Jump to content

Hackett's remedy for sticker shock


Recommended Posts

I am in the camp rear view cams are needed, personally would not buy a car without rear cam or BLIS...i dont like cafe or the epa mandates...want both gone..free market and consumer choice needs to dictate and not some commie in washington or my local university/school forcing that crap on vehicles

Edited by snooter
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Not really because what incentive would there be to improve a car-why not a hand crank instead of a electric starter?

 

All your coming across is a knuckle dragger that touts the gov is blame for all ills in society with zero world view outside your own little world. ...

You think the government mandated that automobiles have electric starters or that hand cranks be eliminated?  The incentive is increased sales by virtue of convenience -- consumers wanted it, and manufacturers that offered it made more money.

 

I don't hear a lot of people clamoring to have their engine burn a bunch of extra fuel to clean a filter they also didn't ask for, or the windows become tiny and useless, those are roundabout ways for manufacturers to meet govt mandates while trying to hide the limitations from the consumer.

 

I'm sure your personal insults make your argument more convincing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Not really because what incentive would there be to improve a car-why not a hand crank instead of a electric starter?

 

All your coming across is a knuckle dragger that touts the gov is blame for all ills in society with zero world view outside your own little world. Just because you think it doesn't affect you, doesn't mean that it affects society at large. If you think a $50-100 at cost camera is going to ruin your view on how a car operates, well you got bigger issues in your life. 

Wait... What???  Do you seriously think electric starters wouldn't exist without government? I need you to clarify, because it sounds like your implying that without government regulations, no one would have desired the convenience of an electric starter.

 

You seem to have an incredibly poor understanding of capitalism and the role of government in this country.  I know it was just an example, but you need to realize how terrible that example was.

 

Backup cameras existed before this regulation made them mandatory... Because they're an awesome invention that people love.  The free market provided this, not the NHSTA. 

 

Many people desire safety and technology, and that demand drives innovation, not the government. 

 

If you want a backup camera, awesome! I'm certainly not going to stop you; Just don't force others to buy them and don't make cars more expensive for it

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, akirby said:


It’s not 100 per year it’s 210.  I guess it’s stupid to prevent 210 deaths every year, most of whom are children.

 

How about alcohol interlocks and speed limiters. They would save more children than a backup camera.

 

It's pure politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, surprise. I also like backup cameras and would have probably optioned one (looks like I have no choice now heh) when the Bronco comes out. I imagine it would be pretty useful on and off road. 

 

Unpopular opinion but mandating other people have airbags and wear seatbelts won't make society better, you're just helping stupid people survive and reproduce.  Idiocracy anyone?? 

 

Protect yourself, make smart choices, and let the Neanderthals die off i say. 

 

Wooo, I am way too hung over for this serious of a debate! I'm going back to bed. Merry Christmas all! 

Edited by probowler
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of innocent drivers and their passengers get run into, are we saying those people are stupid?  We live in a society , the  law of the jungle crap has no place and is completely out of place with society’s expectations.
 

I’ll agree that government regulations are  sometimes a broad sword approach to issues but if we cede every advance to market force, well that might drive “advances” in the wrong direction as self regulated markets don’t always make good decisions 

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, J-150 said:

 

How about alcohol interlocks and speed limiters. They would save more children than a backup camera.

 

Interlocks are required after the fact in my state if you want to drive still. You can still kill yourself or other people in a low speed crash-rare, but still possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, J-150 said:

 

How about alcohol interlocks and speed limiters. They would save more children than a backup camera.

 

It's pure politics.


I’m all for anything that would keep drunk drivers off the road.  Also mandatory automatic headlamps that default to on.

 

But not speed limiters.  Speed almost never causes accidents.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone doesn’t want to wear seatbelts or motorcycle helmets then they should forfeit their own insurance coverage and if someone hits them they should not be held liable for any injuries or death.  It’s not fair if I hit someone and they’re thrown from the vehicle and killed because they’re not wearing seatbelts and they would have survived had they been wearing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, akirby said:

If someone doesn’t want to wear seatbelts or motorcycle helmets then they should forfeit their own insurance coverage and if someone hits them they should not be held liable for any injuries or death.  It’s not fair if I hit someone and they’re thrown from the vehicle and killed because they’re not wearing seatbelts and they would have survived had they been wearing them.

 

This seems like a dangerous road (heh) you're going down. A true accident? Hydroplane or black ice... I think you have a great argument. 

 

But if the driver who caused the accident was wreckless or careless, then they should still be liable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/24/2019 at 2:44 PM, 2005Explorer said:

Yes I know it’s done for profit purposes, but it seems foolish to target models like the Ranger that are trying to get established back into a segment. The other midsized trucks already offer a much better split-fold rear seat and now the Ranger makes it’s rear seat even worse? That doesn’t make sense to me. What goes next? The hood struts replaced by a prop rod? I probably shouldn’t have said that because if anyone from Ford just read this I probably gave them an idea. Lol

 

The 2020 Explorer has prop rods instead of struts.

 

On 12/25/2019 at 9:26 AM, SteelyD said:

This decontent approach isn't making much sense on my 2019 Escape S. It is a base model obviously. I was surprised to see the Sirius and CD player delete. However they added a back up camera and voice command radio as std equipment on an Escape S. Silly.

 

CD players are going away, period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, probowler said:

 

This seems like a dangerous road (heh) you're going down. A true accident? Hydroplane or black ice... I think you have a great argument. 

 

But if the driver who caused the accident was wreckless or careless, then they should still be liable.  


They should only be liable for the damage that would have occurred with the driver wearing seatbelts or a motorcycle helmet.  I shouldn’t be held responsible for vehicular homicide because you were too stupid to wear seatbelts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

CD players are going away, period.

 

I have roughly 5000 songs loaded onto my phone, and obviously Bluetooth connection to my car's sound system. I rarely use the CD player, wouldn't miss it if it was gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AGR said:

 

I have roughly 5000 songs loaded onto my phone, and obviously Bluetooth connection to my car's sound system. I rarely use the CD player, wouldn't miss it if it was gone.

 

Whats a CD player? I never put CD into my SHO and I think I had 2 CD's in my 2006 Mustang I had. I used Sirius via Antenna with the Mustang and the SHO is Sirius or USB/Bluetooth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, akirby said:

...

But not speed limiters.  Speed almost never causes accidents.

 

 

 

You must live somewhere warm, because I see idiots overdriving icy conditions all the time.  It's like the summer warmth gives them amnesia every year.  I'm pretty sure there was recently a giant pileup that made international headlines because a bunch of dummies were driving too fast in the fog -- the vast majority no doubt had an excessive velocity cause their braking distance to exceed their visibility range, plain and simple.

 

I still think govt mandated speed limiters are a terrible idea.  Stupid people will find a way to kill someone and blame it on somebody else no matter what safety systems you build into a vehicle.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stampede.Offroad said:

 

You must live somewhere warm, because I see idiots overdriving icy conditions all the time.  It's like the summer warmth gives them amnesia every year.  I'm pretty sure there was recently a giant pileup that made international headlines because a bunch of dummies were driving too fast in the fog -- the vast majority no doubt had an excessive velocity cause their braking distance to exceed their visibility range, plain and simple.

 

I still think govt mandated speed limiters are a terrible idea.  Stupid people will find a way to kill someone and blame it on somebody else no matter what safety systems you build into a vehicle.  


But that’s driving too fast for conditions and following too closely.  That’s not something a speed limiter would fix.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, akirby said:


They should only be liable for the damage that would have occurred with the driver wearing seatbelts or a motorcycle helmet.  I shouldn’t be held responsible for vehicular homicide because you were too stupid to wear seatbelts.

Why are you so obsessed with controlling people and telling them how to live, making sure everyone is as safe as possible? 

 

And where does this safety fetish end? If someone buys a 2/5 crash rated car and you ram them, would you not be liable because they should have bought a safer car? If someone buys a smart car and you cream them with your truck, is it their fault for buying a teenie tin can? 

 

This is nonsense. We don't need to turn America into another generic big government nanny state. Here's a better idea, don't crash into other people and you won't have to worry about it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, probowler said:

Why are you so obsessed with controlling people and telling them how to live, making sure everyone is as safe as possible? 

That's pretty much the opposite of what he just said.
 

All he was saying is if your lack of responsibility contributes to your own death, you have to assume responsibility for it, not hold someone else responsible for it. So, basically, you shouldn't be required to wear a seatbelt or helmet, but if you die in a collision where that helmet or seatbelt could've saved your life, well, that's on you.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, akirby said:


But that’s driving too fast for conditions and following too closely.  That’s not something a speed limiter would fix.  

 

That's what the sensors are for.  Sensors everywhere! 

 

"Fog?  You can't go more than 5mph!  Problem solved.  Its for the children."

 

As much as I wish that was purely sarcasm, we both know it's coming.  People are plenty willing to take freedom away from others to make them self feel safer -- and too lazy/stupid to consider the long term ramifications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Whats a CD player? I never put CD into my SHO and I think I had 2 CD's in my 2006 Mustang I had. I used Sirius via Antenna with the Mustang and the SHO is Sirius or USB/Bluetooth. 

I put a CD in my 2005 Mustang once just to make sure that the CD player worked.  I haven’t bothered to do that with my 2018 Mustang. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SoonerLS said:

That's pretty much the opposite of what he just said.
 

All he was saying is if your lack of responsibility contributes to your own death, you have to assume responsibility for it, not hold someone else responsible for it. So, basically, you shouldn't be required to wear a seatbelt or helmet, but if you die in a collision where that helmet or seatbelt could've saved your life, well, that's on you.

 

That sounds like seriousl victim blaming! 

 

Hit by a drunk driver> why were you there without a seatbelt? 

 

Rape victim? >Shouldn't have gone down that alley without a gun.. 

 

Public transportation is far safer than driving your own car, by this line of thinking if you purposefully choose the unsafe method of transportation, then you get whatever happens?

 

After all, you chose to be there, it's on you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stampede.Offroad said:

 

That's what the sensors are for.  Sensors everywhere! 

 

"Fog?  You can't go more than 5mph!  Problem solved.  Its for the children."

 

As much as I wish that was purely sarcasm, we both know it's coming.  People are plenty willing to take freedom away from others to make them self feel safer -- and too lazy/stupid to consider the long term ramifications.

 

11 hours ago, akirby said:


But that’s driving too fast for conditions and following too closely.  That’s not something a speed limiter would fix.  

 

I can imagine a dystopian future where all cars are required to be connected to the always-connected road grid, where their location is GPS tracked and their driving habits monitored and recorded. Vehicles can only drive up to the speed limit of the road you are traveling. Local weather data dynamically adjusts and reduces max speed during foul weather. 

Cabin Camera and voice recorders record you as you're driving.

 

Vehicles talk to insurance companies and won't start unless the vehicle has an active insurance subscription. The vehicle fingerprint scans you via the steering wheel and communicates to dmv to ensure you have a valid license.

 

Max music volume will be limited and reduced like they do to portable music players in Europe. Car will not drive if seatbelt is unbuckled. 

 

Compromising safety systems Will be illegal, punishable by fine and loss off driving privilege. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, probowler said:

 

That sounds like seriousl victim blaming! 

 

Hit by a drunk driver> why were you there without a seatbelt? 

 

Rape victim? >Shouldn't have gone down that alley without a gun.. 

 

Public transportation is far safer than driving your own car, by this line of thinking if you purposefully choose the unsafe method of transportation, then you get whatever happens?

 

After all, you chose to be there, it's on you?


I’m still responsible for the accident, vehicle damages and injuries for belted occupants.  Just don’t hold me responsible for your death - that’s on you for not wearing a seatbelt that would have saved your life.  It’s called contributory negligence - look it up.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, probowler said:

 

 

I can imagine a dystopian future where all cars are required to be connected to the always-connected road grid, where their location is GPS tracked and their driving habits monitored and recorded. Vehicles can only drive up to the speed limit of the road you are traveling. Local weather data dynamically adjusts and reduces max speed during foul weather. 

Cabin Camera and voice recorders record you as you're driving.

 

Vehicles talk to insurance companies and won't start unless the vehicle has an active insurance subscription. The vehicle fingerprint scans you via the steering wheel and communicates to dmv to ensure you have a valid license.

 

Max music volume will be limited and reduced like they do to portable music players in Europe. Car will not drive if seatbelt is unbuckled. 

 

Compromising safety systems Will be illegal, punishable by fine and loss off driving privilege. 

 

 

 

If everything is controlled by computer then maybe there’s less need for insurance companies save for weather events and then maybe vehicles prevent you from travelling at those times.

 

Compromising safety symptoms is already illegal in most parts of the world. Go more than 4” of combined body/tire lift and you’re outside of most vehicles dynamo stability control parameters, the narrower the track, the worse the situation gets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

If everything is controlled by computer then maybe there’s less need for insurance companies save for weather events and then maybe vehicles prevent you from travelling at those times.

 

Compromising safety symptoms is already illegal in most parts of the world. Go more than 4” of combined body/tire lift and you’re outside of most vehicles dynamo stability control parameters, the narrower the track, the worse the situation gets.

 

Eh, i have a feeling they'll always find a way to carve out their slice of the pie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...