General Chat / The Automobile

This has been dwelling in my mind for months and I finally decided to put it to paper, so to speak. As a background, I don't drive. Well, I like to believe I don't, and if my mom didn't request me to, I wouldn't.

Cars are poorly designed; from essentially every perspective. It is not my intent to argue about their environmental degeneracies, it is my intent to argue about the safety of the automobile. Right from the outset, all those advertisements claiming five-star safety ratings, it's insane. Do any of you see a problem with with the fact that cars are designed withstand impacts? How is anything that is designed to withstand impacts considered safe? What kind of backwards thinking is that? Why not design a car that doesn't crash? That would be a safe design. This is why buses don't have seat-belts. They aren't designed to get into crashes, they and the drivers are designed/trained to avoid collisions. You don't need a seat-belt because you'll never use it. Bus drivers don't talk on their cell phones, they don't put on make-up or listen to the radio while driving; they are professional drivers who's utmost concern is the safety of riders and surrounding people/objects (cars, pedestrians). Do trains and planes go through crash tests? No. They are designed to work all the time, the first time, correctly, without incident.

So, what is the problem with cars? Well, they are designed to get into crashes. Why? Because no one has thought of anything better. People are distracted with thoughts, radio, cell phones, conversations, drinks, drugs and a multitude of other things. What many drivers don't realize is that they may very well be concerned with their own well being, but they also control the well being of others. The question then becomes, what do you intend to to about it. Me, nothing; aside from not driving which may very well be some sort of silent rebellion. My only suggestion is to remove the factor that causes crashes, people. The whole point of the car is to offer independence. I can accept that and this doesn't need to be taken away. But what about a computer that tracks the location and speed of all the cars out there and and stops them when it expects a collision; much like many theme park attractions or driverless train systems in the world do. In Vancouver, we have the Skytrain which is an elevated, driverless rapid transit system. During rush hour, trains run at 40 second headways. If there is a back up at a station, the train doesn't crash into the train waiting in the station, it stops about 50' from the train and waits until it is cleared to move forward.

I can guarantee you that I will never buy a car that flaunts any number of airbags and any kind of impact resistant rating. I looked up a statistic that states in America, every 14 seconds a person is injured in a car accident. So in the time it took me to write this, over 170 people have been injured, in America alone (Roughly 5% of the world's population). How many planes, trains or buses crashed in this time? Well, we can all check the news tomorrow.

Interesting philosophy. The way I see it, while this is plausible, technology is way too far behind the needs of modern society to resolve this problem anytime soon. The same reason gas prices are the way they are; man has no viable solution based on what technology can offer today.

...buy a motorcycle...

I haven't left the house in 7 years....

Home is safest

To be honest i couldnt disagree more with you. While I'll admit that cars are designed to provide the best safety in crashes rather than to avoid crashes, this is because of the fact that cars are not mandatory. One can take a bus, train, etc as you stated and they will know they won't crash. But when one decides to drive, they're putting their fate into their own hands, which is just as well. And while car accidents do happen much too often, if we were to be so concerned with an accident occuring every 14 seconds in the US as to not drive, we might as well not do anything with a high risk of injury or accident. And in this light, we would not be where we are today technologically, since no one would take the risk required to invent certain great things such as the light bulb. All in all, the whole car-driving issue is just a matter of peronal preference though. There are so many variables involved in wether one choses to drive often or not at all (reliance/necessity, cost, risk, polltion, etc.) that wether you choose to drive or not, you are gonna be justified in some way. Because of this, I fully understand where you are coming from, I just strongly disagree due to the variables affecting me as far as driving is concerned.

Here's the problem with computer based cars. A train/monorail/peoplemover is on a track. The computer on a train only worries about the train in front of it and possibly as an extra measure, the one behind it. That's one way of movement and two other vehicles. A plane is not fully automated as of yet. But while they operate on autopilot they are in the air. So while there may be any number of other aircraft in any direction, a plane can move in any direction. With the specifics of flight still being the control of a pilot.

A car is sort of inbetween the movements of a train and a plane. A car has a road that it must follow, so its movement is limited, but not to the degree of a train. A car also has other cars surrounding it. So while it could be considered to be on a weak track, it has many more obsticles surrounding it. A car has neither the limits of a train or the freedom of a plain. The system required to controll all of this would have to be expansive.

I wouldn't say buses are designed not to get into crashes either. Who would win between a bus and a personal car? I'd put my money on the bus. Buses also do not tend to operate on highways, but much slower moving urban streets. The vehicle I think that truely needs some rethinking is the tractor trailer. While there are two vehicle buses, the rear vehicle still has two axils. The limited sight and axil configuration of the tractor trailer still makes me nervous out on the highways.

Americans are also horrible drivers.

Edited by lazyboy97O, 31 May 2006 - 11:23 PM.

1. Your problem has less to do with cars and more to do with drivers. It's the drivers that are idiots and result in crashes 99% of the time. The remaining 1% I honestly attribute to fluke.

2. Autodrive WOULD be the idea... but that's at least ten years away and more realistically, a couple of generations away. Plus, what would happen if the system failed and everyone switched to manual? Would people who have been accustomed to being driven be able to handle such an "emergency?"



I maintain that the key lies in smart drivers, not smart cars. However, I wouldn't mind having smart cars controlled on a system--if they can guarantee that the system will never fail. Because if it did... oh man. That would be like the worst day ever.

fyi planes do have crash tests just not as many as cars and most of the time occur a year or so after the plane has actually been in production. here are some videos of such crash tests.

http://lava.larc.nas...SE/crashes.html

just some info from a wannabe aerospace engineer. but on topic its the crappy drivers not the cars if every country had a test like germany's i think we all would be fine.

Edited by chapelz, 31 May 2006 - 11:36 PM.

Bus drivers don't talk on their cell phones, they don't put on make-up or listen to the radio while driving; they are professional drivers who's utmost concern is the safety of riders and surrounding people/objects (cars, pedestrians).

Clearly you've never been to Boston.

chapelz - don't forget Germany is also home to the autobahn...

^ Yes, mantis they do indeed have the autobahn however mile for mile the autobahn is far safer than the american expressway system (in terms of miles per deaths or injury) and there's a hell of a lot more miles in the american interstate.

I find driving on most interstates very involving, far more so than most normal roads or even some city streets over here. I'd say more but I'm at school and g2g

EDIT:
As I was saying the driving environment over here, or at least from what I've seen, is far worse. The american philosophy with cars seems to be "to get from point "A" to point "B" and get as much other shit done as posible in the process" Vs. the understanding in Germany that driving is an activity on its own dammit! Up until about 10 years ago it's to my understanding that German auto makers couldn't understand why you'd need a cupholder in a car, or even want one at that (unless it was the back seat of a limo).

Personally I distract myself only a little behind the wheel. I've only eaten once while driving (which I regret even though nothing happened) and generally my only distractions are listening to music (which seems to have little or no effect) and talking with other people in the car. It's proven that cell phones are worse than doing both of those things while playing with the climate controls as far as a loss of attention. Statistically I should've crashed or at least been ticked by now (I came close to getting a ticket, once, because we were shooting video and kept driving by the same places over and over which made people feel unsafe or something) but I haven't either. For being a young "risky" driver I've avoided at least a half-dozen accidents in which an "experienced" adult on a cell phone, yelling at their kid, putting on their make up or whatever nearly hit me and would've been at fault.

I agree that Americans, as a generalization, drive like ass holes. Maybe that's better for me to some extent, I doubt I would've gotten my licence first try if the standards were much tighter (on speed, I'm really good about everything else or so the instructor told me).

I too which I could avoid driving, I really do, but cars are really the only usible means of transport in my area (Southwest Michigan) because the bus routes are only in town and there's no other from of mass transport to speak of (except for school busses I guess). And don't tell me to just walk because walking 5 miles to and from school everyday would take far too long and in the winter and (early/late) summer be far too unpleasent/ unsafe (freeze bite, heat stroke, etc).

Anyway Thom Yorke shares you're hang up about cars. I do and and I don't. I enjoy driving and I esspecially like the amount of freedom it provides however I realize that using those as justification to the auto is selfish and destructive so for now I simply believe that unless you're in a heavily-developed urban area cars are a nessisary evil.

Ride6

Cars are cool and get you places fast! Plus im having my driving test soon.

... yeah, thats about as philosophical as i get.

-X-

This has been dwelling in my mind for months and I finally decided to put it to paper, so to speak. As a background, I don't drive. Well, I like to believe I don't, and if my mom didn't request me to, I wouldn't.

Cars are poorly designed; from essentially every perspective. It is not my intent to argue about their environmental degeneracies, it is my intent to argue about the safety of the automobile. Right from the outset, all those advertisements claiming five-star safety ratings, it's insane. Do any of you see a problem with with the fact that cars are designed withstand impacts? How is anything that is designed to withstand impacts considered safe? What kind of backwards thinking is that? Why not design a car that doesn't crash? That would be a safe design. This is why buses don't have seat-belts. They aren't designed to get into crashes, they and the drivers are designed/trained to avoid collisions. You don't need a seat-belt because you'll never use it. Bus drivers don't talk on their cell phones, they don't put on make-up or listen to the radio while driving; they are professional drivers who's utmost concern is the safety of riders and surrounding people/objects (cars, pedestrians). Do trains and planes go through crash tests? No. They are designed to work all the time, the first time, correctly, without incident.

So, what is the problem with cars? Well, they are designed to get into crashes. Why? Because no one has thought of anything better. People are distracted with thoughts, radio, cell phones, conversations, drinks, drugs and a multitude of other things. What many drivers don't realize is that they may very well be concerned with their own well being, but they also control the well being of others. The question then becomes, what do you intend to to about it. Me, nothing; aside from not driving which may very well be some sort of silent rebellion. My only suggestion is to remove the factor that causes crashes, people. The whole point of the car is to offer independence. I can accept that and this doesn't need to be taken away. But what about a computer that tracks the location and speed of all the cars out there and and stops them when it expects a collision; much like many theme park attractions or driverless train systems in the world do. In Vancouver, we have the Skytrain which is an elevated, driverless rapid transit system. During rush hour, trains run at 40 second headways. If there is a back up at a station, the train doesn't crash into the train waiting in the station, it stops about 50' from the train and waits until it is cleared to move forward.

I can guarantee you that I will never buy a car that flaunts any number of airbags and any kind of impact resistant rating. I looked up a statistic that states in America, every 14 seconds a person is injured in a car accident. So in the time it took me to write this, over 170 people have been injured, in America alone (Roughly 5% of the world's population). How many planes, trains or buses crashed in this time? Well, we can all check the news tomorrow.

Wow, Anyone who rants on about cars is considered stupid and dumb, Cars are designed with saftey in mind with better design, airbags, and highly reinforced steel, Cars are our main mode for transportation, But since you don't like cars or don't know how to operate a car. Here's an alternitive, Instead of walking miles to get to a destination, Why not get your very own Horse, It's safer, has better design, More controllable, Has 4 legs and is a powerhouse, It'll cost you $1,000,000 dollars to own your very own horse, Cause you'll be pulled over for tickets, fines and beatings, (You'll be broke within seconds), But hey, It's not a car, And you don't care if it's not a car cause you'll be happy with what you choose as long as it's not a car.

I think you get dumber with every post.

Cork, how many votes would it take to get SU182 banned?
He manages to fuck up every thread he posts in.

Wow, Anyone who rants on about cars is considered stupid and dumb, Cars are designed with saftey in mind with better design, airbags, and highly reinforced steel, Cars are our main mode for transportation, But since you don't like cars or don't know how to operate a car. Here's an alternitive, Instead of walking miles to get to a destination, Why not get your very own Horse, It's safer, has better design, More controllable, Has 4 legs and is a powerhouse, It'll cost you $1,000,000 dollars to own your very own horse, Cause you'll be pulled over for tickets, fines and beatings, (You'll be broke within seconds), But hey, It's not a car, And you don't care if it's not a car cause you'll be happy with what you choose as long as it's not a car.

Isn't Texas trying to raise the speed limit to 80 or something?

yes and with all the horrible indian, asian, and mexican drivers im sure its going to lead to many deaths if passed and do not be fooled mexicans are perhaps the worst drivers ever

^ are you for real?
SU182, stfu.

yes and with all the horrible indian, asian, and mexican drivers im sure its going to lead to many deaths if passed and do not be fooled mexicans are perhaps the worst drivers ever

Driving fast isn't what kills people. People who force others to avoid them are the ones who cause problems (driving under the flow of traffic, not using a turn signal properly, it doesn't count afterwards!)

natelox, its obvious that you don't live in a rual setting where it would be more practical to argue against public transportation than against cars.

that is all i have to say.