Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal regulators and the auto industry are taking a more lenient approach than safety advocates like when it comes to phasing in automatic braking systems for passenger cars, according to records of their private negotiations.
The technology automatically applies brakes to prevent or mitigate collisions, rather than waiting for the driver to act. It's the most important safety technology available today that's not already required in cars.
Such systems should be standard in all new cars, says the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. But instead of mandating it, the government is trying to work out a voluntary agreement with automakers in hopes of getting it in cars more quickly.
But safety advocates say voluntary agreements aren't enforceable and are likely to contain weaker standards and longer timelines than if the government had issued rules.
"Consumers are going to come up the losers in this process," said Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety.
But not for the reason Ditlow states. Instead, we lose due to the overwhelming force with which the feds exercise their 'divine right as members of the ruling class.' IOW, they who MUST be obeyed, know better than we what's best for us, and will use the force of a hammer on us stupid nails.
...
Quote:
"This is what happens when you start negotiating with the auto industry," said Joan Claybrook, a safety advocate and NHTSA's administrator during the Carter administration.
Perfect example. Claybrook hails from the Carter Admin?? A fossilized BB unable to quit? To lay down The Hammer because it just feels so good to wield? It would appear that like Nutty-Nater, Claybrook feels that cars are STILL "Unsafe At ANY Speed", despite all the improvements to date. Whatever happened to 5mph bumpers, Joan? Power is indeed addicting, right Joan?
...
Quote:
Mark Rosekind, NHTSA's administrator, has said the federal rule-making process is so cumbersome and time-consuming that a voluntary agreement is likely to get the technology into all cars faster. He said regulations remain an option.
FINALLY, a beaurecrat who accurately understands the very process....
...
"Regulations can be too rigid when technology like this is changing quickly," said Russ Rader, a spokesman for insurance institute. "A complicated regulation could make it more difficult for the automakers and their suppliers to continue to develop the systems."
NHTSA expects that any voluntary agreement will include a mechanism for the government and the public to monitor automakers' compliance with it, said Gordon Trowbridge, a spokesman for the agency.
...
Automatic braking is already available in dozens of car models, but typically as a pricey option on higher-end vehicles. Subaru offers it on the Impreza sedan, for example, as part of a $2,895 safety package.
Quote:
Claybrook acknowledged that federal rule-making is too slow, largely because of White House insistence on elaborate cost-benefit analyses of potential safety rules.
Yet what Claybrook wants is just that: Fed. rule-making. Enforcement. She wants The Hammer. WE MUST NOT DELAY! THE MOVEMENT MUST PROGRESS. PROGRESS DEMANDS SACRIFICE. THE TIME FOR ACTION IS NOW! Sound familiar? The screaming-class continue to demand to be heard...to be obeyed. I wonder if it's ever occured to Claybrook that she's part of the very problem she rants about? Probably not...that would require introspection and thought, rather than screaming. "Me thinks she protesth too much".
...
Quote:
There are about 1.7 million rear-end crashes a year in the U.S., killing more than 200 people, injuring 400,000 others and costing about $47 billion annually. More than half of those crashes could be avoided or mitigated by automatic braking or systems that warn drivers of an impending collision, NHTSA estimated.
Govn't always uses such blind statistics to support their own claims, and further believes that MANDATES & EXECUTIVE ORDERS have the POWER to DO SOMETHING. Further, a long record of the resulting unintended consequences of their own myopic vision, coupled with their insistent, FORWARD-ness, brash action has led to an increase in the very problem they initially wished to solve. Case in point: "Costing $47 BILLION annually." They're surprised by this and even use it as a rationalle to justify further ACTION! Oblivious to the fact that as you add more and more and more complexity to an automobile, the cost of such auto will necessarily sky-rocket, as will the cost of repairs, the cost to insure, and the cost to own. Further, such four-wheeled-CEL's will quickly come to the point of being too expensive to repair, due to their rapidly declining value (and you thought a boat was bad....). Don't forget the "sky-rocketing" cost of medical care either. Accident victims usually go straight to the ER.
Since this is an article about auto-braking, then given the above numbers, did 200 people die in the car that hit another vehicle in front? Why didn't the air-bags save their life? No doubt they saved many lives, but look at the number of injuries in comparison. Why did they rear-end the car in front in the first place? Were they cut off, or txtng or talking? The air bags alone will usually injure the very occupant they're designed to protect. It may save their life, but the odds are great they'll be injured in the process. If they're a BB, born in the mid-40's, the air bags can even be lethal.
I have a personal note to add here. My recent experience where someone pulled right out in front of me when I was doing the speed limit of 60mph, and didn't bother to accelerate. There was a car to my right, and one behind. I could have slammed on my own brakes, but doubt I would have stopped in time, further would the guy behind me in the SUV have been able to stop in time to prevent rear-ending me? What about the one behind him? How would an auto-brake vehicle handle this situation? My option was to swerve left into the grassy median, around the idiot in front, pass him, and re-enter the road in front of him. After all, 60mph is about 88 ft/sec. so in two seconds I'd traveled more than half a football field. In this case, using the steering wheel made more sense than using the brakes. Would an auto-steering car do this? Would it allow me to do this maneuver, if so equiped? You can read more details in the original post.
These "safety advocates" strike me as a bunch of scared, insecure chicken-littles. Or perhaps headless chickens running about, running into things, CLUCKING loudly as they go. Further, they're control freaks unable to control themselves, who've managed to wedge themselves into regulatory authorities and govn't, endlessly screaming SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ABOUT THIS! SAFETY IS OUR TOP CONCERN! WE WILL NOT BE SATISIFIED UNTIL THERE ARE NO DEATHS! THE SAFETY MOVEMENT MUST PROGRESS AUTHORITATIVELY! PROGRESS DEMANDS SACRIFICE! Just WHEN will these reactionary, wind-bag extremists run out of their own wind, shut-up, retire and leave the rest of us alone?
Finally, I wonder if Claybrook has looked at the latest death tolls from the common flu, much less cancer, and heart disease.
[/rant]
