Amiga.org
Amiga News and Community Announcements => Amiga News and Community Announcements => General Internet News => Topic started by: amigamad on January 19, 2004, 05:44:19 PM
-
Oye Oyediran has taken his car to the repair shop three times for software upgrades since he bought it last year. This is the future of driving. Cars, planes, household appliances and myriad other machines are increasingly relying on software to work. Manufacturers want the flexibility and innovation that programming code can bring. But software can also make machines accidentally stop working, something computer manufacturers know all too well.
The link is here Flaky software (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/19/1074360673429.html)
-
Could someone shov this article up under BBRV's nose? :-D
-
Why, is this bbrv's fault too? I know he was responsible for both world wars and also the Iranian earthquake. That man is a menace.
:-D
-
Why is it anything to do with bbrv its microsofts software and the fault of car maker bmw which im glad there having problems after the way they tryed to run rover into the ground . :-o :-o
-
Personally, I never cared for drive-by-wire, I think it's a stupid idea! A simple electrical glitch and the entire car would be disabled! If my Supra was drive-by-wire, I'd probably be dead now as my battery died while I was on the highway a few months back. If it were a drive-by-wire car, my entire car would have been out of control at over 100km/hr at night time, and without the possibility of using my brakes. Seems like a dumb idea to me.
- Mike
-
Flaky software could crash your car
I doubt it will come to that. The basic functions of a car are very well established. People cause a million times more accidents every year from sheer neglect.
My concern is that people will become so confident in the performance of their cars, that they take the car to the limit. If the car yaws, traction control kicks in to correct the angle. If traction control fails, the car will spin. The result? Oh, don't blame the driver for acting like a maniac -- blame the software!
As for things like the radio and A/C, well, those are hardly critical systems. The worst that can happen is that your wipers will engage unexpectedly and cause a distraction. But, if that distraction is enough to cause a crash, you were probably driving too fast to begin with!
Only one thing prevents crashes: SLOW DOWN.
QNX Software Systems makes software for both. Bugs might present minor problems, but the Canadian company has found a way to keep devices from crashing completely, says product management director Sachin Lawande.
The key is to make software in a way that allows parts of the code to fail without crashing the whole system, Lawande said. Instead of trying to make an entire operating system work without a single bug - all but impossible, Lawande says - QNX concentrates on a tiny piece of code called a microkernel that must be foolproof.
But, people don't program like that. Every module plugged into the kernel depends on some other module, and it's all tied together. A microkernel approach may save some low-level processes from really screwing up (like the filesystem), but if one piece of the OS goes down, chances are the whole system will need to be restarted.
What happens if your graphic driver messes up and makes the screen go blank? All most people can do is reach for the reset button.
Microkernel architecture makes it easier to discover and trace bugs, but I doubt it really improves reliability. Besides, the only thing that runs in kernel space these days are drivers, and they have to run very fast and are typically impractical or difficult to run in user space. I wouldn't be surprised if memory protected drivers are less reliable than kernel drivers, simply because all the extra hoops you need to jump through increases complexity.
Besides, most bugs these days don't cause the system to crash... they cause unexpeted behavior. If menus disappear randomly, is that going to cause a fault that will let the OS know something went wrong, or will it just be "one of those things"?
Outside of the microkernel, "any piece of code cannot be trusted not to fail", Lawande says. Glitches might happen, but they'll be non-fatal errors easily caught in testing, he says.
Provided they test properly and adequately. Low-level components of operating systems are usually very clean, simple, and compact. It's the development tools you have to worry about.
Yeah, load up a 2Meg library and only use 2% of its capabilities. Why not use a smaller, more specific library? Too much trouble.
Linux is bombproof, but man, the KDE desktop is provoking me to put my fist throught the monitor. I can't believe people bitch about Windows when Linux desktops are just as slow, inefficient, and full of bugs! Think the Windows System32 folder is a mess? Why not take a look at /usr/bin or /etc! Thousands of files, names that don't make sense, manuals, libraries, and config files scattered all over the place... yeah, that looks much better.
Testing is part of the problem, says Humphrey of Carnegie-Mellon. Software makers test their products based on their assumptions of how the products will be used, he says. Bugs happen when software is asked to do something programmers didn't see coming.
Programmers and engineers are still asked to do things they either hate doing, or lack appropriate skills. Products are developed, debugged by more engineers, and sent over to manufacturing without consulting people trained in usability testing.
If there's one word I can use to describe the computer industry, it is Impatience.
The software industry, still about 40 to 50 years young, was built and pioneered by smart people who didn't follow the rules.
Early computers were purpose-built machines. The people who made them only had to follow their own rules, because people who programmed servers and mainframes were the people who ran them. Or, full-time technicians gave support 24/7. People knew what the computer was supposed to do.
These days, computers are built to do any indiscriminate number of things, and cater to the preferences of millions of different people. There's too much drive to make an all-in-one box that does everything adaquately and nothing very well.
It's about design, not technology.
-
Personally, I never cared for drive-by-wire, I think it's a stupid idea! A simple electrical glitch and the entire car would be disabled! If my Supra was drive-by-wire, I'd probably be dead now as my battery died while I was on the highway a few months back. If it were a drive-by-wire car, my entire car would have been out of control at over 100km/hr at night time, and without the possibility of using my brakes. Seems like a dumb idea to me.
True very scary thought its bad enough if your engine stops running while your moving if you have power steering its very hard to turn the wheel . :-?
-
Only one thing prevents crashes: SLOW DOWN.
Not true speed does not cause more acidents german autobahns prove that they have less crashes than us here in england. Ive done a 140 mph without any crashing no more dangerous than doing 70 on a clear road.
-
One big thing that causes crashes is people swerving in and out of traffic like their in some kind of hurry to get to the next red light.
-
Ive done a 140 mph without any crashing no more dangerous than doing 70 on a clear road.
It's a lot more dangerous, even on a clear road. Try doing 140 mph on an Autobahn, and even with no speed limit, see how long it is before you're stopped. Or you hit a dead crow on the road, hit a barrier, and turn into tinfoil.
-
True very scary thought its bad enough if your engine stops running while your moving if you have power steering its very hard to turn the wheel .
Welcome to the 1960's! I can only imagine what it was like to drive a '49 Packard with no power steering or brakes. :-)
Blah blah 140 MPH blah...
People who drive 140 MPH usually have good cars and know how to drive them. Here in the USA, we have very few accidents on i495, which is a huge, smooth road 4-lanes wide. There are rarely accidents not related to someone falling asleep at the wheel, DUI, or a blown tire...
...in downtown Bellingham, however, it's common for cars to jump the guardrails on the i495 exit, and people slam into trees frequently due to invisible gravel on the road. I really pisses me off to see SUVs zoom through downtown at high speed because they have all wheel drive. I don't suppose these people know basic math: four wheels times zero traction equals zero traction.
(I own a Subaru, BTW, so I know all about AWD. In fact, I had to push someone else's Impreza out of a snowbank, once!)
Next to the lumberyard, there is a 4-way intersection with no lights, where the legal speed limit is 30. But, since it's a downhill road, people zoom through at 50+ MPH without even looking. Naturally, we have several rollovers there every year. The town won't install lights because there's hardly any traffic on that road, which, of course, makes people drive even faster.
If you want a good example of how speed kills, try driving through the raised highways of Providence, RI. 80+ MPH on a crumbling road two lanes wide. Only New Jersey has worse drivers. I went to a convention in Pennsylvania a few years ago, and I had to drive through NJ. That was the first time I ever broke 100 MPH on a raised highway! Of course, you either go with the flow or get run over. :-o
I will never, ever go to NJ again!
-
People who drive 140 MPH usually have good cars and know how to drive them.
Nothing special just a 9 year old vauxhall cavalier 2.5 v6 .ive been driving about 8 years now so i know how to drive .i only done that speed once to test the car when i had not had it to long and dont intend going much above a 120 now.
-
Everybody thinks they're a good driver. The road deaths statistics disagree.
-
Well, I can honestly say I am a good driver. I don't change lanes without signaling, I'm a corteous driver, I stop at stop signs. I OBEY the traffic laws. Why?? 'Cos they're here to protect me. I was nearly hit 2 times today, one of which 'cos someone wanted over in my lane, but didn't bother to signal and just moved into my lane. I had to slam the breaks, just to keep me from sideswiping this @$$hole. Then, he has the NERVE to give ME the finger.
I've been in one accident my entire life, on an open road. A cow just walked into the road and I swerved to avoid him. He paniced and slammed the back of my Camaro, spinning me out of control to crash into a sewer pipe. They had to use the jaws of life to get me out of my car, 'cos I had hit the pipe so hard, it bent my car's frame into an 'L', trapping me inside. I was stuck like that for 3 hours.
The only ticket I got was for going a whopping 3 miles over the speed limit. I was wearing my fatigues and on my way back to base. #### head cop pulled me over and asked me how fast I was going, so I told him. He then told me that I should watch my speed, 'cos he didn't have time to mess with 'punk, military men' like myself. I, in my usual smart @$$ style of course, said 'sure thing, Boss. You might want to watch those donuts, 'cos your uniforms getting a bit tight' , so he slams me with a speeding ticket for 43 in a 40 (later dismissed and the officer in question reprimanded for 'wasting' the cities tax dollars. It pays to show up in court in your Class A's.)
In my 15 years of driving, I've gotten one ticket and been in a single accident that didn't involve another driver. I don't drive like a 'bat out of hell' and I don't get road rage, but that's not due to the ignorance of other drivers. Most people are more concerned with talking on their cell phones, or friends in the car, or just to get where they want to go, they don't even THINK about or even that there ARE other drivers on the road, besides them.
I swear, living in Texas sucks. I'm not suprised if they give out driver's licenses in Cracker Jack Boxes here. Most people don't deserve them. :-?
-
True very scary thought its bad enough if your engine stops running while your moving if you have power steering its very hard to turn the wheel .
Ever since cars were equipped with processors, they have had a "Safe mode" as a default should a CPU or one of the many sensors die. This would show up on your dashboard as a "Check Engine" or "Service Soon" light. Your car is now not using a processor and your mileage will be terrible, but otherwise safe.
-
Hmm, how do you guys think a car would run with windows installed? :-D
-
Ever since cars were equipped with processors, they have had a "Safe mode" as a default should a CPU or one of the many sensors die. This would show up on your dashboard as a "Check Engine" or "Service Soon" light. Your car is now not using a processor and your mileage will be terrible, but otherwise safe.
It does on the m3 cavalier i have now but on my 1985 cavalier mk2 1800 sri i used to have there was no warning light but that was reliable and made with better quality componants the newer cars seem to be even less reliable due to the increase in electrics i much prefer an classic and older cars due to the fact they have no stupid computers to go wrong . :-)
-
Hmm, how do you guys think a car would run with windows installed?
Yes as long as control alt delete was intergrated into a one button configuration it could be mounted on the steering wheel and pressed easy when the system crashes and you need to reboot to use the brakes. :-D :-D
-
Yes as long as control alt delete was intergrated into a one button configuration it could be mounted on the steering wheel and pressed easy when the system crashes and you need to reboot to use the brakes.
considering it's windoze, wouldn't that be brake pedal, gas pedal and slamming the car's stick in reverse? LOL Imagine you're driving and your window turns into a blue screen???? *shudders*
-
That was the first time I ever broke 100 MPH on a raised highway! Of course, you either go with the flow or get run over.
Give me a break! You haven't driven until you've drivin in Athens, Greece! It's insane!!!
- Mike
-
Everybody thinks they're a good driver. The road deaths statistics disagree.
Perhaps, and you can always spot the bad drivers; they're the ones following the speed limit!
- Mike
-
I OBEY the traffic laws. Why?? 'Cos they're here to protect me.
I don't buy that. Only you can protect yourself. Obey the laws if you wish, but it's only your alertness that will prevent you from making a mistake.
I've been invloved in two accidents, neither my fault. The first was when a car spun out in front of me while attempting a lane change under VERY icy conditions. He started doing 360's infront of me and I plowed into him, no way I could have prevented that. The other was when a guy ran a red light, and if it wasn't for the fact that another car was blocking my view, I probably would have stopped in time to prevent that accident (which wrote off my first Supra).
Anyway, I was obeying the traffic laws, and so was the other guy in the first accident, he spun out because he had ####ty tires or just didn't realize how slippery it was that day. The second guy wasn't paying attention and ran the light. If both were more alert to the conditions and the traffic signals, neither accident would have happened.
Ultimately, one needs to compensate for other people's poor driving skills. It's one thing to tail gate or weave through traffic at high speeds, but it's another to exceed the speed limit in an otherwise empty street under good conditions. Personally, I find that those drivers who follow the traffic laws to the T are the worst drivers - and mostly because they are insecure behind the wheel and hope the traffic laws will somehow protect them. I at least know perfectly well what my car is and is not capable of because I've taken it to it's limits and beyod. As a result, my rear wheel drive sports car has never been stuck in snow or in a ditch.
- Mike
-
Perhaps, and you can always spot the bad drivers; they're the ones following the speed limit!
How exactly is going the speed limit a sign of a 'bad' driver, Mike? I see cops flash their lights 'cos they don't want to wait at a light or a stop sign. I see cops speeding all the time and disregarding their own traffic laws, yet they have NO problem issuing you a ticket for violating a traffic law. Does that make them 'GOOD' drivers? There's nothing wrong with flowing with traffic, but if someone wants to go the speed limit, which is the law, how is that bad? Seems to me that the only reason it's bad, is when it incoveniences you. That's not the type of mentality I would classify in a 'good' driver.
Anyway, I was obeying the traffic laws, and so was the other guy in the first accident, he spun out because he had ####ty tires or just didn't realize how slippery it was that day. The second guy wasn't paying attention and ran the light. If both were more alert to the conditions and the traffic signals, neither accident would have happened.
And your point is? While the first one was a situation that couldn't really be avoided, the SECOND guy and I quote you, 'wasn't paying attention and ran the light.' THAT, my friend, is clearly someone that should NOT be behind a wheel. Excuse me, but how can you run a light by NOT paying attention. That's got to be the STUPIDEST excuse for an accident I've ever heard?!!? ( I do hope you got something out of it.)
In both of those instances, situations arised that could NOT be avoided. The first one, however, was one that could not be helped. He lost control of his car and you hit him. In ice, you were helpless and there isn't much to do. I've driven in ice and know how it is. Most people have driven in rain several times and yet there are STILL idiots that don't think 'Gee, the roads are slick. I should change my driving to compensate for the loss of traction, due to rain.'
The second guy BLATANTLY disregarded the traffic signals. I'm sorry, but when I'm coming to an intersection that has a light, I pay ATTENTION. If he had just obeyed the rules, he wouldn't have hit you. but he didn't care. He didn't want to wait at the light, so he ran it.
Ultimately, one needs to compensate for other people's poor driving skills.
That's still no reason to not follow the rules. Sure there are instances where the rules must be broken, but if you do it constantly and without a thought for the others on the road, you are no better than the people complained about. If some guy were to slam on his brakes in front of me and even with my typical 'car length' of space between us, I would CERTAINLY change a lane without signaling, if it would prevent an accident.
Most accidents aren't caused by human error, but by negligence. My ex-wife totalled her car, 'cos her phone rang and she reached down on the passenger-side floorboard to get her phone out of her purse. THAT is ignorance. (Consequently, she wouldn't speak to me for over a week, 'cos though I sympathized that she lost her car, it was from her own negligence and I had no sympathy at all for that.) If she had just waited to answer her phone, it wouldn't have happened, but it was more important to answer the phone than to pay attention to the road.
People get into accidents, 'cos they change lanes without looking, run stopsigns or stoplights, disregard 'no left turn' signs, etc. Hell, there are idiots that kill people 'cos the go the wrong way on a street.
It's one thing to tail gate or weave through traffic at high speeds
One of the biggest reasons for pileups on freeways. God forbid they have to wait to move, when by changing a lane without looking they can move a whopping ONE car length ahead... :-x
Personally, I find that those drivers who follow the traffic laws to the T are the worst drivers
Really? So that guy that ran the light and hit you, he is what you would classify as a 'good' driver, Mike? Get real. He hit you simply 'cos he didn't want to wait at a RED light and ran it, smacking you in the process. If he was REALLY a good driver, he would have slowed down and stopped at the light, since it was OBVIOUSLY your turn to go. Like you said yourself, your view was blocked by another car. You didn't see him coming. Since you couldn't see him, due to the other car, you MUST have been moving through the intersection. How could he have missed the light, but not notice the cars MOVING across his path??
and mostly because they are insecure behind the wheel and hope the traffic laws will somehow protect them.
I am NOT insecure behind the wheel. I am constantly aware of what's going on around me when I am driving, 'cos most people, yourself included by what you have written, are BLINDED by the fact that there are OTHER people occupying the road, other than yourself and I am in no way going to endanger MY life, so you can gun your car at 150mph and cut me off without signaling, simply 'cos you want to get somewhere faster. It's ignorance like that killing motorists, not me.
And yes, I will admit that there are drivers out there that ARE insecure about their driving, namely young drivers and old drivers, but considering how many traffic fatalities there are in the US/Canada per year, it's no wonder. If we didn't have these stupid, ignorant f*cks that HAD to race, or disregard traffic signs, or talk on the phone, etc., we CERTAINLY wouldn't have has many accidents as we do now.
I at least know perfectly well what my car is and is not capable of because I've taken it to it's limits and beyod.
What do you want, Mike, a cookie? Even RACE car drivers get into accidents and that's all they do is drive their cars, learning the 'ins and outs' of their machine. You think that 'cos you know your car, you're above the laws of the road and they don't pertain to you? Once again, you've proven my point that ignorance is what kills people. So since you 'know' your car, you feel that you can just 'whip' through traffic how you please??
Sure, it's good to know your car, but many people out there don't and a vast majority of them are the ones responsible for collisions. I haven't gotten into any accidents because I take EXTRA precautions, not because I 'know my car'.
I must have touched a nerve with you, Mike. I wasn't trying to get a rise out of anyone, but you immediately started to bash people who 'follow the rules', which only leads me to think that you give no consideration to those driving around you. I'll be waiting for your flame, 'cos you always do. Then again, *I* am not the one that's been in two collisions with other vehicles. :-D
-
Mercedes is said to be looking at removing the physical link between the steering wheel and the actual steering rack. BMW offers an electronically controlled variable rate rack on the new 5 Series.
As an enthusiastic driver I cannot see how such an artificial steering system can duplicate the feel of a decent rack and pinion set up. It would be like playing Virtua Racer or something! Just how would such a system cope in event of the engine stalling?
My Alfa Romeo has a drive by wire throttle, which is supposed to enhance throttle response. In theory it all works well, but the legendary stereotypical Italian electrical gremlins occasionally like to manifest themselves... :-D
Adding complex software to a car will only add more things to go wrong IMHO.
-
a day in 2015:
my friend call me and ask me to pick him up at the pub , and i have to reply ! sorry but you will have to wait for a few hours as i am currently scanning my car for viruses and after that i need to defragment the engine, so maybe you should take a cab instead?
-
But software can also make machines accidentally stop working, something computer manufacturers know all too well.
How about this for a scary thought: From the 1970's jet fighters like the F-16 and Eurofighter Typhoon are actually aerodynamically unstable - without computer intervention they'd literally fall from the sky.
One of the reasons why the Typhoon and Lockheed F-22 are taking so long to enter service is because of the need to test the software used to keep the jets airborne....
And if you think it's only military jets using "fly by wire" then remember that both Airbus and Boeing airliners also have a computer interface between the pilot/s and control surfaces...
A cheery thought for you all :-D
-
Perhaps, and you can always spot the bad drivers; they're the ones following the speed limit!
Don't be a tw@t mike. That is the most stupid thing I've heard allday and I work in a Council office!
-
I've been invloved in two accidents, neither my fault. The first was when a car spun out in front of me while attempting a lane change under VERY icy conditions. He started doing 360's infront of me and I plowed into him, no way I could have prevented that. The other was when a guy ran a red light, and if it wasn't for the fact that another car was blocking my view, I probably would have stopped in time to prevent that accident (which wrote off my first Supra).
Anyway, I was obeying the traffic laws, and so was the other guy in the first accident, he spun out because he had ####ty tires or just didn't realize how slippery it was that day. The second guy wasn't paying attention and ran the light. If both were more alert to the conditions and the traffic signals, neither accident would have happened.
I fail to see how "running a red light" is obeying Traffic laws...
In the UK all vehicles must have a yearly Road Worthiness test (Known as the MOT), I know that this is not the case in Canada, but tires that are unsuitable for the road are not legal in this country and I'm sure not in Canada too!
Alertness is also a legal requirement, one must be aware of other road users and beable to predict what other useres will do in a given situation. If they abey the law you can predict how they will react, if not you will be less accurate in your predictions.
I have been cought speeding twice, both times when it was a stupid teenager. I paid the price, lost my licence (The 6 points rule) and had to retake my test. Which does give be the boast of passign my test first time... and then first time the second time too :-)
I've never had a crash or accident. I think I'm a good driver and I certainly don't break the speed limit ever, anymore since I learned my lesson.
-
heh, the point I was trying to make about running the red was that there's a difference between people who purposefully disobey the traffic laws and those that do so by accident. For example, few people speed and swerve through traffic by accident. Conversely, only those with a death wish would blindly drive through a red light. I'm NOT defending the guy who blew through the red light at all, and in fact would argue he's a bad driver but NOT because he broke the law but because he wasn't paying attention. Hell, I've driven through a red light safely, after stopping at the light at 4am and noticing there are no other cars anywhere insight. Does that make me dangerous? Hardly! If you wanna obey the rules to a T, go ahead, but don't delude yourself that consciously disobeying particular traffic laws under particular conditions makes you a dangerous driver.
Anyway, I thought I already stated that a good driver is an alert driver who knows the capabilities of their car, any monkey can obey the limit. And why do I think those drivers who obey all the traffic laws are the worst? Because these drivers, in my opinion, are ill equipped to deal with extraordinary conditions that my arise. I find their two hands on the wheel, driving exactly the speed limit a sign of insecurity! Safe driving is about dealing with the unexpected. A good driver knows how their car reacts to all weather and road conditions, and the best way to do that is to take the car to the limits on a regular basis. Of course this doesn't mean driving like a maniac through traffic, this means testing your cars turning and breaking capabilities while on remote roads or parking lots. In otherwords, experience is a big factor as well.
- Mike
-
And if you think it's only military jets using "fly by wire" then remember that both Airbus and Boeing airliners also have a computer interface between the pilot/s and control surfaces...
A cheery thought for you all
Although true, and I already knew that, military and commercial aircraft have teams of mechanics and technitians constantly checking and upgrading these vehicles. Cars tend to get far less tender loving care, and are often abused. Not only that, many of the mechanics out there are of dubious quality, often improperly fixing the simplest of things.
- Mike
-
Don't be a tw@t mike. That is the most stupid thing I've heard allday and I work in a Council office!
I'm sticking with my original statement. Anyone doesing exactly 60 in a 60 zone is either a newbie or insecure. All experienced and confident drivers do slightly more, usually 65 or 70 in a 60 zone.
- Mike
-
What do you want, Mike, a cookie? Even RACE car drivers get into accidents and that's all they do is drive their cars, learning the 'ins and outs' of their machine. You think that 'cos you know your car, you're above the laws of the road and they don't pertain to you? Once again, you've proven my point that ignorance is what kills people. So since you 'know' your car, you feel that you can just 'whip' through traffic how you please??
Just because you know your car doesn't mean you're a good driver. The best race drivers don't go fast, they drive consistently. I know the limits of my car (at least now I do, since I recently upgraded my sway bars), and I know NOT to take the car to those limits. They call it a "limit" for a reason. :-)
As an enthusiastic driver I cannot see how such an artificial steering system can duplicate the feel of a decent rack and pinion set up. It would be like playing Virtua Racer or something! Just how would such a system cope in event of the engine stalling?
You're right. That new BMW with variable steering has been getting mixed reviews because it doesn't feel natural and in sync with the road.
Modern arcade racing games are crap. I miss the heavy, stubborn feel of the Hard Drivin' steering wheel, which actually pulled in all directions depending on how the wheels allilgned with the road. You had to have some muscle to drive that arcade game, especially the ####pit version! :-D
What's even funnier is that all the physics were done by a 10Mhz 68010, while two other Texas Instruments CPUs rendered the polygons. Today's arcade racing games might have quad MIPS CPUs and custom CGI boards, but have all the technical charm of a ferris wheel.
Hey, that's an idea... require people to turn a few hot laps in Nascar Racing 4 using a custom engineered ####pit before they can get their license! :-D
[EDIT]: Whoa, I never knew "cockpit" was a swear word...
[EDIT, part deux]: I never knew it isn't, provided you put it in quotes! :-D
-
I'm sticking with my original statement. Anyone doesing exactly 60 in a 60 zone is either a newbie or insecure. All experienced and confident drivers do slightly more, usually 65 or 70 in a 60 zone.
I don't suppose saving gas or cruisin' has anything to do with it? That's why highways have more than one lane!
I drive 55 between a few exits, 75 over long distances, and 45 everywhere else. Cops get suspicious if you drive too slow in my town. :-)
-
Just because you know your car doesn't mean you're a good driver. The best race drivers don't go fast, they drive consistently. I know the limits of my car (at least now I do, since I recently upgraded my sway bars), and I know NOT to take the car to those limits. They call it a "limit" for a reason.
I couldn't have said it better myself, Waccoon. ;-)
-
What do you want, Mike, a cookie? Even RACE car drivers get into accidents and that's all they do is drive their cars, learning the 'ins and outs' of their machine. You think that 'cos you know your car, you're above the laws of the road and they don't pertain to you? Once again, you've proven my point that ignorance is what kills people. So since you 'know' your car, you feel that you can just 'whip' through traffic how you please??
Here, read this report and educate yourself: Is speed killing us? (http://www.sense.bc.ca/research.htm)
(http://www.sense.bc.ca/img/isku_85th_1.gif)
- Mike
-
Whoa!! I =CAN= drive faster without killing anyone. :-D *puts pedal to medal* Vrrooommm....
Good, now we can concentrate on reducing accidents from alcohol and drug related cases. :-)
-
Jose Date: 2004/1/20 1:44:58
Hmm, how do you guys think a car would run with windows installed?
DONT EVEN THINK ABOU IT!!!!!!! :-o :-o :-o
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
-
Here, read this report and educate yourself: Is speed killing us?
Michael, Michael, Michael. I baited, you hooked. I NEVER said anything about driving too slow or slower than the speed limit. I was defending the right to OBEY the laws, which you don't encourage.
Never once, in any of my posts, did I mention driving slower than the speed limit. If you want to get technical, driving the SPEED LIMIT (I know it's difficult for you to understand, so bear with me) has a LOWER accident rate than driving 'slower' than the speed limit and that shows by your diagram.
I wasn't discussing 'speeding' per se, I was more referring to the ignorance of drivers. The guy that hit you, when he ran the red light, odds are, he was speeding. Why?? 'Cos he RAN a red light. It's a known thing that the Yellow light does not mean 'caution' to the average driver, it means 'speed up, 'cos God FORBID you have to wait at a red light.'
People get into accidents, 'cos they change lanes without looking, run stopsigns or stoplights, disregard 'no left turn' signs, etc. Hell, there are idiots that kill people 'cos the go the wrong way on a street.
Seems to me that I said NOTHING about speeding. It's illegal here to talk on your phone and drive, but people do it anyways. Why? 'Cos they don't give a sh!t. We've had people here that have been hit by our new light rail, 'cos they turned where there was a 'no left turn' sign. Why?? 'Cos they didn't give a sh!t.
We've had fatalities on our HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) Lanes, 'cos people go the WRONG way??!!?? Inbound in the morning, outbound in the evening. It's not hard. An eight-year old knows the difference, but there are people that go the wrong way, 'cos they 'forget' and end up killing someone.
If people were to keep the 'car's length' distance that is described in EVERY driver's manual I've seen, you wouldn't have as many rear end collisions. If people didn't IGNORE posted signs, that are there for their protection, there would be fewer accidents. Speeding was never the problem I was referring to. Negligence was and always will be the primary cause of traffic collisions.
Show me some statistics that say 'Disobeying Traffic Laws and Posted Signs reduce driving accidents' and I MIGHT offer some sort of apology.
Otherwise, pay attention to what people write, instead of trying to justify your position with articles of text and graphs that do not correlate with your opposition's point of view. We were discussing something entirely different. I do agree that speeding doesn't cause as many accidents, but Fung Choi in his souped-up, rice rocket who races up and down the roads (not highways, mind you), isn't exactly HELPING reduce traffic collisions.
-
Sorry, but I rather go by bicycle (healthy :-) ) or well-funded public transport.
-
Well here in Australia the Holden Maloo ute (Holden is GM) has a pretty meaty V8 motor, goes pretty quick, but it is known that when the computer in the cars management has a fit (quite offen)the car would shut down and then the car has to be taken to a dealer to get the computer reset.
I myself drive a 2003 Ford Falcon XR6 Turbo (impressive car, pretty quick, wieghs 1,785kg, 4.0ltr straight 6, turbo charged at 6psi max, 240kw, 0-100km/h in 5.9 seconds, 0-400m in 13.95 seconds) and most of the cars systems are integrated into the computer (engine management system, Car audio, car alarm, smart lock, basically everything with electrinics). Smart car makers integrate safe guards upon safe guards to basically make something fool proof. EG. The accelerator system in my car is computer controlled, no wire going from the accelerator directly to the throttle body. There are actually 3 sensors in and around the accelerator peddle. If even one of the of the sensors fails (has a slightly different value to the others) the computer will then make the engine only rev at 2,500 rpm max, thus allowing for safe stopping. Hasn't happened to anyone as far as I know. Although there had been the odd engine shutdown due to computer stuffing around in the first few months of the model (BA Falcon) being available. Even when this happened the computer would reset it's values and let the car go as if nothing had happened. But since then PCM updates have solved those minor software issues that made the engine stop. Although the updates until a few months ago were unable to happen properly due to some software issues with the WDS software thanks to FORD in the US. Basically the PCM had to be updated physically, whereas now it's all done in software.
The engine management system is also adaptive. This basically means that the computer changes values depending on the way you drive the car. I have 13,500km on the clock and I've gotta say that the engine feels better and smoother. No more of the "computer is holding it back" feel it used to have ;)
Personally I can't wait for the 15,000km service apparently there are some nice computer updates that are now available for my car.
That said, the only good software is software that can recover safely after a failure. Last thing you need is for an unforseen condition to accure and then have the engine stop on you. In terms of brakes, these are one thing that will always stay like the old way. Not computer controlled thats for sure.
-
PMC wrote:
BMW offers an electronically controlled variable rate rack on the new 5 Series.
BMW's are crap - believe me I work in a authroised repairer, and the number of faults we have is tremendous.
-
A bloke I know had a brand new 5 series BMW go up in flames for no reason a few weeks ago. All that was left was the cars body shell..
In terms of reliability there is no car on the planet that is 100% perfect. The nature of production lines.
-
and most of the cars systems are integrated into the computer (engine management system, Car audio, car alarm, smart lock, basically everything with electrinics).
all that controlled by one, central ECU??? Hmmm... Something sounds weird. What if you wanna install an after market stereo???
There are actually 3 sensors in and around the accelerator peddle.
Throttle position sensors? Hmmm... That reminds me, my budy's Intrepid kept dying on him after running for a few minutes. He got it to limp home, and the next day toed it to the dealer. The problem turned out to be the crank angle sensor. This sensor basically determines which spark plug is to fire (as opposed to the older style which used a distributer, geared directly to the crank). Anyway, with the sensor faulty, the engine kept losing it's timing, eventually not knowing which cylinder to fire and the car would just die. This tells us two things: 1) Your on board computers are only as good as your sensors are, and 2) maintenance of these sensors is only as good as the computer diagnostic feedback. It's quite possible that the sensor was going for some time now and that they were driving around with less then optimum timing - resulting in poor feul economy and possibly even damaging the engine. If you're gonna put so much trust in these sensors then the car needs to be able to self-test the sensors and report any problems in a MEANINGFUL manner (not just a Service Engine light).
Also, like others have mentioned, military fly-by-wire systems exist, and work well, but they also often have redundant systems. I've yet to see any redundancy in cars yet.
In terms of brakes, these are one thing that will always stay like the old way. Not computer controlled thats for sure.
Ah, but that's exactly what drive-by-wire is all about. No more hydrolic breaks and even the steering will be done electronically, not mechanically.
- Mike
-
BMW's are crap - believe me I work in a authroised repairer, and the number of faults we have is tremendous.
Well, according to Consumer Reports, BMW was the only German car maker to be in the top 50% in terms of quality control/reliability. VW was the worst ranking German car maker, ranking lower then some North American makers. Audi was slightly better, as was Mercedes. Topping the list were all the Japanese makers (none of which made it to the bottom 50%). Toyota and Honda were the top two in quality/reliability.
EDIT: Sorry, forgot about Porsche. They ranked in the top 50% as well, but can't remember how they compared to BMW.
And yes, Consumer Reports needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but it's typically pretty close. Toyota/Honda have always had the reputation of being top in terms of reliability, while VW has been known to kinda suck in that department (which is too bad, as otherwise they make some nice cars).
- Mike
-
Unlike some other cars, the BA Falcon has everything integrated cosmetically aswell... No adding after market stereos in the console, but there are ways around it. Standard stereo has an LCD screen, whereas the premium stereo (which I have) has colour screen (and it's 6 disc in dash, has a 150watt amp that powers a subwoofer in the back.) The screens have all the stereo/radio, A/c time etc integrated. Anyways, all to do with security and insurance premiums. That's why I pay about 1/4 of the insurance premiums that a similarly performing and priced Suburu WRX does, even though they have 6 point immobilizers etc. They have a normal stereo, so people steal them.
Anyways, many an American car reviewer has tested the XR6 Turbo here in Australia. The most common thread "The Falcon XR6 Turbo is what the Ford Taurus should've been, but is no where near". Apparently one of the ford execs in Detroit has one of these Australian Made Falcon XR6 Turbo's as his ride ;)
Some history. A few years back FoMoCo in the US wanted to stop the falcon and replace it with the Taurus here in Australia. But then Ford Australia showed them how to make a proper car, again and again (oh the AU was a flop here, looked ugly) then again with the BA.