HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2012, 12:15 PM
pizzaguy pizzaguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 150
I approve this measure!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2012, 1:42 PM
HomeInMyShoes's Avatar
HomeInMyShoes HomeInMyShoes is offline
ruff
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: in my room
Posts: 8,153
We can idiot-proof all we want, but people will continue to get stupider and stupider.
__________________

-- No, the last thing we need is some paternalist weighing whether we are sufficiently noncontroversial to be admitted to subsidized quarters in a Utopian dream city. -- Jane Jacobs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2012, 2:29 PM
SHOFEAR's Avatar
SHOFEAR SHOFEAR is offline
DRINK
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: City Of Champions
Posts: 7,002
The more idiot proof you make cars the more retards drive. Mandate that all cars must be sticks....Then you will get ride of all the uncoordinated losers who can barely drive a car that does everything for you forcing people to actually have to pay attention and have skills.
__________________
Lana. Lana. Lana? LANA! Danger Zone
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2012, 1:02 AM
llamaorama's Avatar
llamaorama llamaorama is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,363
I don't really get the opposition. I can't imagine the parts cost all that much, little low-res cameras and screens are so cheap nowadays and replacing them when they break doesn't have to be difficult.

Even good drivers can't always see around the big pickup in the parking spot next to them when they back up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2012, 3:43 AM
Rail Claimore's Avatar
Rail Claimore Rail Claimore is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 6,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHOFEAR View Post
The more idiot proof you make cars the more retards drive. Mandate that all cars must be sticks....Then you will get ride of all the uncoordinated losers who can barely drive a car that does everything for you forcing people to actually have to pay attention and have skills.
I wouldn't go that far, but if we did it like Brazil does, where you have to pass the road test for a license with a stickshift to drive any vehicle, that would get rid of half the idiots right there.
__________________
So am I supposed to sign something here?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2012, 4:09 AM
Onn Onn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The United States
Posts: 1,530
I think this is wonderful, how could you be against such safety features! I would love having this in my car!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2012, 4:37 AM
plinko's Avatar
plinko plinko is offline
them bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara adjacent
Posts: 6,626
I have rear-view cameras in both my cars and while I can say that it makes parallel parking alot easier, I almost never use the screen when backing out of the driveway or in a parking lot. The field of view simply isn't enough.

I will also say that as a long time driver (20 years) it's taken me alot just to trust the camera for parallel parking (but it does work).

Those things being said, MOST of the child backing-over accidents seem to occur in the driveway or in parking lots and thus the camera doesn't really help. My older Toyota (2007) that I recently got rid of had the backup sensors rather than a camera. Worked exceptionally well when some pedestrian walked behind me in a parking lot...even a short one. But oddly both of my newer cars with cameras lack the sensors. Go figure...

Count me in the club that says that ALL drivers need to learn how to drive a manual. My wife has no clue how to because her parents were lazy. I was forced to learn (my first car was a stick and my Dad gave it to me 30 miles from home and said 'have fun getting home'). I wanted to buy a manual the last two times I've purchased a vehicle and it's really hard to find one anymore (amongst newer vehicles).
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 7,000 people just like you...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2012, 10:39 AM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 33,643
What happened to those minivans that go beep if they are about to hit an object..
__________________
Facebook
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2012, 5:25 PM
R@ptor's Avatar
R@ptor R@ptor is offline
Global Citizen
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Frankfurt
Posts: 6,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by plinko View Post
Count me in the club that says that ALL drivers need to learn how to drive a manual.
Why should they? Even though I live in a country where the majority of cars are manuals, I absolutely loathe them and only drive and rent cars with automatic transmission.

Driving a car with a stick is just annoying and takes away the concentration from the actual driving. If anything it makes driving much less safe, so I have no idea why you think forcing people to learn how to drive a manual would make the roads safer.
__________________
My Homepage

My Flickr Account
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2012, 9:31 PM
theWatusi's Avatar
theWatusi theWatusi is online now
Resident Jackass
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Your Mom's House
Posts: 11,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by R@ptor View Post
Why should they? Even though I live in a country where the majority of cars are manuals, I absolutely loathe them and only drive and rent cars with automatic transmission.

Driving a car with a stick is just annoying and takes away the concentration from the actual driving. If anything it makes driving much less safe, so I have no idea why you think forcing people to learn how to drive a manual would make the roads safer.
Driving a manual takes more concentration. I'm much more in tune with a car and the road when I'm forced to actively shift up and down instead of just mashing the gas and brake pedals.
__________________
"...remember first on me than these balls in airports" - MK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2012, 11:25 PM
R@ptor's Avatar
R@ptor R@ptor is offline
Global Citizen
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Frankfurt
Posts: 6,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by theWatusi View Post
Driving a manual takes more concentration. I'm much more in tune with a car and the road when I'm forced to actively shift up and down instead of just mashing the gas and brake pedals.
That's where we have to differ. I actually did my driving licence with a manual and on a few occasions also use my parents car (which is a manual) when I visit them. So I have experience with both manuals and automatic. And IMO it is just the opposite of what you are saying.

Especially when you are driving in a city, an automatic allows you to focus much more on the road and the traffic around you, whereas when you are driving a manual a lot of attention is diverted to the shifting process.
__________________
My Homepage

My Flickr Account
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2012, 12:40 AM
SHOFEAR's Avatar
SHOFEAR SHOFEAR is offline
DRINK
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: City Of Champions
Posts: 7,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by R@ptor View Post
That's where we have to differ. I actually did my driving licence with a manual and on a few occasions also use my parents car (which is a manual) when I visit them. So I have experience with both manuals and automatic. And IMO it is just the opposite of what you are saying.

Especially when you are driving in a city, an automatic allows you to focus much more on the road and the traffic around you, whereas when you are driving a manual a lot of attention is diverted to the shifting process.
You shouldn't have to concentrate on shifting, that should be a reflex that you don't even think about. If you find you have to pay attention to the actual process of shifting then your a poor driver.

Knowing when to shift on the other hand forces you to pay more attention. Should I downshift or is this guy infront of me going to slow even more so should I justt use the brakes? If I am about to upshift is there something around me that will cause me to have to react while I am shifting. The light ahead is about to turn green I should begin to slowly release the clutch.
__________________
Lana. Lana. Lana? LANA! Danger Zone
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2012, 1:50 AM
theWatusi's Avatar
theWatusi theWatusi is online now
Resident Jackass
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Your Mom's House
Posts: 11,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by R@ptor View Post
That's where we have to differ. I actually did my driving licence with a manual and on a few occasions also use my parents car (which is a manual) when I visit them.
So you've driven a manual a few dozen times? I've driven manual vehicles daily for about 10 years (along with automatics of course) and what shofear said is on the money.
__________________
"...remember first on me than these balls in airports" - MK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2012, 2:50 AM
Jasonhouse Jasonhouse is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 23,077
Lovely. Insurers win out over everyone else. Again.
__________________
"Imagination is more important than knowledge".
Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2012, 3:32 AM
SHOFEAR's Avatar
SHOFEAR SHOFEAR is offline
DRINK
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: City Of Champions
Posts: 7,002
Its actually kinda scary that people rely on cameras like this for parrallel parking and backing up. Your so removed from the dimensions and sight lines of your vehicle that you need this to park...no wonder why people can't merge.

For the record I have had reverse sensors on past work trucks. But those were f350 survey trucks with an extended cab and long box. Complete with a quad deck that stuck out a foot on either side often with two quads on the deck. The sensor was handy for backing that beast into a standard size parking stall. But needing those sensors on a car like a civic is hilarious...needing a camera is pathetic.
__________________
Lana. Lana. Lana? LANA! Danger Zone
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2012, 6:09 AM
Rail Claimore's Avatar
Rail Claimore Rail Claimore is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 6,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHOFEAR View Post
Its actually kinda scary that people rely on cameras like this for parrallel parking and backing up. Your so removed from the dimensions and sight lines of your vehicle that you need this to park...no wonder why people can't merge.
That and people don't think 2 or 3 seconds ahead when they drive (another reason I say people should learn stick, it forces you to do that). I can't stand drivers who can't merge onto freeways from onramps, they don't bother accelerating until they're already at the end of the ramp trying to merge onto the freeway. The ramp is where you're supposed to do that so your speed matches that of traffic already on the freeway, which makes merging very easy. If they are driving manual, they know to accelerate in the lower gears first, then shift to the cruising gear once they're in freeflowing traffic, but the typical American driver doesn't even understand this concept anymore.
__________________
So am I supposed to sign something here?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2012, 7:56 AM
HeyHey HeyHey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 70
I agree with the majority here. This seems like over regulation and governmental interference with the lives of people.

Every time a regulation is put in place there's a price to pay. This will likely cost a few hundred dollars per car by the time the screen, camera, and wiring is installed. For many models this feature alone will constitute 3-5% of the entire vehicle cost. That doesn't seem to me to be an efficient use of money.

I'm a physician at a major trauma center, and I have yet to see a patient inured in a case where this would have prevented the injury. I do, however, see every day accidents caused by drunk (or otherwise intoxicated) drivers. For the amount of time, money, and energy spent on trying to put rear view cameras in cars, we could probably save two or three times the amount of lives by tackling drunk driving.

I have had this feature on a rental car, and I have to say that I enjoyed using it. It really helped when I was backing into a parking space or pulling out of a parking space, however I don't think it would be worth the $700 or so that it would cost to have it in my car. This is an area where the car purchasing market needs to make the decision. If it is something that people want and think is useful then car manufacturers will provide it in their cars.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2012, 9:05 PM
Beta_Magellan's Avatar
Beta_Magellan Beta_Magellan is offline
Technocrat in Your Tank!
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 655
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHOFEAR View Post
The more idiot proof you make cars the more retards drive.
Not quite—rather, it has a good chance of making existing drivers much stupider. It’s called risk compensation—with more safety features, people feel comfortable taking more risks—and has been observed with anti-lock brakes, bike helmets, and even children’s car seats. A rear-view camera particularly frightens me in this regard—if it becomes a substitute for road awareness, we’re all deeply screwed, especially if people use these screens outside of driveway and other such parking situations.

Addendum: I’m curious how much pushback this will get—I’d suspect little from domestic and foreign automakers with a large domestic presence, since this seems like the sort of tech that’s already filtering down and automakers seem okay catering the the needs of checked-out drivers (Chevrolet even advertised how you could use facebook from your car). Automakers who import models that are built for a global market are likely to be more upset with this measure, since it could require reconfiguring fairly standardized designs in order to cater to the American market, which can be a significant costs (an extreme example of how far automakers will go to avoid this is the old Toyota Echo, which had center-mounted displays so the car could be sold in left- and right-hand drive countries with as little modification as possible; obviously most automakers are able to make bigger changes to their models, but it illustrates that these changes aren’t always easy).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2012, 4:00 AM
Trantor's Avatar
Trantor Trantor is offline
FUS RO DAH!
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: The Ecumenopolis
Posts: 13,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rail Claimore View Post
I wouldn't go that far, but if we did it like Brazil does, where you have to pass the road test for a license with a stickshift to drive any vehicle, that would get rid of half the idiots right there.
maybe, but it never got rid of the idiots here.

althought the problem here doesnt seem to be idiocy, but dangerous roads, too much trucks and reckless drivers.

two lane roads (one in each direction) plus plenty of trucks (since we hardly have any railroads) plus reckless drivers = fatal frontal crashes.
__________________
________________________________________
Easy, Tychus. This ain´t science fiction
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2012, 5:01 AM
JHoward88's Avatar
JHoward88 JHoward88 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trantor View Post
maybe, but it never got rid of the idiots here.

althought the problem here doesnt seem to be idiocy, but dangerous roads, too much trucks and reckless drivers.

two lane roads (one in each direction) plus plenty of trucks (since we hardly have any railroads) plus reckless drivers = fatal frontal crashes.
If all roads were one way streets, you'd still have to face the problem of drivers going the wrong direction. I'd take it a step further. All roads should be one way streets, and they all should travel east to west with clearly marked arrows. Travel in any other direction should be illegal. If you wanted to go east, you'd have to travel westwardly all the way around the world until you came back around... but your chance of getting into a head on collision would be diminished significantly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:14 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.