I wish they wouldn't show things like this-

[Omega Man]

It seems bad enough that ads have a disclaimer with "professional driver", "closed course", "do not attempt".......and by the way, if we catch you driving your vehicle the way we portrayed it in the sales ad- "warranty void".

I just saw this-

And as the prosecutor asks the driver, "what were you doing just before the fatal crash"?

"playing patty cake of course".



OM

 

[TracerBullet]

Agreed. Just wrong. We are not there yet

 

[akbeemer]

Irresponsible, indeed. I'd wager a dollar to a donut that the owner's manual says something like, It is the operator's responsibility to ensure the vehicle is kept under their control at all times.

Some people will become quite wealthy when their loved ones die because this tech failed.

 

[pauls1150]

Very irresponsible, but it will appeal to the drones.

 

[fmdualexhaust]

I have no words.

 

[52184]

Some people will become quite wealthy when their loved ones die because this tech failed.

Maybe so, but at what the corporations will consider a pittance to just be factored into the “cost of doing business”. Big Tobacco took their hit then just changed corporate naming and is back bigger than ever. Big Pharma got their wrist slapped but is still on the way to record profits. It’s pretty easy today to carve off part of a business structure, assign it all the assets/products that carry liability, then declare it bankrupt and allow the main entity to continue business as usual. Or, to just slap on new naming and logos and leave public memory and concern in the rear view mirror.

In a perfect world we could count upon some agency or market force to guarantee such new technologies would be as infallible as we are, but then…we aren’t all that infallible, are we?

Best,
DeVern

 

[pglaves]

Not to mention the infamous case of the Ford Motor Company cost-benefit analysis of the Ford Pinto gas tank fire fiasco. They determined and concluded it would be beneficial to the company to pay for any claims for death, injury, and destruction rather than to redesign and/or recall the cars. Corporate conscience at its finest.

 

[MCMXCIVRS]

Not to mention the infamous case of the Ford Motor Company cost-benefit analysis of the Ford Pinto gas tank fire fiasco. They determined and concluded it would be beneficial to the company to pay for any claims for death, injury, and destruction rather than to redesign and/or recall the cars. Corporate conscience at its finest.

The Ford Pinto was actually no worse in that regard than almost every other comparable sized car of the era. It just had the bad luck of being the one made infamous by a handful of incidents. Everyone forgets the same issue with General Motors pickup trucks in a side collision which actually was attributed to killing more people.

 

[pglaves]

The Ford Pinto was actually no worse in that regard than almost every other comparable sized car of the era. It just had the bad luck of being the one made infamous by a handful of incidents. Everyone forgets the same issue with General Motors pickup trucks in a side collision which actually was attributed to killing more people.

Which absolutely fails to excuse the Ford cost-benefit analysis which concluded it was cheaper to kill folks and pay the survivors than to fix the problem, and the corporation acting in accordance with the analysis. Such low regard for human life is inexcusable and in today's world, indictable.

 

[Omega Man]

Which absolutely fails to excuse the Ford cost-benefit analysis which concluded it was cheaper to kill folks and pay the survivors than to fix the problem, and the corporation acting in accordance with the analysis. Such low regard for human life is inexcusable and in today's world, indictable.

My understanding is that the Ford problem was figured out “down the road”, and with a mechanical design.
A bit different than encouraging purchasing a vehicle from a manufacturer because it is advertised that it has feature that takes distracted driving to a new level.
OM

 

[pglaves]

My understanding is that the Ford problem was figured out “down the road”, and with a mechanical design.
A bit different than encouraging purchasing a vehicle from a manufacturer because it is advertised that it has feature that takes distracted driving to a new level.
OM

Agreed. But my post #7 was in response to Devern's post #6.

 

[powwow]

Which absolutely fails to excuse the Ford cost-benefit analysis which concluded it was cheaper to kill folks and pay the survivors than to fix the problem, and the corporation acting in accordance with the analysis. Such low regard for human life is inexcusable and in today's world, indictable.

What's crazy is that Ford actually won that case. Classic example of winning a battle, but losing the (public relations) war.

 

[akbeemer]

My understanding is that the Ford problem was figured out “down the road”, and with a mechanical design.
A bit different than encouraging purchasing a vehicle from a manufacturer because it is advertised that it has feature that takes distracted driving to a new level.
OM

I thought the problem was fixed by all the Pintos rusting away before any fix could be applied.

 

[Paul911]

It seems bad enough that ads have a disclaimer with "professional driver", "closed course", "do not attempt".......and by the way, if we catch you driving your vehicle the way we portrayed it in the sales ad- "warranty void".

I just saw this-

And as the prosecutor asks the driver, "what were you doing just before the fatal crash"?

"playing patty cake of course".



OM

For a lot of people though, it's probably safer for everyone if the computer is driving the car.

 

[rick601]

At least he wasn't rolling a joint while steering with his knee...not that I'd know if that's even possible. The cool one, at least on my car, is the lane change...signal and it makes sure the lane is clear-including blind spot, makes the lane change and turns off the directional. But yeah...keep your hands on the wheel. What I found is all those nanny, auto features that I hated and swore I'd never get actually take some of the fatigue out of long drives; used properly, they add a dimension of safety especially for me as an older driver- a man;s gotta know his limitations. Cameras and radar help my parking (the older I get the further close seems! And the variable cruise control keeps my distance safe.

As far as the ad- I hold advertising and media news in about the same esteem- none.

 

[lee]

As far as the ad- I hold advertising and media news in about the same esteem- none.

I'm the same.

As for the ad, I'm not sure of a good way to advertise the GM Super Cruise option.
For me I would not use that option because I like to drive. I get bored in the passenger seat so I always drive when Debbie and I go somewhere in the car.
I also have the problem of not trusting the auto functions 100% .
My car has Lane Keep Assist and after several months of testing it I shut it off.
I could not trust it to function properly 100% of the time. The road markings had to be in very good condition for it to work.

 

[slowpokepete]

Progress is not.

SPP

 

[pglaves]

Me? I just wish the cruise hadn't quit in my truck.

 

[henzilla]

Aren’t we here?

I was in the minority last weekend in Big Bend area on my Vintage 2011GSA




https://www.bmwmotorcycles.com/en/engineering/technology-detail/comfort-ergonomics/acc.html

 

[drneo66]

The Ford Pinto was actually no worse in that regard than almost every other comparable sized car of the era. It just had the bad luck of being the one made infamous by a handful of incidents. Everyone forgets the same issue with General Motors pickup trucks in a side collision which actually was attributed to killing more people.

Derail:
The podcast "You're Wrong About" did a phenomenal job stating just as you did. The Pinto wasn't worse and possibly even better than other cars of the same era.

End derail.