Baumblog EST 1968 - A blog for the Baumbachs who originated in Syracuse, NY

Oh, btw, how many of you practice Spacial Awareness? That is, can you fit your car into the tiniest little spots, or do you always ensure you have lots and lots of room, since, well, you're only human?

Marc said about 2 hours later

In terms of safety, they probably should be. They could also go a lot faster if that were the case, however I would miss driving them, as it's always fun to feel the ponies kick in. But as I see more and more huge cars and less and less people paying attention, it makes me have to be all the more defensive while driving.

My solution: Give a complex driving test, and based on how high you score, you get upgraded to faster lanes. So the fast lane is reserved for people who can drive, the slow lane is for all the SUV drivers who manage to flip their vehicles on a sunny day.
GJ said about 5 hours later

Yeah, but most fatal accidents are not on highways.
Geoff said about 6 hours later

Just ban these HUGE freaking cars. Some of these trucks and SUV's are practically the width of a tractor trailer, with not nearly the experience behind them to drive it. These should require a truck driver's license for those puppies.

Auto Pilot would be good for some large highways (Thruway for example), and I'm sure this will be realized probably in our lifetime.
GJ said about 7 hours later

Autopilot is practically here for the highways--you can get early versions of it on the high-end cars now. However, again, highways is not where the carnage is occurring. It's local streets--specifically, intersections. Humans simply make mistakes, and a T-bone at 40mph is often fatal if you take it dead on.

No matter how big your car is, however, you should have spatial awareness down to an inch or so. I half wonder if this is tied to brain wiring, though--some are far better at it than others. I think I'm pretty good (can easy match tracks in the snow, and whiz through our local one-lane tunnel at high speed with no worries, but hearing about that guy in the editorial who did triple digits with two inches clearance is just insane.
Steve said about 8 hours later

What I'd like to see is cars with brains that don't affect control your driving unless they need to. They would need to communicate with traffic signals and signs. For example, you're coming up to a red light, but you haven't noticed yet. The car could know the distance from the red light, and apply the brakes forcefully if you haven't yet done so. It can also use radar from automatic cruise control to slow you down earlier if there are cars lined up at the intersection. It can monitor road conditions based on temperature to change the threshold that it activates (hit the brakes far earlier when it's 20 degrees with a chance of ice than when it's 70 degrees).

I'd also like that kind of a system to have an off switch. Not necessarily a simple switch, preferably a combination of things you have to do inside the car to disable it (with the right turn signal on, press traction control button 3 times, then honk the horn twice - something like that). That way only people that are "in the know" would know how to disable it.

To keep people in their lane, lane departure warnings are being developed. However, the roads need to be striped properly to make it work.

These things are coming, but don't expect them overnight. Most research money is being spent on improving fuel economy, improving customer satisfaction, etc. Expect to see most of these safety systems be developed by companies like Mercedes, and you'll see them first on the high end Mercedes S class vehicles. If they prove worthwile, they'll trickle down to cheaper cars eventually.

I'm amazed fuel prices haven't had more affect on what people drive. Apparently, people have way too much money to spend on fuel these days. I wonder how many foreclosures could have been avoided had the homeowner sold their truck and picked up a economical car.
Geoff said about 11 hours later

Well you can't really teach spatial awareness like you can teach someone to use their turn signal. You become better at it the more familiar you are with a car. Many of these accidents I imagine are a result of inexperienced drivers (either inexperience with the car, or first time driver, or both) or somebody distracted, which is becoming more of a problem with all these new gadgets to play with. I find the GPS systems to be very distracting. The video draws my attention on screen.

I think auto-pilot is only the real solution to these problems. Computers don't have feelings. They wouldn't decide to drive passively one day, and on a nice sunny day kick it into high gear (like me). I don't see auto-pilot becoming readily available anytime soon on highways, and no-where near in site for small roads. The best thing you can teach a driver is to master their own control to a science so they can actively focus their attention on other drivers.
Steve said about 12 hours later

One way we can work to improve the roads is to teach our children how to drive. First, it must be done by setting an example - so don't talk on your cell phone while driving, don't tailgate, don't drive aggressively. Basically, just drive how you would want your kids to drive.

Second, teach your kids about cars. They don't need to be experts, but they need to know how to handle emergency situations, and how the car can help them avoid accidents. I highly recommend sending your children to a driving school where they can push the limits of the car in braking and moderate speed limit handling. Teen driving schools are starting to pop up everywhere. I've taught one for Chrysler, and I was amazed how little these teens knew about their cars capabilities. They don't realize how hard they can hit the brakes, or how to use the ABS to stop the car as quickly as possible. They don't understand skid recovery, and have not trained their mind and muscles on how to react to a car sliding.

The SCCA, BMW Car Club of America, and the Tire Rack is taking a big step to promote teen driving schools. We're going to try to host a couple schools in Detroit this year. This is a nationwide thing. Visit www.streetsurvival.org to learn more about these schools. Hopefully, as we, and all other regions of the SCCA, get better at organizing and teaching these schools, we can have them more often. This will be the first full fledged year the SCCA offers these schools. The long term goal is that the teens we are teaching will eventually have kids, and understand how important it is to teach their kids how to drive cars.

Also, for any kids that show a tendancy towards aggressive driving, I'd highly recommend their parents allow them to attend and participate in SCCA Solo (autocross) events. These events are not only fun, but they teach car contol, offer a place to drive aggressively, etc. It's a great way for anyone to safely learn how to handle a car at speed, have fun, and make new friends.

Geoff said 31 minutes later

We don't need to worry, YouTube was invented so now we can watch BBC in Europe for free! Sucks to be British though. :)

GJ said about 5 hours later

When I can watch CBC live, I'll be happy.

Steve said 1 day later

Are you kidding me? We already are heavily taxed for cable TV. It's only the public stations that we personally aren't taxed for. I don't think there are many people like myself without cable TV right now, though that number seems to be growing with the advent of video on the internet and cable prices rising while satisfaction decreases.

GJ said 1 day later

TV tax in England is about $200 / yr / TV. How much are you paying in tax right now for TV? As for not being taxed on the public stations--please explain. You're not taxed on any stations, you're taxed on the delivery of the signal to your house (by cable or dish). Getting a signal by an antenna or dish without a provided package is both free and untaxed, though depending on what you're receiving, it may be illegal (like decrypting and using Direct TV's feed).

Steve said 3 days later

As I said, I don't have cable TV, so I don't pay any taxes on my TV service. And no, we don't get taxed anywhere's near what they do in the UK.

On that topic, what right does the government have to tax you for TV use? They can and should tax on the service (STATE sales tax), and if you are using any government supplied things (satellites, etc), some tax should be applied to pay for those things, but in no way should TV be a tax revenue source. Nothing should be.

GJ said 3 days later

That's the view of someone who thinks there are no good uses for taxes. ;)

Of course, wait, we do get channels like BBC here in the states. They're called HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, TMC, etc. And their original shows are far better than what's on cable or the networks, since *we* pay them. No sponsors, not much government control, just good old TV. What I'm saying is, I'd pay for a channel that was more than just a movie channel with original programming. I'll put $10-20 a month into a channel that delivers what a network should: news, original programming, sports, and like, all with just the influence of its own subscribers.

Also--the concept of rights in regard to taxes is kind of funny. The government can tax us on whatever the hell it wants to tax us on. If we don't take to it, we vote the jerks out and put new jerks in place to revoke that tax (and screw up some other part of the government).

Geoff said 3 days later

that last part is so true...

What I'm trying to say is the government should not be taxing something just because it feels like taxing someone for it. Gas taxes, for example, should be used to repair and maintain roads, and may asso be used to fund research for alternative energy motor vehicles. Gas taxes should not be used to pay medicare expenses or to build schools. Income taxes should be used to pay for all of the public service goverment backed initiatives, not taxes on TV, Gas, etc.

GJ said 4 days later

Taxes are taxes are taxes. Whether it's a sales tax or an income tax or a fee, it's still a source of income for the government. Who cares whether a tax on gas pays for roads, or pays for the space shuttle? More important is what the government is actually spending money on in the first place, no?

Steve said 4 days later

Are you kidding me? Let's talk taxes on fuel. If I drive 30,000 miles per year, and you drive 10,000 miles per year, and we get the same fuel economy out of our cars, I pay 3 times as much gas tax as you. Given that, how could it be fair that I am forced to contribute 3 times as much as you to the space shuttle development? That would be an unfair tax. However, I do think it is fair that since I use the public roads 3 times as much as you, that I pay 3 times as much to maintain and build new roads.

GJ said 5 days later

Using that logic, then childless people shouldn't pay school tax. Or am I missing something?