Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

Mr_Shiftright

Michaell said:

oldfarmer50 said:

ab348 said:

This looks interesting for Cadillac. One wonders what kind of a price premium will get charged. I also wonder what it is based on, whether a clean-sheet design or a variant of an existing V-8?

http://www.autonews.com/article/20180321/OEM04/180329932/cadillac-readies-exclusive-twin-turbo-4-2-liter-v-8?cciid=email-autonews-blast

Interesting but why do they call the car CT 6 when it's an 8 cyl.?

The Audi A6 was available with a V8
The Audi A4 was available with a V6
The Audi A8 was avaialble with a 12-cylinder engine

Should those have been renamed, as well?

Yes, all A4s should have 4 cylinders, and A6s etc etc. Wouldn't you like to drive an A12?

ab348

fintail said:

Funnily enough, the CT6 is also available with a 6 and a 4.

Caddy's alphanumeric system in general, a brainchild of one trick pony deNysschen, is dopey at best.

Unlike those used by M-B, Audi, BMW, Infiniti, Lexus... ?

fintail

He probably believes a nuclear war is winnable, too. I like to think the praetorian sector will keep his little fingers away from that button.

If we go by what they say rather than what they do, the current head honcho might still not have much to go on. Endless distraction and half-baked ideas, and a newly filled swamp with the highest population density ever.

dino001 said:

Not to get overly political here, but when I hear the orange man saying that trade wars are easy and winnable, I see XIX and half of XX century playing in my head again and again and I get really scared. What a doofus.

snakeweasel

oldfarmer50 said:

dino001 said:

driver100 said:

It is possible no car could have stopped in time if she left the curb and walked in front of the car - going 40 mph.

That's exactly what happened. Every day I see confirmations that I would gladly rescind my "freedom" to drive, if only those morons were also prohibited. Latest wave of menacing "millenials" staring at their phone rather than road only adds to my conviction. I remember once I saw this small car without lights (it was dark) on a freeway, I got even, start honking to get driver's attention. No avail - the young man and his equally young companion were so fascinated by their phones, they couldn't see or hear a thing around them, while going about 40 mph on three lane expressway in morning traffic. I'm sure, it was very important. Their pal probably had a pizza and had to share that breakthrough experience and wou would pass such an important post up without giving it a prompt like and at least five comments.

Well, get the munchies from some of that "medicine" and you would understand how phenomenonal that pizza experience could be.

Seriously though, this has always been my concern with self-drivers, the human factor. Humans being clueless or malevolent in their interactions with the vehicles are unpredictable. How about someone trying to commit suicide for example? How could you program for that?

My concern is also with the human factor. However I also include something else with regards to the human factor. A good driver will learn to read the road and anticipate and prepare for contingencies. This is hard to program into a machine. In this situation a good driver may have been able to anticipate this and taken steps that would have reduced the injuries or avoided the pedestrian all together.

snakeweasel

abacomike said:

imidazol97 said:

I'd be hugging the left line in this situation. If the brakes or steering wheel were never touched, it shows a failure in the programming and sensors to detect the pedestrian. Which is what I suspected all along. Aren't these sensors supposed to be superior to a human?

Indeed. The propaganda about the autonomous driving vehicles was that they had much superior perception abilities.
So much for that cowpie. My cross traffic/rear traffic sensors in my 2014 Malibu go off at the least movement in the periphery of their range. The AV should have at least had its brakes applied as it hit the warm object it sensed.

In my S450, I get an alert from the rear seat if there is a pedestrian or vehicle approaching the rear of my car - if I do not respond within one second, my car brakes itself.  Same for the front - car autonomously brakes.  If I am coming up on an obstruction or vehicle too quickly, I get a front alert and the car will autonomously brake if I do not respond appropriately.

The rear autonomous alerts and braking have saved me numerous times in the last 4 months from hitting a car coming from my lest rear or right rear as I am backing out of a parking space.  Same with people walking behind me from my left or right - the people here walk a lot in the parking lots.

The problem is that the visibility in the newer cars is less than satisfactory.  

I get an alert from my passenger seat, but I think my system is a bit different from yours.

Michaell

ab348 said:

fintail said:

Funnily enough, the CT6 is also available with a 6 and a 4.

Caddy's alphanumeric system in general, a brainchild of one trick pony deNysschen, is dopey at best.

Unlike those used by M-B, Audi, BMW, Infiniti, Lexus... ?

Actually, the Lexus system makes sense - IS200 (2.0T 4-cyl), ES350 (3.5L V6), etc.

driver100

snakeweasel said:

oldfarmer50 said:

dino001 said:

driver100 said:

It is possible no car could have stopped in time if she left the curb and walked in front of the car - going 40 mph.

That's exactly what happened. Every day I see confirmations that I would gladly rescind my "freedom" to drive, if only those morons were also prohibited. Latest wave of menacing "millenials" staring at their phone rather than road only adds to my conviction. I remember once I saw this small car without lights (it was dark) on a freeway, I got even, start honking to get driver's attention. No avail - the young man and his equally young companion were so fascinated by their phones, they couldn't see or hear a thing around them, while going about 40 mph on three lane expressway in morning traffic. I'm sure, it was very important. Their pal probably had a pizza and had to share that breakthrough experience and wou would pass such an important post up without giving it a prompt like and at least five comments.

Well, get the munchies from some of that "medicine" and you would understand how phenomenonal that pizza experience could be.

Seriously though, this has always been my concern with self-drivers, the human factor. Humans being clueless or malevolent in their interactions with the vehicles are unpredictable. How about someone trying to commit suicide for example? How could you program for that?

My concern is also with the human factor. However I also include something else with regards to the human factor. A good driver will learn to read the road and anticipate and prepare for contingencies. This is hard to program into a machine. In this situation a good driver may have been able to anticipate this and taken steps that would have reduced the injuries or avoided the pedestrian all together.

Not if he was drunk though, or texting someone...at least the car doesn't do those things which probably cause 60% of the accidents to begin with.

snakeweasel

driver100 said:

oldfarmer50 said:

driver100 said:

oldfarmer50 said:

dino001 said:

That's not a good reason to stop it, as it wasn't when people were smashing steam machines installed in the manufactures to do lifting.

True but just think how many were killed in steam explosions before that technology was perfected. I'm not really a Luddite just cautious.

I am cautious too....no diesel or e-cars until it has proven to be better than good old gasoline. But, I can see the day when self driving cars will be safer. Two biggest causes of accidents will be eliminated.....self drivers don't get distracted (by cell phones, texting or eating pizza), and they don't DUI.

If they can refine them a little more...they will be safer. Safer than the young lady behind me the other day yacking on her cell phone (heavy slow moving traffic) and talking to her passengers...and not watching what was happening in front of her.

Maybe they can sentence people like that to self drivers like they require interlock devices on drinking drivers.

I like that idea....3 accidents and you have to have a self driving car. That should make people more careful, and make the roads safer.

How about 3 accidents or 3 tickets?

fintail

MB is at least somewhat in the ballpark, you just need to round up or round down a little. I think the planners don't want to alienate buyers by changing things too much - engines have been evolving a lot in the past decade, with more to come. Instead, just small changes to add a little intentional obsolescence.

Infiniti nomenclature is a deNysschen product, which is why it resembles Cadillac. The revolving door good old boys club of automotive execs at work.

ab348 said:

Unlike those used by M-B, Audi, BMW, Infiniti, Lexus... ?

explorerx4

@ab348,
Don't take what people say necessarily at face value.
Look up Duramax V8 like I did.

andres3

driver100 said:

andres3 said:

carnaught said:

andres3 said:

Traffic Citation Ticket & Traffic Court Story Time:

If you are as sensitive as a snowflake, and need a safe space when government is being criticized, please skip this post.

So the BS speeding ticket for 70 in a 55 that should be posted at 65. Remember I invoked VC 40502(b) to have my case adjudicated at the Country Seat, that court being closer to my place of work.

The legislature in their infinite wisdom put the word "UPON DEMAND" into that law, not "UPON REQUEST" and I believe for good reason, as the Courts seem to ignore and disregard some laws, while trying to enforce arbitrarily the laws they wish to enforce for revenue generation.

The Officer granted my request, if you recall the story. However, on the ticket, he clearly squiggled out the East County, and put the County Seat as the court venue I was to appear at. I signed to appear at the County Seat by 2/20/18.

I received a Courtesy Notice to incorrectly appear at East County (they ignored the citation, the squiggly marks clearly crossing-out that as a selection). It wasn't either or, it was only to be at the County Seat.

So now I have a Failure to Appear charge, which is laughable, since I never signed nor agreed to appear at the East County Court. How could I be charged with such a frivolous thing when if they bothered to look at a copy of the citation they'd see they don't have the evidence to convict!!!!!

They have a harrassing rude collection agency calling me two days in a row Thurs/Friday last week, but they've left me alone since then. Just received the first letter from them yesterday (other than the collections calls where they were argumentative, I hadn't received a single word about this).

The reason I don't appear at the County Seat is because if I did so I believe I'd have my time wasted, and be direct to go to the East County Court. They might not even have me on their books or share their files.

I need the East County court to correct this situation. I sent them a letter about all this on 2/6 or 2/7, and they ignored it.

Did the USPS magically lose this letter? If so, they are government incompetents too. If not, then the court misplaced my letter, and/or failed to respond.

This isn't my first rodeo. I know how this works. However, in my stubbornness, I don't feel I should have to pay extra for Certified Registered Return Receipt Mail (payments to the Government) when I am innocent of the charges, and intend to plead not guilty and get the charges dismissed. I also don't want to have to appear in person at the East County court, as it is a great inconvenience, a significantly longer drive, and from prior experiences, a significantly slower processing line (longer lines too).

In fact, when you call the East County Court, they only have phone hours for a few hours in the morning each day. Even when you call within those time frames, I was held on-hold for almost a full hour!

They don't answer the phone, they don't answer written correspondence, they have excessive lines, they are far away, and most importantly, I do not wish VC 40502(b) to be trampled upon, broken, and disrespected. I should never have to appear at the East County Court. They should just fix their mistakes (yes, plural mistakes now).

Geez, are they going to issue a warrant out for you?

A warrant? Probably a good reason to carry a copy of my previously mailed out letter with me. I'm debating what to do next. Will probably hand deliver to their drop box additional letters, one to the Court without jurisdiction that thinks it does have it, and one to the Court where i should be making an appointment to appear (as of 3/1/18 they require appointments to appear; no more walk-ins for arraignment!). Talk about bureaucracy!

My guess is they probably give you some months before putting out the all-points-bulletin warrant out for me.

I also don't want to pay my other citation fine that is coming due soon. I fear they will attribute that payment incorrectly to this new case, rather than the old settled one first. Most of my fears about the Traffic Courts come true, I'd say around 66%.

I will write the check specifically with case and citation reference numbers on it, but we all see how much attention to details the Courts give.

When the government or courts or anything is involved, pay the $4 for mail that requires a signature. Hard to prove you mailed it when it could have ended up on anyone's desk....and then trash can.

True, all I can do now is sign my letter with something like the following undersigned:

"The above/foregoing is true and correct to the best of the defendants knowledge and recollection, under penalty of perjury."

That should give my letter and chronology of events some weight. But who knows.

andres3

murphydog said:

Maybe the issue isn't self driving cars, but pedestrians darting into the street?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2018/03/20/tempe-police-chief-fatal-uber-crash-pedestrian-likely-unavoidable/442829002/

Turns out they did "release the video." I watched it. I wouldn't use the term "darting", however:

While video is never as good as your own human eyeballs (assuming you have normal vision), I think Uber and Autonomous cars can be given a break here. She appears to have been wearing black at night. The Volvo's headlights were not very good. The car still should have had time to react and hit the brakes though, but in fact, a collision may have been very tough to avoid.

All I know is my personal safety record of 0.00 fatalities per mile traveled is better than autonomous cars now.
No matter how many miles autonomous cars log, they'll never get down to 0.00 again. I intend to keep my 0.00 score for at least this lifetime too.

Another observation.

Had the self driving car been driven by a human speeder, it probably would have only taken the speeder a few seconds of speeding by a "normal speeding margin" to have avoided that collision. The extra speed would have put the Volvo at a further position down the road before the woman walking the bike crossed paths with it.

So any of you doubters that "going faster" can avoid wrecks, have been proven wrong yet again.

tbirdmarco

Now now  now kids  lol lol lol

tbirdmarco

 Agree with explore above take everything everyone says the big green of salt pretty much what he is saying ha ha Ha enjoyed all the reading though everyone like always 

snakeweasel

bwia said:

Question for the military historians?

How on Earth did Germany pull off facing France, the UK, the US and the Soviet Union for six years? How could they pull so much above their own weight?

Don't know how they did it but even today Germany is punching above it's own weight class. It is the sphere of influence in Europe and a leader in automotive technology and manufacturing; precision instruments and heavy machinery; and civil engineering and construction. 

The melee that eventually turned into WWII started during the great depression. Countries really didn't have the resources to build up their military. Germany started in the mid thirties and got a head start on everyone else. Even up to the German invasion of France the Allies really weren't expecting much in the way of a war.

Stalin in his purges got rid of most of his command officers in his western armies who were replaced with junior officers with limited experience which made the Red Army facing the Germans very ineffective. A boy scout troop could have over run them.

The United States has historically maintained a small armed force that is supplemented by state militia unites in wartime. With large oceans and weak neighbors there really was no reason to maintain a large military.

Hitlers biggest mistake was not letting his generals run the war. Most of the German military blunders were the result of Hitlers direct orders. Another mistake of the Germans was that they operated under the beleif that they would be involved in a series of short reginal wars and that their objectives would be met quickly. Because of that they shelved many weapon programs that they thought would not be ready by the end of the war.

I do believe that if they went to a full total war economy, pushed their weapons development and let the generals run the war WWII in Europe would have been a lot different.

Japan, on the other hand, never had a chance.

imidazol97

The Uber vehicle was already speeding. So it shouldn't have been there when the lady was there, by your logic.
The Volve was going 40 in a 35 mph zone. Why are autonomous cars allowed to speed?

abacomike

I watch quite a bit of TV in my old age and I’ve got some major dislikes/peeves regarding advertisers and the content of their ads.

The Comcast commercial where these idiots they hired sit around in a circle on chairs dressed as storybook characters and act like children as they try hard to emote their characters is one of my serious disgusts.  Each recants his/her storybook criminal activities and when the poor guy wearing a golf shirt with the AT&T logo tells how he lied to consumers about the cable mbs speeds, the characters scold him.  Now watching this commercial one or twice or even ten times is OK.  But when I see this ad literally 20 times a day, 7 days a week with no end in sight, I feel like I want to strangle all the characters on the screen.  Overkill is a understatement.  Bah Humbug!

The second frustration I have with current TV commercials is the one where a pharmaceutical company advertises their pneumonia vaccine.  At the end of the commercial, they warn that if you are allergic to this new vaccine, you should not use it.  Now that has to take the cake of all precautions for a drug.  How would one know prior to taking the vaccine if they were allergic to it?  

One last last one that comes to mind is the commercial for Shriners Hospitals for Children.  I preface my comments about this commercial by stating that this organization is outstanding and many doctors I have used in my lifetime do pro bono surgeries and provide expert intervention for these unfortunate kids.  But, how many times do they have to show the same PSA with the same unfortunate children?  On an average day, no matter what channel I watch, I see this commercial a minimum of 4-5 times a day, 7 days a week.  Enough is enough!  

jmonroe

andres3 said:

murphydog said:

Maybe the issue isn't self driving cars, but pedestrians darting into the street?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2018/03/20/tempe-police-chief-fatal-uber-crash-pedestrian-likely-unavoidable/442829002/

Turns out they did "release the video." I watched it. I wouldn't use the term "darting", however:

While video is never as good as your own human eyeballs (assuming you have normal vision), I think Uber and Autonomous cars can be given a break here. She appears to have been wearing black at night. The Volvo's headlights were not very good. The car still should have had time to react and hit the brakes though, but in fact, a collision may have been very tough to avoid.

All I know is my personal safety record of 0.00 fatalities per mile traveled is better than autonomous cars now.
No matter how many miles autonomous cars log, they'll never get down to 0.00 again. I intend to keep my 0.00 score for at least this lifetime too.

Another observation.

Had the self driving car been driven by a human speeder, it probably would have only taken the speeder a few seconds of speeding by a "normal speeding margin" to have avoided that collision. The extra speed would have put the Volvo at a further position down the road before the woman walking the bike crossed paths with it.

So any of you doubters that "going faster" can avoid wrecks, have been proven wrong yet again.

You are going to have to be a whole hell of a lot better than that flimsy excuse for speeding to prove it to me.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

jmonroe

abacomike

jmonroe said:

Maybe the issue isn't self driving cars, but pedestrians darting into the street? https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2018/03/20/tempe-police-chief-fatal-uber-crash-pedestrian-likely-unavoidable/442829002/

Turns out they did "release the video." I watched it. I wouldn't use the term "darting", however: While video is never as good as your own human eyeballs (assuming you have normal vision), I think Uber and Autonomous cars can be given a break here. She appears to have been wearing black at night. The Volvo's headlights were not very good. The car still should have had time to react and hit the brakes though, but in fact, a collision may have been very tough to avoid. All I know is my personal safety record of 0.00 fatalities per mile traveled is better than autonomous cars now. No matter how many miles autonomous cars log, they'll never get down to 0.00 again. I intend to keep my 0.00 score for at least this lifetime too. Another observation. Had the self driving car been driven by a human speeder, it probably would have only taken the speeder a few seconds of speeding by a "normal speeding margin" to have avoided that collision. The extra speed would have put the Volvo at a further position down the road before the woman walking the bike crossed paths with it. So any of you doubters that "going faster" can avoid wrecks, have been proven wrong yet again.

You are going to have to be a whole hell of a lot better than that flimsy excuse for speeding to prove it to me. Where do you come up with this stuff? jmonroe

Yeah, how does he come up with this stuff.

I saw the video and it was pretty obvious this driver was texting on his phone or reading or sending email.  That accident could have been avoided if the live driver was paying attention and had his eyes on the road instead of down on his phone.

roadburner

snakeweasel said:

bwia said:

Question for the military historians?

How on Earth did Germany pull off facing France, the UK, the US and the Soviet Union for six years? How could they pull so much above their own weight?

Don't know how they did it but even today Germany is punching above it's own weight class. It is the sphere of influence in Europe and a leader in automotive technology and manufacturing; precision instruments and heavy machinery; and civil engineering and construction. 

The melee that eventually turned into WWII started during the great depression. Countries really didn't have the resources to build up their military. Germany started in the mid thirties and got a head start on everyone else. Even up to the German invasion of France the Allies really weren't expecting much in the way of a war.

Stalin in his purges got rid of most of his command officers in his western armies who were replaced with junior officers with limited experience which made the Red Army facing the Germans very ineffective. A boy scout troop could have over run them.

The United States has historically maintained a small armed force that is supplemented by state militia unites in wartime. With large oceans and weak neighbors there really was no reason to maintain a large military.

Hitlers biggest mistake was not letting his generals run the war. Most of the German military blunders were the result of Hitlers direct orders. Another mistake of the Germans was that they operated under the beleif that they would be involved in a series of short reginal wars and that their objectives would be met quickly. Because of that they shelved many weapon programs that they thought would not be ready by the end of the war.

I do believe that if they went to a full total war economy, pushed their weapons development and let the generals run the war WWII in Europe would have been a lot different.

Japan, on the other hand, never had a chance.

Hitler and his minions also interfered with the development of weaponry. For example, four engine bombers were ignored in favor of the Ju-88 and He-111. In the case of the Me-262 jet fighter, Hitler prohibited research into the most effective armaments for the aircraft and instead limited development to a few prototypes.The plane could have gone into production in 1943 and would likely have had a major impact on Allied bombing strategies.

explorerx4

@tbirdmarco,
Guess I was a bit harsh. Hot V turbo engines have been around for a while.
GM has built many on of them.

bwia

dino001 said:

Why did they think they could take on tbyhe world? They tried that once and failed. Making the same mistake again is, like I said, delusional.

Here is the thing - WWI was started by Central Nations, but really Entante was ready to start it, too. They all wanted it. Today we say Germany lost WWI, but at the time Germans really couldn't understand why they were called losers. From a regular guy's view, troops were still in France, Russians withdrew, so what the heck just happened? German military did not want to admit to them that it was over (and only matter of time) and they concocted a theory of betrayal by politicians. What's worse, France decided to punish Germany not for this war, but for the war before that (Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71, where they were forced to pay a ridiculous tribute of 5 billion (!!!) franks in gold. Do you know how much that was? WWII became a revenge on revenge on revenge. Moreover, that war was a wrong lesson - Germans believed that wars were quick, easy and profitable. Then they were not properly defeated in 1918, which resulted in "if only..." sentiment and feel of injustice on terms of the Versailles Treaty. No wonder guy like Hitler could convince them somebody else is to blame. Not to get overly political here, but when I hear the orange man saying that trade wars are easy and winnable, I see XIX and half of XX century playing in my head again and again and I get really scared. What a doofus.

@dino001, thanks for your contribution and analysis. It makes me want to dust off my old world history textbooks.

jmonroe

abacomike said:

I watch quite a bit of TV in my old age and I’ve got some major dislikes/peeves regarding advertisers and the content of their ads.

The Comcast commercial where these idiots they hired sit around in a circle on chairs dressed as storybook characters and act like children as they try hard to emote their characters is one of my serious disgusts.  Each recants his/her storybook criminal activities and when the poor guy wearing a golf shirt with the AT&T logo tells how he lied to consumers about the cable mbs speeds, the characters scold him.  Now watching this commercial one or twice or even ten times is OK.  But when I see this ad literally 20 times a day, 7 days a week with no end in sight, I feel like I want to strangle all the characters on the screen.  Overkill is a understatement.  Bah Humbug!

The second frustration I have with current TV commercials is the one where a pharmaceutical company advertises their pneumonia vaccine.  At the end of the commercial, they warn that if you are allergic to this new vaccine, you should not use it.  Now that has to take the cake of all precautions for a drug.  How would one know prior to taking the vaccine if they were allergic to it?  

One last last one that comes to mind is the commercial for Shriners Hospitals for Children.  I preface my comments about this commercial by stating that this organization is outstanding and many doctors I have used in my lifetime do pro bono surgeries and provide expert intervention for these unfortunate kids.  But, how many times do they have to show the same PSA with the same unfortunate children?  On an average day, no matter what channel I watch, I see this commercial a minimum of 4-5 times a day, 7 days a week.  Enough is enough!  

And you just answered why I almost always use the DVR. I can't tell you the last time I watched a TV show in real time and that includes the evening national news. I only see these commercials at 8 times normal speed but I get sick of it too even at that speed.

A DVR, now that is the kind of technology that works for me.

jmonroe

andres3

snakeweasel said:

driver100 said:

oldfarmer50 said:

driver100 said:

oldfarmer50 said:

dino001 said:

That's not a good reason to stop it, as it wasn't when people were smashing steam machines installed in the manufactures to do lifting.

True but just think how many were killed in steam explosions before that technology was perfected. I'm not really a Luddite just cautious.

I am cautious too....no diesel or e-cars until it has proven to be better than good old gasoline. But, I can see the day when self driving cars will be safer. Two biggest causes of accidents will be eliminated.....self drivers don't get distracted (by cell phones, texting or eating pizza), and they don't DUI.

If they can refine them a little more...they will be safer. Safer than the young lady behind me the other day yacking on her cell phone (heavy slow moving traffic) and talking to her passengers...and not watching what was happening in front of her.

Maybe they can sentence people like that to self drivers like they require interlock devices on drinking drivers.

I like that idea....3 accidents and you have to have a self driving car. That should make people more careful, and make the roads safer.

How about 3 accidents or 3 tickets?

Accidents (at-fault) yes. Tickets? No!

If you can get a few Auto Insurance companies to give you some recent data, I think you'll find the actuarial have finally figured out that tickets have little impact on the likelihood of future claims. I've begun to see and hear evidence that tickets don't have the effect on insurance rates they once did. The numbers are starting to reflect the reality.

andres3

imidazol97 said:

The Uber vehicle was already speeding. So it shouldn't have been there when the lady was there, by your logic.
The Volve was going 40 in a 35 mph zone. Why are autonomous cars allowed to speed?

Good point. I've read contention and arguments as to what the speed limit really is at that location! Anyone familiar with that stretch of road in AZ? Not sure if it is 35 or 40 yet.

It seems the speed limit may have been changed/lowered for revenue purposes, and the GPS systems may think the speed limit is still 40? We need more data to figure out who's right. Can't trust the media.

Still, I think if the Volvo was going 5 MPH less, the collision would have still taken place. Now if you use the argument she'd have been further back on the road at the time of the collision from driving a constant over time 5 MPH less, I suppose that could be true. But the 5 MPH difference in and of itself was not going to make or break this collision. Hence, I'm ruling speed was not a factor for all practical purposes, regardless of the posted speed limit.

Also, using CA law, the 85th percentile governs what the speed limit should be, and under-posting the limit only makes it a "prima-facie" speed limit. Is 40 MPH the "correctly engineered" speed limit? We need a traffic and engineering survey to figure that out.

andres3

abacomike said:

jmonroe said:

andres3 said:

murphydog said:

Maybe the issue isn't self driving cars, but pedestrians darting into the street?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2018/03/20/tempe-police-chief-fatal-uber-crash-pedestrian-likely-unavoidable/442829002/

Turns out they did "release the video." I watched it. I wouldn't use the term "darting", however:

While video is never as good as your own human eyeballs (assuming you have normal vision), I think Uber and Autonomous cars can be given a break here. She appears to have been wearing black at night. The Volvo's headlights were not very good. The car still should have had time to react and hit the brakes though, but in fact, a collision may have been very tough to avoid.

All I know is my personal safety record of 0.00 fatalities per mile traveled is better than autonomous cars now.
No matter how many miles autonomous cars log, they'll never get down to 0.00 again. I intend to keep my 0.00 score for at least this lifetime too.

Another observation.

Had the self driving car been driven by a human speeder, it probably would have only taken the speeder a few seconds of speeding by a "normal speeding margin" to have avoided that collision. The extra speed would have put the Volvo at a further position down the road before the woman walking the bike crossed paths with it.

So any of you doubters that "going faster" can avoid wrecks, have been proven wrong yet again.

You are going to have to be a whole hell of a lot better than that flimsy excuse for speeding to prove it to me.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

jmonroe

Yeah, how does he come up with this stuff.

I saw the video and it was pretty obvious this driver was texting on his phone or reading or sending email.  That accident could have been avoided if the live driver was paying attention and had his eyes on the road instead of down on his phone.

I can't blame the driver as much in an autonomous vehicle. I think the data is out that you can't expect a driver to just "take over" in a quick and efficient manner when an emergency presents itself. That is a flawed "back-up" program idea. People even get distracted in non-autonomous cars. The distraction in an autonomous car that encourages distraction is EXPECTED, in my honest opinion.

In my view of the video, it seemed the pedestrian was obscured by the dark for a bit too long to avoid, but in person, with my own eyeballs, I'd imagine I'd have seen them sooner than the resolution and light pick-up of the video camera leads you to believe. I think the video might be misleading in this case, as I've found video cameras to have very bad "night vision" in the past. I don't have much recent video taking experience though, maybe someone else can chime in here.

jmonroe

driver100 said:

JM said: I'm not impressed with German technology in cars. Most people don't want to own one when they are out of warranty other than to show off the badge. Reliability is more important to me.

I will just address this part of your essay. Germans take great pride in quality workmanship. Quality has to be of a certain standard or it won't make it. A German luxury car can last as long as any other car. Better - more expensive cars have more engineering and finer tuning, so more could go wrong. When you try new things it is expensive...others can copy for a lot less. If you want real reliability buy a Toyota....good solid old style tried and true technology....but, not very exciting.

Some of us have passion, a soul, and we appreciate a finely made precision engineered car, and will pay extra to drive it....because you only live once (as far as I know).

I've heard you say ALL of that before. You now have me wondering if you are trying to convince me or yourself.

jmonroe

fintail

Not revenue! Safety! These limits are for our own good! Just ask the people who gain an often very nice living from setting them - it is what's best. Think of the children!

And yeah, I have to wonder what difference would be made in 35 vs 40. You'll be hard pressed to find a LEO who would do anything about such a violation.

andres3 said:

It seems the speed limit may have been changed/lowered for revenue purposes, and the GPS systems may think the speed limit is still 40? We need more data to figure out who's right. Can't trust the media.

Still, I think if the Volvo was going 5 MPH less, the collision would have still taken place. Now if you use the argument she'd have been further back on the road at the time of the collision from driving a constant over time 5 MPH less, I suppose that could be true. But the 5 MPH difference in and of itself was not going to make or break this collision. Hence, I'm ruling speed was not a factor for all practical purposes, regardless of the speed limit.

Also, using CA law, the 85th percentile governs what the speed limit should be, and under-posting the limit only makes it a "prima-facie" speed limit. Is 40 MPH the "correctly engineered" speed limit? We need a traffic and engineering survey to figure that out.

explorerx4

@thebean,
It seems that Austin College is not Austin Community College.
Otherwise, I would have asked you if you knew the bomber.

andres3

jmonroe said:

andres3 said:

murphydog said:

Maybe the issue isn't self driving cars, but pedestrians darting into the street?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2018/03/20/tempe-police-chief-fatal-uber-crash-pedestrian-likely-unavoidable/442829002/

Turns out they did "release the video." I watched it. I wouldn't use the term "darting", however:

While video is never as good as your own human eyeballs (assuming you have normal vision), I think Uber and Autonomous cars can be given a break here. She appears to have been wearing black at night. The Volvo's headlights were not very good. The car still should have had time to react and hit the brakes though, but in fact, a collision may have been very tough to avoid.

All I know is my personal safety record of 0.00 fatalities per mile traveled is better than autonomous cars now.
No matter how many miles autonomous cars log, they'll never get down to 0.00 again. I intend to keep my 0.00 score for at least this lifetime too.

Another observation.

Had the self driving car been driven by a human speeder, it probably would have only taken the speeder a few seconds of speeding by a "normal speeding margin" to have avoided that collision. The extra speed would have put the Volvo at a further position down the road before the woman walking the bike crossed paths with it.

So any of you doubters that "going faster" can avoid wrecks, have been proven wrong yet again.

You are going to have to be a whole hell of a lot better than that flimsy excuse for speeding to prove it to me.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

jmonroe

It really is quite simple! Space and Time. Time and Space.

Many hazards are just like this one. Random apparently unavoidable hazards that just come out at the wrong time and you can't do anything about it.

As such, one thing you can do is reduce your time-exposure to such events happening to you. If you spend 1 hour on the roadway getting from A to B, you have 60 minutes of random acts exposure.

If you speed, and get from A to B in 50 minutes, you have reduced your time exposure to these types of hazards by 1/6th!

Going faster would have placed the Volvo past the point of this incident when it occurred. Sample of 1. It is just another example. My own collision with the Lexus was similar. I wasn't speeding, but had I been, perhaps (likely) I could have avoided it. It was just being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

If you agree with the Police Dept's assessment, that this collision was "unavoidable," you can't deny the above argument.

jmonroe

andres3 said:

jmonroe said:

andres3 said:

murphydog said:

Maybe the issue isn't self driving cars, but pedestrians darting into the street?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2018/03/20/tempe-police-chief-fatal-uber-crash-pedestrian-likely-unavoidable/442829002/

Turns out they did "release the video." I watched it. I wouldn't use the term "darting", however:

While video is never as good as your own human eyeballs (assuming you have normal vision), I think Uber and Autonomous cars can be given a break here. She appears to have been wearing black at night. The Volvo's headlights were not very good. The car still should have had time to react and hit the brakes though, but in fact, a collision may have been very tough to avoid.

All I know is my personal safety record of 0.00 fatalities per mile traveled is better than autonomous cars now.
No matter how many miles autonomous cars log, they'll never get down to 0.00 again. I intend to keep my 0.00 score for at least this lifetime too.

Another observation.

Had the self driving car been driven by a human speeder, it probably would have only taken the speeder a few seconds of speeding by a "normal speeding margin" to have avoided that collision. The extra speed would have put the Volvo at a further position down the road before the woman walking the bike crossed paths with it.

So any of you doubters that "going faster" can avoid wrecks, have been proven wrong yet again.

You are going to have to be a whole hell of a lot better than that flimsy excuse for speeding to prove it to me.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

jmonroe

It really is quite simple! Space and Time. Time and Space.

Many hazards are just like this one. Random apparently unavoidable hazards that just come out at the wrong time and you can't do anything about it.

As such, one thing you can do is reduce your time-exposure to such events happening to you. If you spend 1 hour on the roadway getting from A to B, you have 60 minutes of random acts exposure.

If you speed, and get from A to B in 50 minutes, you have reduced your time exposure to these types of hazards by 1/6th!

Going faster would have placed the Volvo past the point of this incident when it occurred. Sample of 1. It is just another example. My own collision with the Lexus was similar. I wasn't speeding, but had I been, perhaps (likely) I could have avoided it. It was just being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

If you agree with the Police Dept's assessment, that this collision was "unavoidable," you can't deny the above argument.

You are way ahead of me with this time/space technical stuff.

I give up.

jmonroe

stickguy

yes, hard to tell from the video what you could see in person. But from watching it, I would expect that many people would have hit her too (if not all) based on how she came out of the dark/peripheral vision. But can't be sure.

I wonder too about the programming being too black and white. Meaning, the software decides if the obstacle is in the way or not. And if not, keep going. As opposed to a person (well, me at least) that assumes people/dogs/etc. that are close are going to do something stupid, so I am preparing in case. Not waiting until they actually dart out into the road. Assuming of course that I can see the obstacle. In theory a fancy set up like that should see more with all the radar, etc.

and I agree about reaction time. If you are not on the controls, it takes too long. One thing I don't like about cruise control. I still keep my foot hovering over the brake so it is not at all relaxing!

abacomike

jmonroe said:

Maybe the issue isn't self driving cars, but pedestrians darting into the street? https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2018/03/20/tempe-police-chief-fatal-uber-crash-pedestrian-likely-unavoidable/442829002/

Turns out they did "release the video." I watched it. I wouldn't use the term "darting", however: While video is never as good as your own human eyeballs (assuming you have normal vision), I think Uber and Autonomous cars can be given a break here. She appears to have been wearing black at night. The Volvo's headlights were not very good. The car still should have had time to react and hit the brakes though, but in fact, a collision may have been very tough to avoid. All I know is my personal safety record of 0.00 fatalities per mile traveled is better than autonomous cars now. No matter how many miles autonomous cars log, they'll never get down to 0.00 again. I intend to keep my 0.00 score for at least this lifetime too. Another observation. Had the self driving car been driven by a human speeder, it probably would have only taken the speeder a few seconds of speeding by a "normal speeding margin" to have avoided that collision. The extra speed would have put the Volvo at a further position down the road before the woman walking the bike crossed paths with it. So any of you doubters that "going faster" can avoid wrecks, have been proven wrong yet again.

You are going to have to be a whole hell of a lot better than that flimsy excuse for speeding to prove it to me. Where do you come up with this stuff? jmonroe

It really is quite simple! Space and Time. Time and Space. Many hazards are just like this one. Random apparently unavoidable hazards that just come out at the wrong time and you can't do anything about it. As such, one thing you can do is reduce your time-exposure to such events happening to you. If you spend 1 hour on the roadway getting from A to B, you have 60 minutes of random acts exposure. If you speed, and get from A to B in 50 minutes, you have reduced your time exposure to these types of hazards by 1/6th! Going faster would have placed the Volvo past the point of this incident when it occurred. Sample of 1. It is just another example. My own collision with the Lexus was similar. I wasn't speeding, but had I been, perhaps (likely) I could have avoided it. It was just being at the wrong place at the wrong time. If you agree with the Police Dept's assessment, that this collision was "unavoidable," you can't deny the above argument.

You are way ahead of me with this time/space technical stuff. I give up. jmonroe

Jmonroe, you are hilarious - I truly enjoy how well you “beat-around-the-bush!”  Now stop that stuff and tell us how you really feel! 

andres3

abacomike said:

I watch quite a bit of TV in my old age and I’ve got some major dislikes/peeves regarding advertisers and the content of their ads.

The Comcast commercial where these idiots they hired sit around in a circle on chairs dressed as storybook characters and act like children as they try hard to emote their characters is one of my serious disgusts.  Each recants his/her storybook criminal activities and when the poor guy wearing a golf shirt with the AT&T logo tells how he lied to consumers about the cable mbs speeds, the characters scold him.  Now watching this commercial one or twice or even ten times is OK.  But when I see this ad literally 20 times a day, 7 days a week with no end in sight, I feel like I want to strangle all the characters on the screen.  Overkill is a understatement.  Bah Humbug!

The second frustration I have with current TV commercials is the one where a pharmaceutical company advertises their pneumonia vaccine.  At the end of the commercial, they warn that if you are allergic to this new vaccine, you should not use it.  Now that has to take the cake of all precautions for a drug.  How would one know prior to taking the vaccine if they were allergic to it?  

One last last one that comes to mind is the commercial for Shriners Hospitals for Children.  I preface my comments about this commercial by stating that this organization is outstanding and many doctors I have used in my lifetime do pro bono surgeries and provide expert intervention for these unfortunate kids.  But, how many times do they have to show the same PSA with the same unfortunate children?  On an average day, no matter what channel I watch, I see this commercial a minimum of 4-5 times a day, 7 days a week.  Enough is enough!  

That vaccine sounds like a "use at your own risk" disclaimer.

abacomike

andres3 said:

I watch quite a bit of TV in my old age and I’ve got some major dislikes/peeves regarding advertisers and the content of their ads.

The Comcast commercial where these idiots they hired sit around in a circle on chairs dressed as storybook characters and act like children as they try hard to emote their characters is one of my serious disgusts.  Each recants his/her storybook criminal activities and when the poor guy wearing a golf shirt with the AT&T logo tells how he lied to consumers about the cable mbs speeds, the characters scold him.  Now watching this commercial one or twice or even ten times is OK.  But when I see this ad literally 20 times a day, 7 days a week with no end in sight, I feel like I want to strangle all the characters on the screen.  Overkill is a understatement.  Bah Humbug!

The second frustration I have with current TV commercials is the one where a pharmaceutical company advertises their pneumonia vaccine.  At the end of the commercial, they warn that if you are allergic to this new vaccine, you should not use it.  Now that has to take the cake of all precautions for a drug.  How would one know prior to taking the vaccine if they were allergic to it?  

One last last one that comes to mind is the commercial for Shriners Hospitals for Children.  I preface my comments about this commercial by stating that this organization is outstanding and many doctors I have used in my lifetime do pro bono surgeries and provide expert intervention for these unfortunate kids.  But, how many times do they have to show the same PSA with the same unfortunate children?  On an average day, no matter what channel I watch, I see this commercial a minimum of 4-5 times a day, 7 days a week.  Enough is enough!  

That vaccine sounds like a "use at your own risk" disclaimer.

Andres, to be honest with you. I have not, nor will I, get deeply involved in “...what the pharmaceutical company really meant by the warning about their pneumonia vaccine and allergic reactions...”. It’s plain stupid to tell the public that you should not use the vaccine if you are allergic to it with no possible way of knowing if you are allergic to it unless you took the shot and found out after the fact about bring allergic to it.  

Now that I have explained why I get frustrated with that TV ad and others like it, I’d love to know how life has been treating you Andres?  

andres3

abacomike said:

andres3 said:

abacomike said:

I watch quite a bit of TV in my old age and I’ve got some major dislikes/peeves regarding advertisers and the content of their ads.

The Comcast commercial where these idiots they hired sit around in a circle on chairs dressed as storybook characters and act like children as they try hard to emote their characters is one of my serious disgusts.  Each recants his/her storybook criminal activities and when the poor guy wearing a golf shirt with the AT&T logo tells how he lied to consumers about the cable mbs speeds, the characters scold him.  Now watching this commercial one or twice or even ten times is OK.  But when I see this ad literally 20 times a day, 7 days a week with no end in sight, I feel like I want to strangle all the characters on the screen.  Overkill is a understatement.  Bah Humbug!

The second frustration I have with current TV commercials is the one where a pharmaceutical company advertises their pneumonia vaccine.  At the end of the commercial, they warn that if you are allergic to this new vaccine, you should not use it.  Now that has to take the cake of all precautions for a drug.  How would one know prior to taking the vaccine if they were allergic to it?  

One last last one that comes to mind is the commercial for Shriners Hospitals for Children.  I preface my comments about this commercial by stating that this organization is outstanding and many doctors I have used in my lifetime do pro bono surgeries and provide expert intervention for these unfortunate kids.  But, how many times do they have to show the same PSA with the same unfortunate children?  On an average day, no matter what channel I watch, I see this commercial a minimum of 4-5 times a day, 7 days a week.  Enough is enough!  

That vaccine sounds like a "use at your own risk" disclaimer.

Andres, to be honest with you. I have not, nor will I, get deeply involved in “...what the pharmaceutical company really meant by the warning about their pneumonia vaccine and allergic reactions...”. It’s plain stupid to tell the public that you should not use the vaccine if you are allergic to it with no possible way of knowing if you are allergic to it unless you took the shot and found out after the fact about bring allergic to it.  

Now that I have explained why I get frustrated with that TV ad and others like it, I’d love to know how life has been treating you Andres?  

I have a nasty cold that I'm sure was exacerbated by the stress of the San Diego Municipal Courts ignoring my letter (and putting a collection agency on me).

Going to work on my response letter tonight. Going to be nice and sweet, totally respectful. I'll pretend it was no ones fault why the first letter didn't get answered.

All I ask is for the following:

1) Dismiss the Failure to Appear Charges
2) Tell the Collection Agency to back off.
3) Set an appearance appointment or an "appear by" day for arraignment at the County Seat, Kearny Mesa Central Division for Traffic Court. The court that should have been selected as the venue from the beginning.

If they fail to do any of those things I'll lawyer up.

driver100

Mike...if you are tired of TV ads pay the 410 a month and get Netflix....you won't want to watch regular TV ever again.

roadburner

One of my friends used to be a representative in the Kentucky Legislature. He served on an Insurance subcommittee, and repeatedly asked insurance company lobbyists and witnesses for any data that showed that 1-2 speeding tickets alone affected the loss exposure of an insurer. He never received a thing.

driver100

jmonroe said:

andres3 said:

murphydog said:

Maybe the issue isn't self driving cars, but pedestrians darting into the street?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2018/03/20/tempe-police-chief-fatal-uber-crash-pedestrian-likely-unavoidable/442829002/

Turns out they did "release the video." I watched it. I wouldn't use the term "darting", however:

While video is never as good as your own human eyeballs (assuming you have normal vision), I think Uber and Autonomous cars can be given a break here. She appears to have been wearing black at night. The Volvo's headlights were not very good. The car still should have had time to react and hit the brakes though, but in fact, a collision may have been very tough to avoid.

All I know is my personal safety record of 0.00 fatalities per mile traveled is better than autonomous cars now.
No matter how many miles autonomous cars log, they'll never get down to 0.00 again. I intend to keep my 0.00 score for at least this lifetime too.

Another observation.

Had the self driving car been driven by a human speeder, it probably would have only taken the speeder a few seconds of speeding by a "normal speeding margin" to have avoided that collision. The extra speed would have put the Volvo at a further position down the road before the woman walking the bike crossed paths with it.

So any of you doubters that "going faster" can avoid wrecks, have been proven wrong yet again.

You are going to have to be a whole hell of a lot better than that flimsy excuse for speeding to prove it to me.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

jmonroe

Sorry everyone.....but I agree with JMonroe for the 5th time this year.

The crap about he has heard about the precision engineering of German cars before and how it doesn't mean anything to him gets a B.S. on the politico meter so he is batting 50% today.

abacomike

driver100 said:

Mike...if you are tired of TV ads pay the 410 a month and get Netflix....you won't want to watch regular TV ever again.

I have Netflix and I pay $10.99 a month for it.  Most of the stuff they offer stinks to high heaven (or it’s antithesis).  I watch 30 minutes of Netflix shows or movies and the storylines are so slow and boring one could vomit from it.

stickguy

that reminds me. After she graduates, I need to drop my neflix subscription, and let her get her own!

cdnpinhead

There have been dozens of self-driving vehicles in the southeastern portion of the "valley of the sun" running around for most of a year now. I think they belong to Google, but it could be something else, but not Uber. In any event, it's a rare day that I don't see one or more of them on my way to work or back. No news of any kind. Point being, the ones I've seen have accumulated hundreds of thousands of miles with nary a peep of negative publicity. This Uber thing is a tempest in a teapot.

Gee, that never happens.

thebean

explorerx4 said:

@thebean,
It seems that Austin College is not Austin Community College.
Otherwise, I would have asked you if you knew the bomber.

Easy mistake to make. Austin College is in Sherman, Texas, but was named after Stephen F Austin (same as the city Austin). No bombers in the alumni of my school, at least none that I know of.

stickguy

well, finally happened. Local news is on, and they just ran an ad for the local Kia dealer (definitely old school, no credit no problem, type of place), Screamer lease deal ($199/mo, did not catch any other terms) on a Stinger.

Though the ad that came on while I was typing this was a baby econo Kia for $45/mo!

andres3

cdnpinhead said:

There have been dozens of self-driving vehicles in the southeastern portion of the "valley of the sun" running around for most of a year now. I think they belong to Google, but it could be something else, but not Uber. In any event, it's a rare day that I don't see one or more of them on my way to work or back. No news of any kind. Point being, the ones I've seen have accumulated hundreds of thousands of miles with nary a peep of negative publicity. This Uber thing is a tempest in a teapot.

Gee, that never happens.

Maybe, but it's not like someone got bumped and bruised. A lady was killed.

Who here can raise there hand and say, I've also been involved in a fatal pedestrian collision?

Michaell

andres3 said:

cdnpinhead said:

There have been dozens of self-driving vehicles in the southeastern portion of the "valley of the sun" running around for most of a year now. I think they belong to Google, but it could be something else, but not Uber. In any event, it's a rare day that I don't see one or more of them on my way to work or back. No news of any kind. Point being, the ones I've seen have accumulated hundreds of thousands of miles with nary a peep of negative publicity. This Uber thing is a tempest in a teapot.

Gee, that never happens.

Maybe, but it's not like someone got bumped and bruised. A lady was killed.

Who here can raise there hand and say, I've also been involved in a fatal pedestrian collision?

We had a regular poster here who did. Operative word - "had". He no longer posts, as he got too busy with post-retirement plans.

driver100

thebean said:

explorerx4 said:

@thebean,
It seems that Austin College is not Austin Community College.
Otherwise, I would have asked you if you knew the bomber.

Easy mistake to make. Austin College is in Sherman, Texas, but was named after Stephen F Austin (same as the city Austin). No bombers in the alumni of my school, at least none that I know of.

Happens with Amsterdam too!

imidazol97

andres3 said:

Good point. I've read contention and arguments as to what the speed limit really is at that location! Anyone familiar with that stretch of road in AZ? Not sure if it is 35 or 40 yet.

It seems the speed limit may have been changed/lowered for revenue purposes, and the GPS systems may think the speed limit is still 40? We need more data to figure out who's right. Can't trust the media.

Media not telling the truth or the full story? Maybe we can check on facebook.

driver100

Michaell said:

andres3 said:

cdnpinhead said:

There have been dozens of self-driving vehicles in the southeastern portion of the "valley of the sun" running around for most of a year now. I think they belong to Google, but it could be something else, but not Uber. In any event, it's a rare day that I don't see one or more of them on my way to work or back. No news of any kind. Point being, the ones I've seen have accumulated hundreds of thousands of miles with nary a peep of negative publicity. This Uber thing is a tempest in a teapot.

Gee, that never happens.

Maybe, but it's not like someone got bumped and bruised. A lady was killed.

Who here can raise there hand and say, I've also been involved in a fatal pedestrian collision?

We had a regular poster here who did. Operative word - "had". He no longer posts, as he got too busy with post-retirement plans.

Did his name begin with an "R" or is that another one?

graphicguy

ab348 said:

explorerx4 said:

I guess the GM car engine guys never speak with the truck engine guys.

"During the design of [turbocharged] engines, we are always struggling about where are we going to put the turbos," said Jordan Lee, chief engineer for GM's V-8 engines.

If I could provide a word of advice for the Caddy engineers.....pay special attention to your under hood wiring routing.

In all frankness, at one time I had a CT6 loaner during my Cadillac fiascos. It was an impressive car. Handled well for a big car and was relatively sprightly to boot!