Stop me if I'm crazy, but isn't the fact that both Ford and GM are rushing
to adopt stability control an admission that the vehicles are inherently
unsafe under certain conditions? Seems like a car that needs a computer to
get you out of trouble is like hiring someone to catch your horses when
they go out of the corral instead of installing a gate. Why don't they
just make trucks that don't roll over so easy?

News article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Nov11.html

--
John Snow
"Pull hard and it comes easy"

Nope

it is an admission that people are inherently unable to drive as
conditions require.

Hitch wrote:
Stop me if I'm crazy, but isn't the fact that both Ford and GM are rushing
to adopt stability control an admission that the vehicles are inherently
unsafe under certain conditions? Seems like a car that needs a computer to
get you out of trouble is like hiring someone to catch your horses when
they go out of the corral instead of installing a gate. Why don't they
just make trucks that don't roll over so easy?

News article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Nov11.html

Hitch wrote:
Stop me if I'm crazy, but isn't the fact that both Ford and GM are
rushing
to adopt stability control an admission that the vehicles are
inherently
unsafe under certain conditions? Seems like a car that needs a
computer to
get you out of trouble is like hiring someone to catch your horses
when
they go out of the corral instead of installing a gate. Why don't
they
just make trucks that don't roll over so easy?

News article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Nov11.html

--
John Snow
"Pull hard and it comes easy"

you make a good trial lawyer,

by the same logic

Ford adds headlights to their cars, why don't they just make a car that
can be driven at night without lights? Aren't they admitting its unsafe
to drive at night?

Ford adds brakes to their cars, why don't they just make a car that can
be driven without brakes? Aren't they admitting its unsafe to drive
without brakes?

Ford suggests snow tires in winter, why don't they just make a car that
drives safe in snow? Aren't they admitting its unsafe to drive in the
snow?

steve wrote:

Hitch wrote:

Stop me if I'm crazy, but isn't the fact that both Ford and GM are

rushing

to adopt stability control an admission that the vehicles are

inherently

unsafe under certain conditions? Seems like a car that needs a

computer to

get you out of trouble is like hiring someone to catch your horses

when

they go out of the corral instead of installing a gate. Why don't

they

just make trucks that don't roll over so easy?

News article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Nov11.html

--
John Snow
"Pull hard and it comes easy"


you make a good trial lawyer,

by the same logic

Ford adds headlights to their cars, why don't they just make a car that
can be driven at night without lights? Aren't they admitting its unsafe
to drive at night?

Ford adds brakes to their cars, why don't they just make a car that can
be driven without brakes? Aren't they admitting its unsafe to drive
without brakes?

Ford suggests snow tires in winter, why don't they just make a car that
drives safe in snow? Aren't they admitting its unsafe to drive in the
snow?

And it's all market driven.

People want big-ass SUV's else they would
buy Subarus. That's said and done. Ford
and GM are just trying the mitigate the
rollover risk and make the purchase of a
big-assed SUV more attractive. It's a win-
win for the makers and the customers. The
vehicle doesn't roll over and it walks on
top of my Subaru in a crash.

Manufacturers are putting stability enhancing systems in all types of cars,
not just SUVs. Trucks and SUVs roll over easier than cars because they have
a higher center of gravity and people drive them without thinking.

Peter


"Hitch" wrote in message
. ..
Stop me if I'm crazy, but isn't the fact that both Ford and GM are rushing
to adopt stability control an admission that the vehicles are inherently
unsafe under certain conditions? Seems like a car that needs a computer
to
get you out of trouble is like hiring someone to catch your horses when
they go out of the corral instead of installing a gate. Why don't they
just make trucks that don't roll over so easy?

News article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Nov11.html

--
John Snow
"Pull hard and it comes easy"

On 17 Feb 2005 18:13:26 GMT, Hitch wrote:
Stop me if I'm crazy, but isn't the fact that both Ford and GM are rushing
to adopt stability control an admission that the vehicles are inherently
unsafe under certain conditions?

Isn't the fact that they put seatbelts and crumple zones into the car an
admission that they're unsafe?

Seems like a car that needs a computer to
get you out of trouble is like hiring someone to catch your horses when
they go out of the corral instead of installing a gate. Why don't they
just make trucks that don't roll over so easy?

Because people won't buy a flat wide truck. They're improving
safety on a popular item, and you see it as some sort of a conspiracy?
That's really strange.

Hitch wrote:
Stop me if I'm crazy, but isn't the fact that both Ford and GM are rushing
to adopt stability control an admission that the vehicles are inherently
unsafe under certain conditions? Seems like a car that needs a computer to
get you out of trouble is like hiring someone to catch your horses when
they go out of the corral instead of installing a gate. Why don't they
just make trucks that don't roll over so easy?

News article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Nov11.html

If their stability control is as good as their antilock brakes, count me
out.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:10:54 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:


... if you drive a SUV like a Porsche it is likely to roll
over.... Duh!

Unless your SUV _IS_ a Porsche of course.

--
Bryce

"Bryce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:10:54 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:


... if you drive a SUV like a Porsche it is likely to roll
over.... Duh!

Unless your SUV _IS_ a Porsche of course.

I wonder if our old friend Pete Albrecht has given it a try? He did pretty
good at rolling over a Jeep SUV, and he really knows his Porsches. g

--
Ed Huntress

It's because when you put some soccer-mom, (who can't
even drive a car very well), in a truck. she needs all the help
she can get or bad things will happen.
She was taught to drive a car, doesn't even know that a truck
requires different treatment, and hasn't the least conception
of the meaning or consequences of a high C.G.
The big selling point for S.U.V.s is crash survivability, so
the sales pitch selects for insecure drivers to begin with.
Is it any wonder that most of the things you see on the road
are so poorly handled?
Excuse the rant,
MadDog

On 17 Feb 2005 15:22:38 -0800, wrote:
It's because when you put some soccer-mom, (who can't
even drive a car very well), in a truck. she needs all the help
she can get or bad things will happen.

Overgeneralize much?

Hitch wrote:
Stop me if I'm crazy, but isn't the fact that both Ford and GM are rushing
to adopt stability control an admission that the vehicles are inherently
unsafe under certain conditions? Seems like a car that needs a computer to
get you out of trouble is like hiring someone to catch your horses when
they go out of the corral instead of installing a gate. Why don't they
just make trucks that don't roll over so easy?

News article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Nov11.html

Hitch, _any_ vehicle is 'inherently unsafe under certain conditions.'
Even an M1 Abrams. That's a fact of life.

If you can reduce the conditions under which your vehicles handle badly
it's to your advantage commercially.

This is doubly true when you're dealing with people who either don't
bother to learn the facts of life or somehow think their immune.

So, no, I don't see it as admission of anything.

--RC

Hitch wrote:

Stop me if I'm crazy, but isn't the fact that both Ford and GM are rushing
to adopt stability control an admission that the vehicles are inherently
unsafe under certain conditions? Seems like a car that needs a computer to
get you out of trouble is like hiring someone to catch your horses when
they go out of the corral instead of installing a gate. Why don't they
just make trucks that don't roll over so easy?

News article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Nov11.html

My Blazer could do donuts in a 1.5 lane road.
My S10 pickup is lucky to do a donut in 2 lanes. It makes it tough to do a U turn.
I first noticed the difference on my road and later in town.

I figured all of the 'stupid' J turn roll overs forced the change.

Perhaps they realize that traffic issues are now the issue - and semi-automatic control
will help. The engine is already computer controlled, and so is the transmission.
The wheels are simply the next item on the list.

Martin

--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

In article , Martin H. Eastburn
says...

Perhaps they realize that traffic issues are now the issue - and semi-automatic
control will help. The engine is already computer controlled, and so is the
transmission. The wheels are simply the next item on the list.

LOL. How true. Pretty soon there will be a wire embedded in the
roadway, and it will uplink to all the cars on that road.

This will allow them to set speed governers, and select options
from the traction control menu.

It will be a short step to say that cars without this ability will
be illegal to drive on public roads - same as pretty soon cars
without airbags or ABS will be illegal.

Anyone caught disabling the nanny-drive feature will be fined
and ticketed.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

To take this in a different direction....
I had a 93 Cadillac Eldorado with ABS and traction control. All I can
say is that it works well and has kept me out of trouble.

I now have a 03 Seville with the above and Stabiltrack. I have tried
to slide it a few times but the software taps whatever brake it wants
and keeps you on track. It works. Fortunately I have not needed it
yet but with the next snow storm that could all change. Give the
engineers a break. They have a good thing. BTW, ABS is on most large
aircraft to help keep them on the runway in wet and slippery
conditions. If this was bad technology, it would never end up on an
airplane.

I am a reasonable driver having logged probably 500,000 miles in my
career so far. I am a midwest driver, growing up in NE Ohio and now
in Illinois. As I recall I have hit things 2 times. One was a 2 mph
bump into a phone pole (ice storm, everything glazed and I chose
between a new pickup and a pole. Didn't even spill my coffee) and a
tap into someones bumper in rush hour traffic when they slammed on the
brakes. Animals not included (1 deer, 1 dog, countless rabbits).

Bob

In article .com, Bob says...

I now have a 03 Seville with the above and Stabiltrack. I have tried
to slide it a few times but the software taps whatever brake it wants
and keeps you on track. It works. Fortunately I have not needed it
yet but with the next snow storm that could all change. Give the
engineers a break. They have a good thing. BTW, ABS is on most large
aircraft to help keep them on the runway in wet and slippery
conditions. If this was bad technology, it would never end up on an
airplane.

The trouble with stability enhancers and ABS systems is, that they
do NOT create traction where there was none before.

In this regard, they can make things worse - because the user
does not feel like anything is getting loose, until there's
too little traction to be driving at the speed the car is
travelling. Then things come uncorked.

One would think that accident rates for ABS equipped cars
would be a lot lower then those without. Apparently, at least
in the recent past, this is not true.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen wrote:
In article .com, Bob says...


I now have a 03 Seville with the above and Stabiltrack. I have tried
to slide it a few times but the software taps whatever brake it wants
and keeps you on track. It works. Fortunately I have not needed it
yet but with the next snow storm that could all change. Give the
engineers a break. They have a good thing. BTW, ABS is on most large
aircraft to help keep them on the runway in wet and slippery
conditions. If this was bad technology, it would never end up on an
airplane.


The trouble with stability enhancers and ABS systems is, that they
do NOT create traction where there was none before.

I've seen this come up in the subaru group.
No traction control system can overcome the
laws of physics.

In this regard, they can make things worse - because the user
does not feel like anything is getting loose, until there's
too little traction to be driving at the speed the car is
travelling. Then things come uncorked.

I can remember the same argument against radial
tires when they first came out. I'm not sure
if it means anything though.

One would think that accident rates for ABS equipped cars
would be a lot lower then those without. Apparently, at least
in the recent past, this is not true.

It would be interesting to know whether or not
ABS has reduced the cost of insurance repairs.

Jim

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Martin H.
Eastburn
says...

Perhaps they realize that traffic issues are now the issue - and
semi-automatic
control will help. The engine is already computer controlled, and so is
the
transmission. The wheels are simply the next item on the list.

LOL. How true. Pretty soon there will be a wire embedded in the
roadway, and it will uplink to all the cars on that road.

This will allow them to set speed governers, and select options
from the traction control menu.

It will be a short step to say that cars without this ability will
be illegal to drive on public roads - same as pretty soon cars
without airbags or ABS will be illegal.

Anyone caught disabling the nanny-drive feature will be fined
and ticketed.

I'm looking forward to it. We'll get a lot more reading done, because we
won't even have to look up from our books every couple of paragraphs or so.

--
Ed Huntress

ABS used to qualify one for an insurance discount. At some point, I
don't remember when exactly, this was discontinued. When I asked about
it, my agent told me that studies had shown that people with ABS were
getting in more accidents than those without. He attributed it to the
fact that those with ABS felt they had superior braking capabilities
and could stop no matter what. There extra aggressive driving was
countering their "better" braking technology.

ABS does improve braking ability IFF(not a typo) the user understands
it's limitations. It still does not allow you break any laws of
physics, but enables us to approch closer to the limits.

On 18 Feb 2005 09:18:11 -0800, jw wrote:
ABS used to qualify one for an insurance discount. At some point, I
don't remember when exactly, this was discontinued. When I asked about
it, my agent told me that studies had shown that people with ABS were
getting in more accidents than those without. He attributed it to the
fact that those with ABS felt they had superior braking capabilities
and could stop no matter what. There extra aggressive driving was
countering their "better" braking technology.

Well, that's your insurance agent's take on it. Without knowing
what "studies" he's talking about, it's impossible to evaluate it,
though.

ABS does improve braking ability IFF(not a typo) the user understands
it's limitations.

Well, they don't have to understand the physics involved, how the
slip is measured and countered and all that - they just have to know
how to use it and what's appropriate.

It still does not allow you break any laws of
physics, but enables us to approch closer to the limits.

Yes. Just like idiots in 4WD cars will think they're invincible,
the same sort of idiot will drive worse if they think ABS makes
them into Superman. 30 years ago, Radial Tires were probably
the thing, 10 years before that it was probably seat belts. Prior
to that, it was probably cars with roofs that "made" people drive stupid.

Fact is, it's the stupid people, not the technology they're driving,
that makes them do stupid things.

Dave Hinz

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article .com, Bob
says...

I now have a 03 Seville with the above and Stabiltrack. I have tried
to slide it a few times but the software taps whatever brake it wants
and keeps you on track. It works. Fortunately I have not needed it
yet but with the next snow storm that could all change. Give the
engineers a break. They have a good thing. BTW, ABS is on most large
aircraft to help keep them on the runway in wet and slippery
conditions. If this was bad technology, it would never end up on an
airplane.

The trouble with stability enhancers and ABS systems is, that they
do NOT create traction where there was none before.

In this regard, they can make things worse - because the user
does not feel like anything is getting loose, until there's
too little traction to be driving at the speed the car is
travelling. Then things come uncorked.

One would think that accident rates for ABS equipped cars
would be a lot lower then those without. Apparently, at least
in the recent past, this is not true.

Jim



You can always tell around here who got their first 4x4, first snowfall and
they are gone, in the ditch into parked cars, on top of snowbanks. Why? the
4x4 gives you more go but the stop is still the same, in 4 wheel drive its
hard to tell how slippery the road is until you need to stop or steer.
Pat

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:23:20 -0800, Bryce
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:10:54 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:


... if you drive a SUV like a Porsche it is likely to roll
over.... Duh!

Unless your SUV _IS_ a Porsche of course.

Hoo-boy..... that Cayenne sure is a tough off-road vehicle.... and
only about $90K with the turbo! Every time I see somebody driving one
I feel like they are at the wheel of a real life parody....
--

Homepage
http://myworkshop.idleplay.net/machine_shop/index.htm

I was on a trail run with a porsche. That thing was amazing. He build up
jeeps with very experienced drivers were hard pressed to better it on some
of the obsticles
Pat

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:58:01 -0500, "Pat Ford"
wrote:


"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:23:20 -0800, Bryce
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:10:54 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:


... if you drive a SUV like a Porsche it is likely to roll
over.... Duh!

Unless your SUV _IS_ a Porsche of course.

Hoo-boy..... that Cayenne sure is a tough off-road vehicle.... and
only about $90K with the turbo! Every time I see somebody driving one
I feel like they are at the wheel of a real life parody....
--

Homepage
http://myworkshop.idleplay.net/machine_shop/index.htm

I was on a trail run with a porsche. That thing was amazing. He build up
jeeps with very experienced drivers were hard pressed to better it on some
of the obsticles
Pat

Mercedes makes a pretty decent one too:

http://home.off-road.com/~trailblaze...endar_page.htm

Gunner



Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

"jw" wrote in message
oups.com...
ABS used to qualify one for an insurance discount. At some point, I
don't remember when exactly, this was discontinued. When I asked about
it, my agent told me that studies had shown that people with ABS were
getting in more accidents than those without. He attributed it to the
fact that those with ABS felt they had superior braking capabilities
and could stop no matter what. There extra aggressive driving was
countering their "better" braking technology.

it still does for some companies. i get it on 3 of my vehicles which have
abs, but not the oldest which doesn't have abs.

ABS does improve braking ability IFF(not a typo) the user understands
it's limitations. It still does not allow you break any laws of
physics, but enables us to approch closer to the limits.

In article , Dave Hinz says...

Fact is, it's the stupid people, not the technology they're driving,
that makes them do stupid things.

And the new technology allows them to do more kinds of stupid
things, and get deeper into each kind of stupidity, without
getting hurt.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Anyone caught disabling the nanny-drive feature will be fined
and ticketed.

I'm looking forward to it. We'll get a lot more reading done, because we
won't even have to look up from our books every couple of paragraphs or so.

Honestly I'm suprised it isn't happening already. Computers are
sophisticated enough, and the rf technology is commercially avaialable
now.

Cops will be able to either disable a vehicle on the fly by pinging
it, or will be able to govern maximum speed for all vehicles in
some region of roadway. Once they can do this, it will become
of of those 'luxury once tasted becomes a necessity' for them.

They'd *have* to make con-controllable vehicles illegal.

This is sort of like the flap that happened when the phone company
went to packet transmission. The cops could no longer do analog
taps so they had to scramble to get the free backdoor available
again.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 18 Feb 2005 12:16:16 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

Fact is, it's the stupid people, not the technology they're driving,
that makes them do stupid things.

And the new technology allows them to do more kinds of stupid
things, and get deeper into each kind of stupidity, without
getting hurt.

....right away. Like when we bought our 4WD "brush truck" (firetruck
built onto a pickup truck), the arguments were long and tedious about
tires. We finally bought pretty aggressive mud tires, and of course,
the first spring fire we had, it got buried pretty deep.

You can get stuck a LOT further in with a 4WD and good tires,
which just means you need a longer cable on the winch to get you
out.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:02:53 GMT, the inscrutable "Peter Grey"
spake:

Manufacturers are putting stability enhancing systems in all types of cars,
not just SUVs. Trucks and SUVs roll over easier than cars because they have
a higher center of gravity and people drive them without thinking.

Let's be realistic. Can we acknowledge that most people can't drive,
and that they can hardly -steer- the darned things, even at -low-
rates of speed. I used to wrench at a body shop, and the insurance
agents (and our clients) came up with some doozies.


--
"Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free
than Christianity has made them good." --H. L. Mencken
---
www.diversify.com Complete Website Development

jim rozen wrote:

In article , Martin H. Eastburn
says...


Perhaps they realize that traffic issues are now the issue - and semi-automatic
control will help. The engine is already computer controlled, and so is the
transmission. The wheels are simply the next item on the list.


LOL. How true. Pretty soon there will be a wire embedded in the
roadway, and it will uplink to all the cars on that road.

This will allow them to set speed governers, and select options
from the traction control menu.

It will be a short step to say that cars without this ability will
be illegal to drive on public roads - same as pretty soon cars
without airbags or ABS will be illegal.

Anyone caught disabling the nanny-drive feature will be fined
and ticketed.

Jim


The trend at one time was to make a monster big CPU that did all of the car jobs.
Now the trend is to have 100 suckers all over and networked (64 in the German boats)

I suspect the next thing is to start calling home and setting up care time in the shop.

Martin

--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:10:54 -0500, Gene Kearns
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

e it is likely to roll over. Nothing has
changed... if you drive a SUV like a Porsche it is likely to roll
over.... Duh!

But the SUVs are beong sold as if they are Porsches...

Even Porsche has an SUV
"OldNick" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:10:54 -0500, Gene Kearns
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

e it is likely to roll over. Nothing has
changed... if you drive a SUV like a Porsche it is likely to roll
over.... Duh!

But the SUVs are beong sold as if they are Porsches...

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Dave Hinz
wrote back on 18 Feb 2005 20:54:59 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
On 18 Feb 2005 12:16:16 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

Fact is, it's the stupid people, not the technology they're driving,
that makes them do stupid things.

And the new technology allows them to do more kinds of stupid
things, and get deeper into each kind of stupidity, without
getting hurt.

...right away. Like when we bought our 4WD "brush truck" (firetruck
built onto a pickup truck), the arguments were long and tedious about
tires. We finally bought pretty aggressive mud tires, and of course,
the first spring fire we had, it got buried pretty deep.

You can get stuck a LOT further in with a 4WD and good tires,
which just means you need a longer cable on the winch to get you
out.

I missed some of these stories, but they usually are variations of the
person with the two wheel drive vehicle getting into and out of the places
the four wheeler got stuck.
Like my friend who drove up Market Street, going from Ballard to the U
(in Seattle) and getting to the top of the hill and noticing _then_, the
sign "road closed due to snow."
Not 4x4, just a reliable Toyota truck and a driver who knew how to
drive in snow.

Or the time the early morning bible study met at the local diner. The
guys who made it were the old guys driving sedans, except for the one guy
with his ex-postal truck with it's skinny tires.


tschus



--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

Like my friend who drove up Market Street, going from Ballard to the U
(in Seattle) and getting to the top of the hill and noticing _then_, the
sign "road closed due to snow."
Not 4x4, just a reliable Toyota truck and a driver who knew how to
drive in snow.

I know for a fact that as soon as I put chains on my little POS
toyota truck, it really can go pretty much anywhere during a storm.

I keep telling myself to put snow tires on it some fall, but I
never do.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Exactly. People feel empowered by techonology beyond it's merits and
don't understand it's limitations.

I never stated that the end user needs to understand the physics of
ABS, but they do still need to understand the ABS will not enable one
to stop on a sheet of ice. Proper speeds and following distances are
still required.

In general, I think that the majority of the people who have their
license should probably have it revoked. The attentiveness, and just
general regard, that most drives display will on the road is appalling.
There are plenty of fine drivers on the road, but there are twice as
many that are passable or just plain bad.

On 17 Feb 2005 18:13:26 GMT, Hitch wrote:

Stop me if I'm crazy, but isn't the fact that both Ford and GM are rushing
to adopt stability control an admission that the vehicles are inherently
unsafe under certain conditions? Seems like a car that needs a computer to
get you out of trouble is like hiring someone to catch your horses when
they go out of the corral instead of installing a gate. Why don't they
just make trucks that don't roll over so easy?

OK, stop! Stationary vehicles are not unsafe, and any vehicle in
motion is unsafe under certain conditions. The conditions that
define an unsafe region include the skill of the operator.

Some vehicles are more capable than others, but it's possible to get
in trouble with any vehicle, be it a forklift, bicycle, sedan or SUV.

TV ads do encourage unsafe operation, faintly discouraged in
transient fine print, because it sells. The vehicles aren't
unsafe, it's the drivers that expect the vehicle to safely accomodate
being operated by an unskilled and rambunctious fool. Driving
off-road in mud, slick, ice, snow and whatever is not rocket science,
skill is gained with experience that can't be instantly bought on
credit.

Stabiility control is a neat technological improvement. There will
be adverts that further encourage fools to think they can drive
beyond their ability under any condx, but the yaw sensor stability
control looks like a good thing to me.

The problem IS NOT THE VEHICLE. It is the idiot behind the wheel who
thinks that you should be able to drive an OFF-ROAD equipped vehicle
like you drive a Porsche. 99.9% of rollovers are caused by people who
try to corner or turn at an unsafe speed. Most of then think that a 3
ton Suburban with a higher center of gravity should be able to corner
like an Indy car, even with all the warning stickers telling them it
won't. I have owned a LOT of 4x4s and other high COG vehicles and NEVER
had a problem with them being unstable, simply because I know that they
are not designed to do a 90 degree turn at 60 mph.

--
Steve Williams

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On 17 Feb 2005 18:13:26 GMT, Hitch wrote:

Stop me if I'm crazy, but isn't the fact that both Ford and GM are
rushing
to adopt stability control an admission that the vehicles are
inherently
unsafe under certain conditions? Seems like a car that needs a
computer to
get you out of trouble is like hiring someone to catch your horses
when
they go out of the corral instead of installing a gate. Why don't
they
just make trucks that don't roll over so easy?

OK, stop! Stationary vehicles are not unsafe, and any vehicle in
motion is unsafe under certain conditions. The conditions that
define an unsafe region include the skill of the operator.

Some vehicles are more capable than others, but it's possible to get
in trouble with any vehicle, be it a forklift, bicycle, sedan or SUV.

TV ads do encourage unsafe operation, faintly discouraged in
transient fine print, because it sells. The vehicles aren't
unsafe, it's the drivers that expect the vehicle to safely accomodate
being operated by an unskilled and rambunctious fool. Driving
off-road in mud, slick, ice, snow and whatever is not rocket science,
skill is gained with experience that can't be instantly bought on
credit.

Stabiility control is a neat technological improvement. There will
be adverts that further encourage fools to think they can drive
beyond their ability under any condx, but the yaw sensor stability
control looks like a good thing to me.






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Don Foreman wrote:

On 17 Feb 2005 18:13:26 GMT, Hitch wrote:


Stop me if I'm crazy, but isn't the fact that both Ford and GM are rushing
to adopt stability control an admission that the vehicles are inherently
unsafe under certain conditions? Seems like a car that needs a computer to
get you out of trouble is like hiring someone to catch your horses when
they go out of the corral instead of installing a gate. Why don't they
just make trucks that don't roll over so easy?


OK, stop! Stationary vehicles are not unsafe, and any vehicle in
motion is unsafe under certain conditions. The conditions that
define an unsafe region include the skill of the operator.

Some vehicles are more capable than others, but it's possible to get
in trouble with any vehicle, be it a forklift, bicycle, sedan or SUV.

TV ads do encourage unsafe operation, faintly discouraged in
transient fine print, because it sells. The vehicles aren't
unsafe, it's the drivers that expect the vehicle to safely accomodate
being operated by an unskilled and rambunctious fool. Driving
off-road in mud, slick, ice, snow and whatever is not rocket science,
skill is gained with experience that can't be instantly bought on
credit.

Stabiility control is a neat technological improvement. There will
be adverts that further encourage fools to think they can drive
beyond their ability under any condx, but the yaw sensor stability
control looks like a good thing to me.



Q: How do you tell if an SUV has stability control?

A: If it's upside down in the pucker brush it doesn't have stability
control. If it's right side up in the pucker brush it does.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show jim rozen
wrote back on 19 Feb 2005 14:03:30 -0800 in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

Like my friend who drove up Market Street, going from Ballard to the U
(in Seattle) and getting to the top of the hill and noticing _then_, the
sign "road closed due to snow."
Not 4x4, just a reliable Toyota truck and a driver who knew how to
drive in snow.

I know for a fact that as soon as I put chains on my little POS
toyota truck, it really can go pretty much anywhere during a storm.

I keep telling myself to put snow tires on it some fall, but I
never do.

The friend in question was a very good driver, whom I trusted
explicitly, even when their medical condition trashed their depth
perception and vision to the right side. Heck, I'd rather ride with them
under those conditions [they've gotten better since then], than with some
of my "bi-optically perceptive" friends.


tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."