did not say that too clearly. Not for a fender-bender (yet), but for a total loss, the insurance company "buys" (owns) the wreck, and any data recorded by the black box is available to them. Some states do limit access to the data, so it may be worthwhile to know your rights as a driver there.

Infrared

 

[HotRodZilla]

Still baloney. What you don't know is vehicle manufacturers keep their software very tightly under wraps. They will not give up black box information without a warrant and insurance companies have no more right to that info than anyone else.

In extreme cases, like fatal crashes, we will get a subpoena or a warrant for access and use that as part of our investigation. I said part, because even with black box info, that does not give us full information without a competent investigation backing it. We do not share black box information with the insurance company for them to deny claims. The relevant information is included in the report.

If your black box theory was correct, insurance companies would stop paying guys like me to show up and testify at their civil trials. FWIW, I have recently testified at some big money trials, and the black box was not brought up. It was 8 hours of questions about traffic investigations and the math surrounding crash reconstruction.

 

[ionbeam]

GM OnStar, written by an OnStar employee:

OnStar Stolen Vehicle Slowdown (SVS) service helps authorities recover stolen vehicles quickly to reduce the risk of damage, and help avoid high-speed chases that can result in injuries and death. At least 300 people die every year as a result of the more than 30,000 high speed police chases. The service is activated when a vehicle is reported stolen. Once an OnStar subscriber has reported a stolen vehicle to law enforcement, he or she can call OnStar and request Stolen Vehicle Assistance. An OnStar Advisor will use advanced Global Positioning Satellite technology to pinpoint the exact location of the stolen vehicle which will be provided only to law enforcement.

When law enforcement officials have the stolen vehicle in a clear line of sight to know conditions are safe, they can request that the OnStar Advisor remotely slow it down. OnStar will then send a signal to the vehicle’s engine, reducing engine power and gradually slowing the vehicle to idle speed while all other vehicle systems, including power steering and brakes, remain fully operational.

In fact, more than 95 percent of OnStar subscribers surveyed said they would like Stolen Vehicle Slowdown capability on their vehicles.

Second, SVS is optional. Subscribers who prefer not to have the Stolen Vehicle Slowdown capability on their vehicle may contact OnStar to opt out of the service at any time.

Finally, OnStar does not continuously track your vehicle. The only time OnStar interacts with subscribers is when a service button is pushed requesting OnStar assistance, or in the event of a crash when our Automatic Crash Response system is activated.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Kameya Shows, OnStar Communications