Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Now the gov't wants your car to text with other cars... this should end well. Subby can't wait to hack it   (nytimes.com) divider line 142
    More: Dumbass, Car Talk, connected car, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration  
•       •       •

3508 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Aug 2014 at 10:41 AM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



142 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-08-21 07:25:32 AM  
Text your speed to that cop sitting at the side of the road?
 
2014-08-21 07:43:40 AM  
Maybe I can get mine to make JT-65 contacts for me.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-08-21 08:17:41 AM  
Going 999 mph. Driver refuses to steer. Get out of way.
 
2014-08-21 08:45:28 AM  
SEND TAILPIPE PIX, PLS!
 
2014-08-21 08:46:13 AM  
Making it so cars do things they shouldn't would be a con text, subby.
 
2014-08-21 08:47:54 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: SEND TAILPIPE PIX, PLS!


HIE?

/Headlights in e-mail
 
2014-08-21 08:55:35 AM  
"The reason you almost hit me was because you were in the wrong turning lane."
 
2014-08-21 08:59:06 AM  
"Honk all you want, we're only moving up 25 feet to sit a little closer to this red light."
 
2014-08-21 09:00:55 AM  
"Oncoming traffic is just going to keep turning left in front of you unless you actually start moving forward."
 
2014-08-21 09:01:30 AM  
"Sorry to cut you off, I was distracted by that booty on the side of the road."
 
2014-08-21 09:02:05 AM  
"It's OK, It must really be hard to be in a rush all the time."
 
2014-08-21 09:02:43 AM  
"You have an ugly car. And face."
 
2014-08-21 09:03:26 AM  
"Working brake lights would be nice."
 
2014-08-21 09:04:25 AM  
"I'm more important than you. Also I don't actually do any useful work for a living."
 
2014-08-21 09:05:03 AM  
"WATCH OUT FOR THAT --- well, never mind."
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-08-21 09:40:21 AM  
SRY I CRSHED U LOL
 
2014-08-21 09:41:28 AM  
"What you don't see is the Glock sitting on my passenger seat."
 
2014-08-21 09:48:54 AM  
i131.photobucket.com
 
2014-08-21 10:43:01 AM  
I'm thinking about getting a CB so I can talk with other car beds.
 
2014-08-21 10:43:22 AM  
rlv.zcache.com
 
2014-08-21 10:43:24 AM  
I'm loving how the government wants to track cars but pays no farking attention that hackers can and would do worse if they hack the gov'ts servers.

Assholes.
 
2014-08-21 10:44:12 AM  
basemetal

Text your speed to that cop sitting at the side of the road?


And when you don't completely stop, ect.. you know for $aftey.
 
2014-08-21 10:47:24 AM  
Trolltastic headline, subby. Why don't you get right on that, after you finish hacking the air-traffic control and train-routing systems? Oh, and police dispatch; don't forget to knock out the e-911 system while you're at it.

//I have some experience with watching people try to link mobile computer systems together in a network. Apparently, it's HARD.
 
2014-08-21 10:48:07 AM  
Transmitters in the vehicles send and receive information 10 times a second: speed, direction, location and other data that automakers and federal regulators hope will usher in a new era of road safety.surveillance.
 
2014-08-21 10:48:45 AM  
George Carlin brought this up a generation ago. He should get royalties.

/oh..
 
2014-08-21 10:48:47 AM  
I for one welcome our brave new world where critical thinking, motor skills and spatial perception are totally teh oldz0rs and unnecessary.
 
2014-08-21 10:50:01 AM  
Yea, yea, yea.

ETC was going to kill us all. Electronic steering was going to kill us all. OBD-II computers were going to kill us all. Infotainment was going to kill us all.

I don't see why you guys are so worried about car-to-car communications. All the other technical advances of the last forty years already killed us all.
 
2014-08-21 10:51:15 AM  
So if I'm stuck in traffic, can I send the hot chick next to me some penis pics? Like chatroulette  for cars? That would be cool.
 
2014-08-21 10:52:00 AM  

NutWrench: Transmitters in the vehicles send and receive information 10 times a second: speed, direction, location and other data that automakers and federal regulators hope will usher in a new era of road safety.surveillance.


And people wonder why I drive an older vehicle.
 
2014-08-21 10:52:40 AM  

skozlaw: ETC was going to kill us all. Electronic steering was going to kill us all. OBD-II computers were going to kill us all. Infotainment was going to kill us all.


I must not have bought a newspaper that week.
 
2014-08-21 10:56:01 AM  
Keep making cars more and more expensive,  so I keep buying more and more used cars that pollute.
 
2014-08-21 10:56:28 AM  
"Hnk Hnk in way lol kk ttyl"
 
2014-08-21 10:58:38 AM  
RTTY, the original text message!
 
2014-08-21 10:59:17 AM  
So there I was. I buy this new ride with a car-to-car communication system. Little did I know my Chevy was going to fall for a Chrysler and leave me stranded. The last thing OnStar could tell me is they were heading toward the Canadian border.
 
2014-08-21 11:00:36 AM  
I can has Fark Traffic Forum?
 
2014-08-21 11:00:51 AM  
what sending a sexy topless pict might look like...

www.carspeed-78.com
 
2014-08-21 11:01:42 AM  
I don't know why the scientists make them.
 
2014-08-21 11:02:02 AM  
This "car mesh" is scary.

It might make sense but it is a slippery slope. You do this first, then you add in communication back to a central point for "traffic performance purposes" and collect data.

The government subpoenas the data, like car black box data, to track the driver in a case or over time on a special case.

Soon, it is "Let's just collect and keep the data" long term to speed the subpoena process.

The cities who are in a budget crunch add in some geolocation and sensors along some of the roads and you are emailed your traffic citation for speeding, failure to come to a complete stop, etc.

Yea, no thanks.
 
2014-08-21 11:04:01 AM  
"Hey baby, wanna fark?"
 
2014-08-21 11:05:16 AM  

ChipNASA: [rlv.zcache.com image 512x512]


I have impossibly tight deadlines to meet because everyone thinks manufacturing works like email, you just press a button and it's done, so  excuse me if I'm constantly in a huge god damn hurry!

/sorry, it's one of those kind of days.
 
2014-08-21 11:07:08 AM  
So road rage isn't bad enough with simple horn blowing and hand gestures.  Now they want actual specific text sent.  Even though reading that text while driving is incredibly distracting.

How exactly is that supposed to make anything any safer at all?

For the record, I have the same contention with billboards.  Especially the ones that say things like, "If you're reading this, you are not paying attention to the road."

//Really?!
 
2014-08-21 11:08:42 AM  
Nice tires, wanna fark?
 
2014-08-21 11:09:06 AM  
It's too bad no one should trust the government anymore. It takes all the "wondrous future" thrill off of ideas like this. They always abuse every single supposedly good thing, from CIA vaccination campaigns to tracking your every move with cell phones. The world would be so much cooler if we could just use things without having to worry about how the government is going to try to fark you with it.
 
2014-08-21 11:09:57 AM  

basemetal: Text your speed to that cop sitting at the side of the road?


They won't do that.  Pulling over a speeding driver still costs money.  They can maximize $afety by transmitting your speed to computerized receivers that just mail you a ticket without any human intervention.

* Tickets may be contested within 30 days in-person on the 5th Tuesday of every month between the hours of 2 and 3 in the 3rd sub-basement of the capitol building.  To contest your ticket you must bring a cashiers check or money order in the amount of the ticket as a non-refundable appearance fee.  If you are unsuccessful, the ticket must be paid in-person, on the 5th Tuesday of the month, same place, same time, within 30 days, or your license and registration will be suspended.
 
2014-08-21 11:12:26 AM  
skozlaw: Yea, yea, yea.

ETC was going to kill us all. Electronic steering was going to kill us all. OBD-II computers were going to kill us all. Infotainment was going to kill us all.

I don't see why you guys are so worried about car-to-car communications
government. All the other technicalcorporation advances of the last forty years already killed us all.


"At a government-sponsored pilot program ... and a consortium of eight automakers ..."

Ya'll blame the puppet for everything. (Pay no attention to those eight corporations behind the curtain.)


"The current pattern suggests much lobbying is done by corporations, although a wide variety of coalitions representing diverse groups is possible." Wiki

Possible? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. Hahahahaha. Haha.
 
2014-08-21 11:14:39 AM  
This really puts a new meaning to "ass or gas nobody rides for free"
 
2014-08-21 11:14:57 AM  
Ya, this whole thing scares the bejeebus outta me.

/1984
 
2014-08-21 11:16:21 AM  
This is better for everybody.  If you actually have to drive the car, how can you watch ads?
 
2014-08-21 11:16:29 AM  
My car will be sending sexts to sports cars and getting turned down.
 
2014-08-21 11:17:18 AM  
Give me a car that can sense when I'm hungry and orders me a pizza right in time to be delivered right as I'm pulling in the drive way.
 
2014-08-21 11:18:57 AM  
durbnpoisn:
For the record, I have the same contention with billboards.  Especially the ones that say things like, "If you're reading this, you are not paying attention to the road."

//Really?!


Same for the giant, distracting billboards that say "Have you been in an accident?"  I generally think, "Not until I got distracted by your ad"
 
2014-08-21 11:19:15 AM  

GreyWolf007: skozlaw: Yea, yea, yea.

ETC was going to kill us all. Electronic steering was going to kill us all. OBD-II computers were going to kill us all. Infotainment was going to kill us all.

I don't see why you guys are so worried about car-to-car communicationsgovernment. All the other technicalcorporation advances of the last forty years already killed us all.


"At a government-sponsored pilot program ... and a consortium of eight automakers ..."

Ya'll blame the puppet for everything. (Pay no attention to those eight corporations behind the curtain.)


"The current pattern suggests much lobbying is done by corporations, although a wide variety of coalitions representing diverse groups is possible." Wiki

Possible? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. Hahahahaha. Haha.


He worried in regards to a population of which 2/3 owns a smart phone on a website that includes ad tracking and Google services from an Internet connection that is, in all likelihood, being scooped by the NSA.

I hate to break it to you, that barn door ain't closing.
 
2014-08-21 11:24:55 AM  

skozlaw: He worried in regards to a population of which 2/3 owns a smart phone on a website that includes ad tracking and Google services from an Internet connection that is, in all likelihood, being scooped by the NSA.

I hate to break it to you, that barn door ain't closing.


"We know everything you do, every second of every day and it updates in real time!  Every penny you have, what you eat, what you buy, where you buy it, where you go and when and who you go to meet!"

"Huh, so what do you guys do with all this?"

"We sit.. here and.. we.. watch and listen and.. record... all this stuff."

"Every day?"

"Yeah."

"So, that's pretty much your entire life, then?"

"... YESSSSSS *sob*"
 
2014-08-21 11:26:25 AM  
"New things are scary.  Everything is bad.  Corporations are behind everything.  I'm scared to go anywhere but to my keyboard to complain on Fark."
 
2014-08-21 11:26:28 AM  
I could see some waze to make that work in my favor.
img.fark.net

/I've come to terms that the odds are everything I do is recorded in one way or another.  Might as well take advantage of it.
 
2014-08-21 11:29:55 AM  
The idiot driving me doesn't use turn signal.  Please advise your idiot that I will be changing lanes in 7.4539 seconds.
 
2014-08-21 11:32:02 AM  

sandreckoner: "New things are scary.  Everything is bad.  Corporations are behind everything.  I'm scared to go anywhere but to my keyboard to complain on Fark."


Google "help for shut ins".  Or try failedpundits.com.
 
2014-08-21 11:36:37 AM  
lh6.googleusercontent.com
Okay coal is coming out.
 
2014-08-21 11:37:04 AM  
I can see the templates now:

Get out of the fast lane asshole

turn on your lights asshole

use your turn signals asshole

you drive like an old biatch asshole

hey you're cute  show me your tits
 
2014-08-21 11:42:05 AM  
"So, you were fine with driving slow a few seconds ago but now that you see me trying to pass you it's time to speed up?"
 
2014-08-21 11:42:17 AM  
i12.photobucket.com
 
2014-08-21 11:44:35 AM  

skozlaw: Yea, yea, yea.

ETC was going to kill us all. Electronic steering was going to kill us all. OBD-II computers were going to kill us all. Infotainment was going to kill us all.

I don't see why you guys are so worried about car-to-car communications. All the other technical advances of the last forty years already killed us all.


Yet something as simple as a faulty ignition switch actually IS killing people.
 
2014-08-21 11:44:52 AM  
Good timing, DROx.
 
2014-08-21 11:45:16 AM  
Isaac's got this:

1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2) A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

I don't even have cruise control in my cars. I'm old-school that way.

/I moved the dimmer switch back to the floor, thanks to a Plymouth switch I found.
//the radio is mechanical push-button
//so is the shifter (automatic transformer)
///'02 PT Cruiser
///a driver oughta DRIVE!
////VIRGULE, Virgule, virgule, virgule
 
2014-08-21 11:45:47 AM  

bunner: skozlaw: He worried in regards to a population of which 2/3 owns a smart phone on a website that includes ad tracking and Google services from an Internet connection that is, in all likelihood, being scooped by the NSA.

I hate to break it to you, that barn door ain't closing.

"We know everything you do, every second of every day and it updates in real time!  Every penny you have, what you eat, what you buy, where you buy it, where you go and when and who you go to meet!"

"Huh, so what do you guys do with all this?"

"We sit.. here and.. we.. watch and listen and.. record... all this stuff."

"Every day?"

"Yeah."

"So, that's pretty much your entire life, then?"

"... YESSSSSS *sob*"


Granted no one is sitting watching your movements.  But get shot by a cop?  We'll go through your history and find out why you deserved to be shot.
 
2014-08-21 11:48:04 AM  

Leopold Stotch: skozlaw: Yea, yea, yea.

ETC was going to kill us all. Electronic steering was going to kill us all. OBD-II computers were going to kill us all. Infotainment was going to kill us all.

I don't see why you guys are so worried about car-to-car communications. All the other technical advances of the last forty years already killed us all.

Yet something as simple as a faulty ignition switch actually IS killing people.


I wonder about that GM recall.  Who dies because they lost power steering?

/CSB  My GM car tried to start when I left the keys hanging in the ignition far enough out so it wouldn't ding because the door was open.
 
2014-08-21 11:48:45 AM  

TheGogmagog: bunner: skozlaw: He worried in regards to a population of which 2/3 owns a smart phone on a website that includes ad tracking and Google services from an Internet connection that is, in all likelihood, being scooped by the NSA.

I hate to break it to you, that barn door ain't closing.

"We know everything you do, every second of every day and it updates in real time!  Every penny you have, what you eat, what you buy, where you buy it, where you go and when and who you go to meet!"

"Huh, so what do you guys do with all this?"

"We sit.. here and.. we.. watch and listen and.. record... all this stuff."

"Every day?"

"Yeah."

"So, that's pretty much your entire life, then?"

"... YESSSSSS *sob*"

Granted no one is sitting watching your movements.  But get shot by a cop?  We'll go through your history and find out why you deserved to be shot.


No, there's no guy with binoculars sitting on your roof, but they don't have to.  We do all the work for them and they just open the data pipe.  Looking at you, Zuckerberg.
 
2014-08-21 11:49:44 AM  
What about cyclists?  They should all be required to have this so my car knows when one is speeding down the hill and about to blow the stop sign next to me.

/Am I doin it right?
 
2014-08-21 11:51:19 AM  
1991 was, oddly, a very good year for American cars.   Especially old school, four door dinosaurs.  They held up well, little to no rust outs, decent mileage.  I wonder what happened in Big Threeville that year.
 
2014-08-21 11:51:52 AM  
"Soz I cut u off lol"
 
2014-08-21 11:52:06 AM  

Pick: RTTY Morse, the original text message!


FTFY.  RTTY is just bastardized carrier shift-keyed Morse.

/Bastardized because machines had trouble with variable element widths.
 
2014-08-21 11:53:07 AM  
If we had self driving cars, then we wouldn't need any of this.

Or insurance.
 
2014-08-21 11:53:52 AM  
"Unless you are a hemorrhoid, get off my ass"
 
2014-08-21 11:54:20 AM  

TheManMythLegend: Keep making cars more and more expensive,  so I keep buying more and more used cars that pollute.


I paid $21k for a Honda Accord last year (total price, drive away) with ABS, backup camera, central locks and power windows, multiple air bags, trip computer, multi-speaker CD/stereo, Bluetooth phone sync, cruise control, etc. That's the base model, btw. I probably could have gotten the equivalent Korean car for $18k, or a compact for $15k or less. Cars are not expensive unless you want them to be.
 
2014-08-21 11:55:03 AM  

Onkel Buck: I can see the templates now:

Get out of the fast lane asshole

turn on your lights asshole

use your turn signals asshole

you drive like an old biatch asshole

hey you're cute  show me your tits


You drive like old people fark.  Slow and sloppy
 
2014-08-21 11:55:14 AM  

dittybopper: Pick: RTTY Morse, the original text message!

FTFY.  RTTY is just bastardized carrier shift-keyed Morse.

/Bastardized because machines had trouble with variable element widths.


L0L, no wai
 
2014-08-21 11:57:08 AM  

TheGogmagog: Leopold Stotch: skozlaw: Yea, yea, yea.

ETC was going to kill us all. Electronic steering was going to kill us all. OBD-II computers were going to kill us all. Infotainment was going to kill us all.

I don't see why you guys are so worried about car-to-car communications. All the other technical advances of the last forty years already killed us all.

Yet something as simple as a faulty ignition switch actually IS killing people.

I wonder about that GM recall.  Who dies because they lost power steering?

/CSB  My GM car tried to start when I left the keys hanging in the ignition far enough out so it wouldn't ding because the door was open.


Well, I guess if you're taking your 6000 lb SUV around a corner at speed and the power steering goes out, it might be enough of a physical jolt and surprise to make you lose control.
 
2014-08-21 11:57:25 AM  
If you can get my 1974 F150 to text ...
 
2014-08-21 11:57:34 AM  

Leopold Stotch: Yet something as simple as a faulty ignition switch actually IS killing people.


A mechanical failure. The cause of every crash before electronics (aside from driver errors, anyway). "Oh, we can't have ETC! What happens when the computer fails and locks it to WOT!?".

I dunno. What happened when the return spring in the throttle body seized and did the same thing?

People have been clutching their pearls about automated and electronic vehicle systems since at least the first mass-produced automatic transmission. It's absurd. There have been good ideas and bad ideas over the years, but when it comes to cars the automatic reaction to pretty much EVERY idea is to scream about how it's the worst thing ever. It's just silly.

TheGogmagog: I wonder about that GM recall. Who dies because they lost power steering?


That wasn't the fundamental problem. When the ignition is off it prevents the airbag from deploying, so if something happens that leads to a crash AND cuts the ignition, the people up front are boned.
 
2014-08-21 11:58:29 AM  

HAMMERTOE: Good timing, DROx.


Yeah, i chuckled
 
2014-08-21 11:58:49 AM  

stevenvictx: If we had self driving cars, then we wouldn't need any of this.

Or insurance.


You won't need insurance right up until the moment your self-driving car hits a self-driving deer...
 
2014-08-21 12:01:18 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: If you can get my 1974 F150 to text ... start...not stall out


Worst emissions control EVAR, the 1974 Chevy carburetor.
 
2014-08-21 12:02:37 PM  

stevenvictx: If we had self driving cars, then we wouldn't need any of this.

Or insurance.


Hah! Even self-driving cars would need insurance, because of human instructions. The cars would have to be certified (and that may be the future anyway) every two years to clear the glitches that wood stack up. How many computers have you seen that work prefectly after 3 years of no maintainance? And what happens when a driver decides to DRIVE?
 
2014-08-21 12:03:27 PM  

ChipNASA: [rlv.zcache.com image 512x512]


Is this the Canadian version of the Yosemite Sam "back off!" mudflaps?
 
2014-08-21 12:06:06 PM  

skozlaw: You won't need insurance right up until the moment your self-driving car hits a self-driving deer...


With a self-driving car, there won't be a need for a windshield. Just put a bulldozer plow on the front.
 
2014-08-21 12:10:46 PM  

LazyMedia: TheManMythLegend: Keep making cars more and more expensive,  so I keep buying more and more used cars that pollute.

I paid $21k for a Honda Accord last year (total price, drive away) with ABS, backup camera, central locks and power windows, multiple air bags, trip computer, multi-speaker CD/stereo, Bluetooth phone sync, cruise control, etc. That's the base model, btw. I probably could have gotten the equivalent Korean car for $18k, or a compact for $15k or less. Cars are not expensive unless you want them to be.


Yeah still too expensive.  I want to pay lass than $10k and drive it for 200k miles,  My current Dakota will be there soon,  but have a few more years left on my Buick,
 
2014-08-21 12:11:48 PM  

Mikeyworld: Even self-driving cars would need insurance, because of human instructions. The cars would have to be certified (and that may be the future anyway) every two years to clear the glitches that wood stack up...


Meh. That's only a problem for certain makes.

img.izismile.com
 
2014-08-21 12:12:58 PM  
OMG, WTF get out the left lane you slow POS.
 
2014-08-21 12:14:16 PM  

Rwa2play: I'm loving how the government wants to track cars but pays no farking attention that hackers can and would do worse if they hack the gov'ts servers.

Assholes.


And then some asshat will fark the whole thing up whenever he wants some lulz by hacking wireless traffic lights that have no security;
http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/08/researchers-find-its-terrify in gly-easy-to-hack-traffic-lights/
 
2014-08-21 12:16:47 PM  
How about this....how about the geniuses at Ford figure out how to make the farking door sensors stop shrieking at me suddenly at 70mph that my driver's door is ajar followed by a blinking warning and alarm to pull over? EVERY FARKING DAY? Third new warranty replaced sensor in a year. Fix this basic piece of electronic wizardry first....then worry about texting other cars my business. How bout that?
 
2014-08-21 12:17:36 PM  
Texting while driving is illegal where I live.  I guess the cops are going to pull me over and say "no, you're fine...the ticket is for the car."
 
2014-08-21 12:21:15 PM  

TheManMythLegend: Yeah still too expensive. I want to pay lass than $10k and drive it for 200k miles, My current Dakota will be there soon, but have a few more years left on my Buick,


Cars aren't too expensive, you just want a lousy car because you don't value anything but the price.

You're willing to sacrifice convenience, safety, comfort and efficiency for a bottom-dollar price. That's fine if that's your preference, but it doesn't make cars too expensive.

Cars haven't actually gotten that much more expensive anyway. By today's dollar the average price of a new car in 1980 was almost $22,000 and you can buy a whole plethora of new cars, including family sedans, for at or very near to that price. What makes them harder to pay now is that so many people's incomes haven't kept up with inflation since then. What makes the average car price of a new car higher now is all the people buying low-end luxury cars, tons of fancy options and larger vehicles like SUVs.

Despite all their massive improvements in the last 15 years or so, cars haven't actually gotten that much more expensive relative to the dollar.
 
2014-08-21 12:21:31 PM  
Higher-end cars are already incorporating those features. Infiniti makes a car that automatically brakes when when a car in front of you brakes, and it doesn't even have to be the one directly in front of you. It can also detect the car in front of that one.
 
2014-08-21 12:28:22 PM  

skozlaw: Mikeyworld: Even self-driving cars would need insurance, because of human instructions. The cars would have to be certified (and that may be the future anyway) every two years to clear the glitches that wood stack up...

Meh. That's only a problem for certain makes.

[img.izismile.com image 640x426]


I was tryin' to emphasize the glitches wit' dat. Filters change the instructions. My Boobies (yeah, another filter) changes the 'automatic tran_ny' to "automatic transformer", making the instruction a whole 'nother subject. We're gonna have my life controlled by PC language in a real world program? Gah!

/I LIKE to drive, just not around other people
//A car with generic instructions is like a school with a 'zero tolerance' policy...application isn't usually gonna make a whole lotta sense.
///My instructions is not your instructions, therein lies the rub...
///'rub' Ha Ha Ha hahahahaha
 
2014-08-21 12:31:09 PM  

skozlaw: TheManMythLegend: Yeah still too expensive. I want to pay lass than $10k and drive it for 200k miles, My current Dakota will be there soon, but have a few more years left on my Buick,

Cars aren't too expensive, you just want a lousy car because you don't value anything but the price.

You're willing to sacrifice convenience, safety, comfort and efficiency for a bottom-dollar price. That's fine if that's your preference, but it doesn't make cars too expensive.

Cars haven't actually gotten that much more expensive anyway. By today's dollar the average price of a new car in 1980 was almost $22,000 and you can buy a whole plethora of new cars, including family sedans, for at or very near to that price. What makes them harder to pay now is that so many people's incomes haven't kept up with inflation since then. What makes the average car price of a new car higher now is all the people buying low-end luxury cars, tons of fancy options and larger vehicles like SUVs.

Despite all their massive improvements in the last 15 years or so, cars haven't actually gotten that much more expensive relative to the dollar.


Sure I value stuff.  My Buick has seat heaters and fits three car seats with plenty of trunk room for groceries,   My Dodge has plenty of power to pull my snowmobiles and 4 wheel drive to get me to my deer stand in the best MN Novembers.

The only car I would break my rule for is the new Corvette.  After a few years of paying nothing for cars I should be able too get one.
 
2014-08-21 12:34:52 PM  
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, car-to-car communication would be great. The ability to propagate information about upcoming hazards and allow the car to act on them would be amazing. If the car in front steps on the brakes, in addition to the brake lights, a signal could be sent to the car in back to slow down. Signals in cars and road signs can set tell a car "here is the speed limit, don't go faster than this", allowing for automatically-adjusting cruise control. The possibilities are endless to the information being sent and how it is acted upon to make a smarter system.

However, as a person who designs systems for a living and has to think about all the ways a design can be defeated and/or abused, the potential for mayhem is really great. The only secure system is an entirely closed system. If a person with a laptop and a $200 Software Radio can theoretically cause crashes and pileups, than the system isn't worth it. You had better convince me that this can't be abused, even then I would probably tell you to stuff it. Any system that would be useful (i.e. control the car faster than a human) would have a huge potential for abuse. Because this is a system that would really only work if all cars on the road would support it, a system of this kind would need specs that are set in stone and would need to have legacy support for 20 years or more. I am more than sure an exploit would be found within 20 years, even it if would mean finding a junker (or a stolen car), ripping the radio out and sending signals to the black box.
 
2014-08-21 12:35:55 PM  
They can spend the money on this crap but they cut driver education classes in high school to virtually nothing.  According to my son, they spent more time teaching about DWI limits and fines than rules of the road.    FTA

"If there are several vehicles between you and the one that's panic-braking, you may not even be aware of it

How about paying attention to farther ahead than the bumper in front of you.  You most certainly should be aware of it and prepare to react to it depending on how it unfolds.  You should also be always aware of what is to your left and right in case that needs to be a part of your decision.
 
2014-08-21 12:45:55 PM  

offacue: How about paying attention to farther ahead than the bumper in front of you.


This is a pretty representative, if zoomed out, image of the type of view that I have for my entire commute:

www.blogcdn.com

Stay farther back you say?

Brilliant!

Perhaps one of the half-dozen cars that fills the gap back up to my bumper will be small enough to see around...
 
2014-08-21 12:47:40 PM  

Mikeyworld: stevenvictx: If we had self driving cars, then we wouldn't need any of this.

Or insurance.

Hah! Even self-driving cars would need insurance, because of human instructions. The cars would have to be certified (and that may be the future anyway) every two years to clear the glitches that wood stack up. How many computers have you seen that work prefectly after 3 years of no maintainance? And what happens when a driver decides to DRIVE?


Quite a few actually. We are not talking about a Windows XP desktop that needs to be reformatted every 6 months. Most of these are embedded systems with fairly simple software that is burned on a ROM (or probably Flash). These are not super complicated systems. Short of having the worst programmers money can buy, and having absolutely no system testing, most of these systems should be more much more reliable than a desktop computer.
 
2014-08-21 12:50:21 PM  

Rwa2play: I'm loving how the government wants to track cars but pays no farking attention that hackers can and would do worse if they hack the gov'ts servers.

Assholes.


Which is where technology security people come and weigh in risk versus benefit. We'd get nowhere if we wanted no one to give ideas.
Besides, if you're scared of hackers, you may as well stop using every electronic device ever. When it comes to computer security, my thoughts on the matter are to assume everything will suffer a successful attack eventually, and to come up with solutions to prolong that, such as firewalls, Antivirus, and the highest level of physical security possible, along with making it very hard to social engineer past as much as possible, and then, pre emptive security measures, like encryption, spreading data across different servers in different places, and finally, after the attack post mortem, estimating the damage and building back up security with new information from both the security community as well as whatever attacks were used in the latest breach.
 
2014-08-21 12:53:43 PM  
 
2014-08-21 12:54:53 PM  

Tobin_Lam: Higher-end cars are already incorporating those features. Infiniti makes a car that automatically brakes when when a car in front of you brakes, and it doesn't even have to be the one directly in front of you. It can also detect the car in front of that one.


Isn't that using a type of radar equivalent sensing system? I'm interested in my car communicating directly to the other car computers around me and knowing that it's okay to maintain 10 mph over the speed limit in order to go with the flow of traffic and not cause an accident because I am doing the speed limit. I can then use that information as evidence in court.
 
2014-08-21 12:56:20 PM  
Cars are going to drive themselves soon. Most of these "innovations" are just social engineering to get us used to that idea.

Self-driving cars can't come soon enough, but it's going to freak out municipalities that depend on fines for income.
 
2014-08-21 12:56:56 PM  
Also my personal philosophy: if someone gains access to the device physically, you lose. Consider everything on the compromised device lost or dangerous, and behave accordingly. If the device requires users physically access it, constantly check it for damage or compromise, such as ATMs.
 
2014-08-21 01:09:15 PM  

Jument: "Hey baby, wanna fark?"


Just $5 a month.
 
2014-08-21 01:09:47 PM  

The Irresponsible Captain: Cars are going to drive themselves soon. Most of these "innovations" are just social engineering to get us used to that idea.

Self-driving cars can't come soon enough, but it's going to freak out municipalities that depend on fines for income.


They'll find a way.  Corporations and government agencies  NEVER, ever, ever scale back, tighten their belts or reduce egregious wage / salary payments.  They just tap a new vein, get some new laws written and "MOAR".  It's part of the reason we're under the rule of a government that's kiting checks against 17 trillion in bad debt and the corporations that own it are buying small countries.
 
2014-08-21 01:11:54 PM  
The fun part: When some hacker manages to crack 10,000,000 cars simultaneously, overrides flash with gibberish, and runs his own program, "Malachi_Crunch.exe", and 10,000,000 cars floor the pedal and center on the yellow lines after about 10 seconds.
 
2014-08-21 01:14:09 PM  
This is a good thing you farking morans. This will facilitate the Google car and make driving safer. You be able to drink and drive safely.
 
2014-08-21 01:19:44 PM  

HAMMERTOE: The fun part: When some hacker manages to crack 10,000,000 cars simultaneously, overrides flash with gibberish, and runs his own program, "Malachi_Crunch.exe", and 10,000,000 cars floor the pedal and center on the yellow lines after about 10 seconds.


That is a long-solved problem.

People have a tendency to forget that their laptop is not the standard by which all computers and software are manufactured. Most of the security problems experienced by general purpose computers do not apply to special-purpose computers because the cost of hardening special-purpose computers is worth undertaking and because they can be specifically designed to limit the scope of changes that can occur to their code.

Your computer is easy to hack because it needs to do lots of completely different things very easily so it's designed to run just about anything that you can get on it with very few checks on where it came from, who put it there or what it actually does. Your car's central control units? Not so much.

Well... in theory, anyway. Whether any individual manufacturer actually follows a sensible development plan is another story, but, then, is that really fundamentally different than them selling a car that the wheel falls off of at high speed because of an error on the assembly line?
 
2014-08-21 01:23:39 PM  

skozlaw: People have a tendency to forget that their laptop is not the standard by which all computers and software are manufactured. Most of the security problems experienced by general purpose computers do not apply to special-purpose computers because the cost of hardening special-purpose computers is worth undertaking and because they can be specifically designed to limit the scope of changes that can occur to their code.

Your computer is easy to hack because it needs to do lots of completely different things very easily so it's designed to run just about anything that you can get on it with very few checks on where it came from, who put it there or what it actually does. Your car's central control units? Not so much.


Well, yeah.  But if you can deal with code at the assembler level and write an instruction set and get your hands on the back door of whatever these devices are running, you're in.  ~-~Nothing~-~ that comes down to 0 / 1 instruction sets is uncrackable.
 
2014-08-21 01:28:50 PM  

skozlaw: You're willing to sacrifice convenience, safety, comfort and efficiency for a bottom-dollar price. That's fine if that's your preference, but it doesn't make cars too expensive.


It does if all that stuff is mandated, or if you can't purchase a car without them because the manufacturers have decided that it's "standard" equipment.

"Too expensive" is a relative term anyway.  What adding all that stuff on does is make it more expensive for the people on the margins, those who can afford it the least.  So a person who might have looked at getting a bare-bones new economy car looks instead at getting a used car.  Or someone with a family who wanted a new 4 door mid-sized finds that they only thing they can afford is a 4 door compact.

You can't argue that adding features doesn't add cost, unless you think it's all free.

Take a look at two roughly similar cars:  The 1989 Geo Metro, and the 2014 Hyundai Accent.  They both fill the same automotive niche.   The Metro had an MSRP of  $5,995 in 1989, and the Accent has one of $14,645.  When you correct for inflation, that Metro would cost $11,523 today.

So you can assume that the mandatory safety improvements cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,000 extra in 2014 dollars.

They've also had a cost to the environment:  The Metro was much more efficient than the Accent, getting 51 MPG highway.  The Accent gets 38 MPG.  If you drive 12,000 miles in a year, in 5 years you'll have used up 403 more gallons of gas in the Accent than you would have in the Metro.

Now, I don't have emissions numbers to work with, but I'm willing to bet that the very fact that it burnt 34% less gas per mile means that the emissions were probably on par with what modern non-hybrid economy car emits despite their relative lack of emissions control gimcrackery.

Which, BTW, is a fun word to use.
 
2014-08-21 01:30:11 PM  

Madaynun: Jument: "Hey baby, wanna fark?"

Just $5 a month.


Totally.
 
2014-08-21 01:30:54 PM  

HAMMERTOE: The fun part: When some hacker manages to crack 10,000,000 cars simultaneously, overrides flash with gibberish, and runs his own program, "Malachi_Crunch.exe", and 10,000,000 cars floor the pedal and center on the yellow lines after about 10 seconds.


On a more benign level, I can imagine a hacker turning your car into a bitcoin miner. They've got all kinds of things mining bitcoins that have no business doing it. Your cable box could be mining at this very moment, really.
 
2014-08-21 01:34:39 PM  

TheGogmagog: Granted no one is sitting watching your movements. But get shot by a cop? We'll go through your history and find out why you deserved to be shot.


Because you thought his gun was an ornament?

clture.org
 
2014-08-21 01:44:30 PM  

dittybopper: So you can assume that the mandatory safety improvements cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,000 extra in 2014 dollars.


No, you can assume all the consumer-preferred goodies and much larger engine cost that much. An '89 Geo Metro got fantastic mileage because it had a 3-cylinder, 1.0-liter engine that got pushed 50 hp, plus hand-cranked windows, manual steering, 4-speed manual gearbox, no air conditioning, etc. The standard Hyundai Accent today has power everything, AC, cruise control, CD player, etc., and a 138-hp engine. You can't BUY the equivalent of a Geo Metro today, because people don't want cars that are that bare bones. The closest equivalent in '89 to a 2014 Accent would be a loaded Toyota Corolla, which cost about $15 grand then.
 
2014-08-21 01:46:38 PM  
For those  saying "I'll just drive an old car", do you really think the gov't is going to let you do that when (not if) the tech is implemented? They'll outlaw driving anything under a certain age, maybe you'll be able to get a special permit for antique cars (and the gov't will decide what constitutes "antique") to be driven only on special occasions.

/that includes your red Barchetta
//good luck eluding the Eyes
 
2014-08-21 01:54:48 PM  

skozlaw: Well... in theory, anyway. Whether any individual manufacturer actually follows a sensible development plan is another story, but, then, is that really fundamentally different than them selling a car that the wheel falls off of at high speed because of an error on the assembly line?


I can see the sense in that, but the programming is going to have to be written to accept modification. Not only for updates, but to manage different options and levels of performance in equipment as well as different operators.
 
2014-08-21 01:59:18 PM  
"Traffic is moving at 8mph. ALL of it. There is no secret fast lane. And you managed to get in front of me by cutting off that guy in the middle lane, and then swooping back in front of me, forcing me to slam my brakes. Congratulations. You're ahead of me. Now what?"


This seems to be a common problem. I've got some one ass raping my car because he wants to get by, but never stops to think that maybe *I'm* not moving any faster is because there is no where to go. The reason *I* don't pass the slow guy in front of me, is because there is a slow guy in front of *him* and so on. But this guy will swerve to the middle accelerate like crazy, only to find that I am now parallel to the guy in the middle lane, and then have to slow down and get back on my ass. he doesn't seem to realise that I'm not zipping around like he's trying to do, because I can see by the time I get around the guy in front of me, the gap ahead will have already closed.
 
2014-08-21 02:12:17 PM  

Tobin_Lam: Higher-end cars are already incorporating those features. Infiniti makes a car that automatically brakes when when a car in front of you brakes, and it doesn't even have to be the one directly in front of you. It can also detect the car in front of that one.


So... A sensor that sees the color red?
 
2014-08-21 02:13:46 PM  
Back around 1974 I'd have found this fascinating, interesting and been excited over it. It would have been an indicator that we were getting closer to the fascinating universe I had read about -- especially in books by Sci-Fi writer Larry Niven.

Today the first things that cross my mind are A) what 'secret' information will such systems gather on drivers, B) how long before someone manages to hack them for whatever reason, C) will some form of GPS program be hidden in the technology for use by law enforcement and D) how many thousands of dollars is this going to increase the price of a car.

I mean, weekly, we're discovering 'hidden' programs in cells and computers that gather and store information on us, car thieves have developed electronic keys to break into high end cars with 'secure' electronic security systems and we've all read the articles about how hackers use baby monitors to check out your home for possible robbing. The same with previously secure wireless security cameras.
We already know about the high end cars which, if stolen, can be tracked by the cops and have their engines shut off by remote control.

Decades ago, police radar guns wound up generating radar detectors, when they switched to laser, out came laser detectors. Around the same time, laser pointers popped up and within a few years or so, morons made them more powerful and started shining them into the cockpits of landing airliners as a 'joke'.

Now, a Mom developed an 'app' for cells, which, when your kids ignore your texts, you can shut their phone off. It also lets you know when they're trying to get it working again.

I had never expected people to so quickly develop ways to corrupt the technology. Nor did I expect TV programs to pop up as expose's (SP) telling everyone how to hack into things such as wireless spots, wireless security systems and baby monitors.
 
2014-08-21 02:17:10 PM  
PS: I'm old. My first computer was hand cranked.
 
2014-08-21 02:18:59 PM  

Rik01: I had never expected people to so quickly develop ways to corrupt the technology


When you dump your entire economy into something that just creates simulacrums from data and sends and receives them, you run out of stuff to do pretty quickly.  Computer data security is like the war on drugs.  It moves too much  money around to actually address the problem of the malicious people who make it necessary.
 
2014-08-21 02:19:40 PM  

fredklein: Tobin_Lam: Higher-end cars are already incorporating those features. Infiniti makes a car that automatically brakes when when a car in front of you brakes, and it doesn't even have to be the one directly in front of you. It can also detect the car in front of that one.

So... A sensor that sees the color red?


Better. It can tell that the car in front of the car in front of you is panic braking and put on the brakes before the car in front of you has even reacted. Kind of like have x-ray vision.
 
2014-08-21 02:20:13 PM  

MythDragon: "Traffic is moving at 8mph. ALL of it. There is no secret fast lane. And you managed to get in front of me by cutting off that guy in the middle lane, and then swooping back in front of me, forcing me to slam my brakes. Congratulations. You're ahead of me. Now what?"


This seems to be a common problem. I've got some one ass raping my car because he wants to get by, but never stops to think that maybe *I'm* not moving any faster is because there is no where to go. The reason *I* don't pass the slow guy in front of me, is because there is a slow guy in front of *him* and so on. But this guy will swerve to the middle accelerate like crazy, only to find that I am now parallel to the guy in the middle lane, and then have to slow down and get back on my ass. he doesn't seem to realise that I'm not zipping around like he's trying to do, because I can see by the time I get around the guy in front of me, the gap ahead will have already closed.



STOP ALLOWING A GAP! If you and 40 other assholes all drive 6 car lengths behind the car in front of you, at varying intevals along the road, it slows EVERYBODY. Maybe if you were traveling behind at a safe distance and reasonable speed, we'd ALL be able to get past whatever is slowing us down ahead without our speed being reduced to a crawl.

Extra points for the dickheads who think traffic is the perfect time to update their Facebook statuses. Nothing like finally getting past him/her only to find out that the reason they're driving 6 car lengths back is that they want to give themselves enough space to text without rear ending someone.
 
2014-08-21 02:27:44 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: MythDragon: "Traffic is moving at 8mph. ALL of it. There is no secret fast lane. And you managed to get in front of me by cutting off that guy in the middle lane, and then swooping back in front of me, forcing me to slam my brakes. Congratulations. You're ahead of me. Now what?"


This seems to be a common problem. I've got some one ass raping my car because he wants to get by, but never stops to think that maybe *I'm* not moving any faster is because there is no where to go. The reason *I* don't pass the slow guy in front of me, is because there is a slow guy in front of *him* and so on. But this guy will swerve to the middle accelerate like crazy, only to find that I am now parallel to the guy in the middle lane, and then have to slow down and get back on my ass. he doesn't seem to realise that I'm not zipping around like he's trying to do, because I can see by the time I get around the guy in front of me, the gap ahead will have already closed.


STOP ALLOWING A GAP! If you and 40 other assholes all drive 6 car lengths behind the car in front of you, at varying intevals along the road, it slows EVERYBODY. Maybe if you were traveling behind at a safe distance and reasonable speed, we'd ALL be able to get past whatever is slowing us down ahead without our speed being reduced to a crawl.

Extra points for the dickheads who think traffic is the perfect time to update their Facebook statuses. Nothing like finally getting past him/her only to find out that the reason they're driving 6 car lengths back is that they want to give themselves enough space to text without rear ending someone.


Um, 6 car lengths is not unreasonable for highway traffic. The rule of thumb is one car length for every 10mph.
 
2014-08-21 02:34:18 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: STOP ALLOWING A GAP! If you and 40 other assholes all drive 6 car lengths behind the car in front of you, at varying intevals along the road, it slows EVERYBODY. Maybe if you were traveling behind at a safe distance and reasonable speed, we'd ALL be able to get past whatever is slowing us down ahead without our speed being reduced to a crawl.


Actually, maintaining large gaps is exactly how you break traffic waves. When everybody leaves enough gap that they can move at the constant, average speed, nobody has to hit their brakes when they encounter the back of the next wave and the pattern slowly distributes to the back and eventually "erases" it.

It's simply an applied example of normal distribution. The wave will grow, peak and then shrink away if everyone participates by creating the appropriate gaps.

Nobody actually does this, of course, because of the rule of "fark those guys behind me".
 
2014-08-21 02:35:19 PM  

fredklein: DROxINxTHExWIND: MythDragon: "Traffic is moving at 8mph. ALL of it. There is no secret fast lane. And you managed to get in front of me by cutting off that guy in the middle lane, and then swooping back in front of me, forcing me to slam my brakes. Congratulations. You're ahead of me. Now what?"


This seems to be a common problem. I've got some one ass raping my car because he wants to get by, but never stops to think that maybe *I'm* not moving any faster is because there is no where to go. The reason *I* don't pass the slow guy in front of me, is because there is a slow guy in front of *him* and so on. But this guy will swerve to the middle accelerate like crazy, only to find that I am now parallel to the guy in the middle lane, and then have to slow down and get back on my ass. he doesn't seem to realise that I'm not zipping around like he's trying to do, because I can see by the time I get around the guy in front of me, the gap ahead will have already closed.


STOP ALLOWING A GAP! If you and 40 other assholes all drive 6 car lengths behind the car in front of you, at varying intevals along the road, it slows EVERYBODY. Maybe if you were traveling behind at a safe distance and reasonable speed, we'd ALL be able to get past whatever is slowing us down ahead without our speed being reduced to a crawl.

Extra points for the dickheads who think traffic is the perfect time to update their Facebook statuses. Nothing like finally getting past him/her only to find out that the reason they're driving 6 car lengths back is that they want to give themselves enough space to text without rear ending someone.

Um, 6 car lengths is not unreasonable for highway traffic. The rule of thumb is one car length for every 10mph.



But, if you're only going 10mph...
 
2014-08-21 02:38:27 PM  

skozlaw: DROxINxTHExWIND: STOP ALLOWING A GAP! If you and 40 other assholes all drive 6 car lengths behind the car in front of you, at varying intevals along the road, it slows EVERYBODY. Maybe if you were traveling behind at a safe distance and reasonable speed, we'd ALL be able to get past whatever is slowing us down ahead without our speed being reduced to a crawl.

Actually, maintaining large gaps is exactly how you break traffic waves. When everybody leaves enough gap that they can move at the constant, average speed, nobody has to hit their brakes when they encounter the back of the next wave and the pattern slowly distributes to the back and eventually "erases" it.

It's simply an applied example of normal distribution. The wave will grow, peak and then shrink away if everyone participates by creating the appropriate gaps.

Nobody actually does this, of course, because of the rule of "fark those guys behind me".


When I get in slow traffic, I get behind the semis. I know that the acceleration is going to be slower but the braking is also easier. It really reduces the stress.
 
2014-08-21 02:45:18 PM  

captjc: I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, car-to-car communication would be great. The ability to propagate information about upcoming hazards and allow the car to act on them would be amazing. If the car in front steps on the brakes, in addition to the brake lights, a signal could be sent to the car in back to slow down. Signals in cars and road signs can set tell a car "here is the speed limit, don't go faster than this", allowing for automatically-adjusting cruise control. The possibilities are endless to the information being sent and how it is acted upon to make a smarter system.

However, as a person who designs systems for a living and has to think about all the ways a design can be defeated and/or abused, the potential for mayhem is really great. The only secure system is an entirely closed system. If a person with a laptop and a $200 Software Radio can theoretically cause crashes and pileups, than the system isn't worth it. You had better convince me that this can't be abused, even then I would probably tell you to stuff it. Any system that would be useful (i.e. control the car faster than a human) would have a huge potential for abuse. Because this is a system that would really only work if all cars on the road would support it, a system of this kind would need specs that are set in stone and would need to have legacy support for 20 years or more. I am more than sure an exploit would be found within 20 years, even it if would mean finding a junker (or a stolen car), ripping the radio out and sending signals to the black box.


I'm with you on this one.  I'm in the process of getting a Merc E350 with all of the self-driving toys on it.  Apparently it is capable of driving autonomously but the regulators won't allow it to do so.   On the dealer's car I was given to try for awhile, I learned to trust the systems...BUT I also learned the systems weren't to be trusted 100% either.   Case in point:  The car has no problem "seeing" motorcycles all around it...except directly in front of it if the motorcyclist is dead-center in the lane.   FWIW, the Merc  can read (visually via camera + OCR) speed limit signs and obey them.  It also is a closed system, so it'll happily keep doing its thing no matter what technological changes come down the pathway.    Imagine the nightmare of embedded car systems being  forced to upgrade to remain compatible with newer cars.  I'm sure the dealerships would love it, but it'd send a lot of cars to the scrapyard sooner, which would hurt the lower income brackets.

As an aside, a Dutchman researched drivers' behavior and roads and found something quite interesting -- the more  unsafe a road was perceived as, the more careful drivers were.   As an experiment they removed signs, barriers, and other things we in the USA are starting to see as necessary for safe driving.   Accidents went DOWN substantially.  For fun, try counting the # of signs you see in a mile on a local road, city road, highway.  EVERY sign counts because they're all taking your eyes off the car in front of you.   I've done this a few times and the numbers were amazingly high.

Also, all of these "improvements" on safety are going to end up being like football helmets have been -- people will become complacent and act more carelessly.  Another case in point:  For people who have back-up cameras, I've noticed they almost never turn around and physically look behind them when reversing.   The backup cameras may help you avoid the rare instance that a child is directly behind your bumper, but does NOT show you the cross-traffic (or child running behind the car) which is the accident more likely to happen.
 
2014-08-21 02:47:54 PM  

LazyMedia: dittybopper: So you can assume that the mandatory safety improvements cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,000 extra in 2014 dollars.

No, you can assume all the consumer-preferred goodies and much larger engine cost that much. An '89 Geo Metro got fantastic mileage because it had a 3-cylinder, 1.0-liter engine that got pushed 50 hp, plus hand-cranked windows, manual steering, 4-speed manual gearbox, no air conditioning, etc. The standard Hyundai Accent today has power everything, AC, cruise control, CD player, etc., and a 138-hp engine. You can't BUY the equivalent of a Geo Metro today, because people don't want cars that are that bare bones. The closest equivalent in '89 to a 2014 Accent would be a loaded Toyota Corolla, which cost about $15 grand then.


You know what, you're right.

I bought a 2010 Hyundai Accent about, well, 4 years ago.  It wasn't even the dirt cheap no AC manual transmission "Blue" model, and it has manual roll-up windows, and didn't have a radio or tilt-steering or height adjusting seats.

Now, the *BASE* model comes with power windows, tilt-wheel steering, AC is standard, and so is the AM/FM/CD/SiriusXM/MP3/WTF/BBQ sound system with 6 speakers.

I paid about $11,500 for mine back in 2010, so an equivalent car would cost $12,570 today.

So the extra $2,000 is the cost of that extra gimcrackery that I could have gotten prior but opted not to because I wasn't going to use it or didn't think I needed it.

Guess when it's time to replace the hedgehog, I'll have to shop around.  Too bad.  Hyundai got me as a customer because they made good quality cars for less money.  Maybe a Chevy Spark next time for my commuter car.
 
2014-08-21 03:21:29 PM  

Rwa2play: I'm loving how the government wants to track cars but pays no farking attention that hackers can and would do worse if they hack the gov'ts servers.

Assholes.


Never mind the hackers.  I've been driving for 40 years and my car hasn't crashed once.  I've been using computers for 30 years and they've crashed more times than I can possibly count.  Why would I want a computer to be in charge of driving my car?
 
2014-08-21 03:24:21 PM  

Raoul Eaton: Rwa2play: I'm loving how the government wants to track cars but pays no farking attention that hackers can and would do worse if they hack the gov'ts servers.

Assholes.

Never mind the hackers.  I've been driving for 40 years and my car hasn't crashed once.  I've been using computers for 30 years and they've crashed more times than I can possibly count.  Why would I want a computer to be in charge of driving my car?


You already trust it with your engine.
 
2014-08-21 03:27:23 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: If you can get my 1974 F150 to text ...


I'd love to year what a 1974 F-150 would have to say, if it could text.  Oh wait.  I wouldn't.

///probably would go on and on about how Smokin' in the Boys Room was really a better song than The Joker....
 
2014-08-21 03:28:53 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: fark


Came for the Carlin reference, leaving satisfied.
 
2014-08-21 03:30:35 PM  

dittybopper: LazyMedia: dittybopper: So you can assume that the mandatory safety improvements cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,000 extra in 2014 dollars.

No, you can assume all the consumer-preferred goodies and much larger engine cost that much. An '89 Geo Metro got fantastic mileage because it had a 3-cylinder, 1.0-liter engine that got pushed 50 hp, plus hand-cranked windows, manual steering, 4-speed manual gearbox, no air conditioning, etc. The standard Hyundai Accent today has power everything, AC, cruise control, CD player, etc., and a 138-hp engine. You can't BUY the equivalent of a Geo Metro today, because people don't want cars that are that bare bones. The closest equivalent in '89 to a 2014 Accent would be a loaded Toyota Corolla, which cost about $15 grand then.

You know what, you're right.

I bought a 2010 Hyundai Accent about, well, 4 years ago.  It wasn't even the dirt cheap no AC manual transmission "Blue" model, and it has manual roll-up windows, and didn't have a radio or tilt-steering or height adjusting seats.

Now, the *BASE* model comes with power windows, tilt-wheel steering, AC is standard, and so is the AM/FM/CD/SiriusXM/MP3/WTF/BBQ sound system with 6 speakers.

I paid about $11,500 for mine back in 2010, so an equivalent car would cost $12,570 today.

So the extra $2,000 is the cost of that extra gimcrackery that I could have gotten prior but opted not to because I wasn't going to use it or didn't think I needed it.

Guess when it's time to replace the hedgehog, I'll have to shop around.  Too bad.  Hyundai got me as a customer because they made good quality cars for less money.  Maybe a Chevy Spark next time for my commuter car.


Have your sunvisors fallen off yet?  No snark -- mine did within a few months, both of them.
 
2014-08-21 03:33:44 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: MythDragon: "Traffic is moving at 8mph. ALL of it. There is no secret fast lane. And you managed to get in front of me by cutting off that guy in the middle lane, and then swooping back in front of me, forcing me to slam my brakes. Congratulations. You're ahead of me. Now what?"


This seems to be a common problem. I've got some one ass raping my car because he wants to get by, but never stops to think that maybe *I'm* not moving any faster is because there is no where to go. The reason *I* don't pass the slow guy in front of me, is because there is a slow guy in front of *him* and so on. But this guy will swerve to the middle accelerate like crazy, only to find that I am now parallel to the guy in the middle lane, and then have to slow down and get back on my ass. he doesn't seem to realise that I'm not zipping around like he's trying to do, because I can see by the time I get around the guy in front of me, the gap ahead will have already closed.


STOP ALLOWING A GAP! If you and 40 other assholes all drive 6 car lengths behind the car in front of you, at varying intevals along the road, it slows EVERYBODY. Maybe if you were traveling behind at a safe distance and reasonable speed, we'd ALL be able to get past whatever is slowing us down ahead without our speed being reduced to a crawl.

Extra points for the dickheads who think traffic is the perfect time to update their Facebook statuses. Nothing like finally getting past him/her only to find out that the reason they're driving 6 car lengths back is that they want to give themselves enough space to text without rear ending someone.


Well I like having *some* gap so I am not dicking the tailpipe of the guy in front of me. Not 6 car lengths, but I like to be far enough back that I can see his tires. (in slow and stop and go speeds) It's not leaving a small gap that's the problem. It's the guy who , much like gandbang porn, thinks every gap must be completely filled. If this guy sees you have so much as half a car length in front of you, is gonna do his damndest to get in to it. And it's usualy contagious, because people keep doing it. It doesn't get them any further ahead, it just pushes me back.
 
2014-08-21 03:37:27 PM  

Tobin_Lam: Raoul Eaton: Rwa2play: I'm loving how the government wants to track cars but pays no farking attention that hackers can and would do worse if they hack the gov'ts servers.

Assholes.

Never mind the hackers.  I've been driving for 40 years and my car hasn't crashed once.  I've been using computers for 30 years and they've crashed more times than I can possibly count.  Why would I want a computer to be in charge of driving my car?

You already trust it with your engine.


"Trust" would be overstating it.  I've had to spend more on malfunctioning OBC and other electronic stuff than on anything mechanical, not to mention the malfunctions that are so sporadic that no one can diagnose or fix them.  It's time for a "new" car soon, and I'm seriously considering looking around for a pre-digital vehicle just because of this kind of garbage.  Like, for instance, having my sunroof start randomly opening while I'm driving (in winter, 40 degrees F, in the rain) for two days and then never doing it again.  Or having interior lights suddenly refuse to turn off no matter what I do.  Or having the OBC just decide to shut the engine down for undiscernable reasons.  If the same level of quality design and workmanship went into a computer that actually made driving decisions, I'd be dead by now.
 
2014-08-21 03:40:35 PM  

MythDragon: DROxINxTHExWIND: MythDragon: "Traffic is moving at 8mph. ALL of it. There is no secret fast lane. And you managed to get in front of me by cutting off that guy in the middle lane, and then swooping back in front of me, forcing me to slam my brakes. Congratulations. You're ahead of me. Now what?"


This seems to be a common problem. I've got some one ass raping my car because he wants to get by, but never stops to think that maybe *I'm* not moving any faster is because there is no where to go. The reason *I* don't pass the slow guy in front of me, is because there is a slow guy in front of *him* and so on. But this guy will swerve to the middle accelerate like crazy, only to find that I am now parallel to the guy in the middle lane, and then have to slow down and get back on my ass. he doesn't seem to realise that I'm not zipping around like he's trying to do, because I can see by the time I get around the guy in front of me, the gap ahead will have already closed.


STOP ALLOWING A GAP! If you and 40 other assholes all drive 6 car lengths behind the car in front of you, at varying intevals along the road, it slows EVERYBODY. Maybe if you were traveling behind at a safe distance and reasonable speed, we'd ALL be able to get past whatever is slowing us down ahead without our speed being reduced to a crawl.

Extra points for the dickheads who think traffic is the perfect time to update their Facebook statuses. Nothing like finally getting past him/her only to find out that the reason they're driving 6 car lengths back is that they want to give themselves enough space to text without rear ending someone.

Well I like having *some* gap so I am not dicking the tailpipe of the guy in front of me. Not 6 car lengths, but I like to be far enough back that I can see his tires. (in slow and stop and go speeds) It's not leaving a small gap that's the problem. It's the guy who , much like gandbang porn, thinks every gap must be completely filled. If this guy sees you have so much ...


LOL. I agree with you just for this line, alone.

/I'll slow down
 
2014-08-21 04:35:37 PM  

Raoul Eaton: Tobin_Lam: Raoul Eaton: Rwa2play: I'm loving how the government wants to track cars but pays no farking attention that hackers can and would do worse if they hack the gov'ts servers.

Assholes.

Never mind the hackers.  I've been driving for 40 years and my car hasn't crashed once.  I've been using computers for 30 years and they've crashed more times than I can possibly count.  Why would I want a computer to be in charge of driving my car?

You already trust it with your engine.

"Trust" would be overstating it.  I've had to spend more on malfunctioning OBC and other electronic stuff than on anything mechanical, not to mention the malfunctions that are so sporadic that no one can diagnose or fix them.  It's time for a "new" car soon, and I'm seriously considering looking around for a pre-digital vehicle just because of this kind of garbage.  Like, for instance, having my sunroof start randomly opening while I'm driving (in winter, 40 degrees F, in the rain) for two days and then never doing it again.  Or having interior lights suddenly refuse to turn off no matter what I do.  Or having the OBC just decide to shut the engine down for undiscernable reasons.  If the same level of quality design and workmanship went into a computer that actually made driving decisions, I'd be dead by now.


Ok, maybe you don't trust your engine computer but I bet you trust everyone else's.
 
2014-08-21 05:24:11 PM  

Tobin_Lam: Raoul Eaton: Rwa2play: I'm loving how the government wants to track cars but pays no farking attention that hackers can and would do worse if they hack the gov'ts servers.

Assholes.

Never mind the hackers.  I've been driving for 40 years and my car hasn't crashed once.  I've been using computers for 30 years and they've crashed more times than I can possibly count.  Why would I want a computer to be in charge of driving my car?

You already trust it with your engine.


If the engine dies, I can still steer and brake.

All the engine controller does is basically replicate processes that were done mechanically before:  Replacing points in the ignition system, controlling fuel and air flow, things like that.

It's not driving the damned car, which is orders of magnitude harder, and more dangerous.
 
2014-08-21 06:55:31 PM  
Plan.

cnet3.cbsistatic.com

What will probably happen.

Yeah, I keed.
 
2014-08-21 06:56:50 PM  
Drat.

This was supposed to be there.

crazycrashes.files.wordpress.com

Preview.

Preview good.
 
Displayed 142 of 142 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report