This Should Happen

Don't be ridiculous!

There's enough road rage already.

If you're not smart enough to press the accelerator pedal, you should not be driving.

Please don't misunderstand. This is not for me when I pass I like to pass fast this for the others who should not be driving but somehow still manage to be on the road.

Same answer applies.

They should not be driving, and you want to make the car go faster?

NO!

Yes, everybody (myself included!) thinks he's a better driver than everybody else. We can't all be right.

It takes a real man to admit that he's not a good driver.

I drive too fast, I get upset with other driver's stupidity, I am in a hurry, I follow too closely, I accelerate too fast, at times I'm preoccupied when driving, I eat when I'm driving, I go around corners too fast, I like to race through the canyon, I think I'm a race car driver at times, I change lanes too often, I don't signal most times, I honk my horn when people sit too long after the light changes, I don't stop fully at stop signs, I speed up to make it through a yellow light, I decide which laws I'll break and which one's I'll follow, I use the freeways as a race track (only late at night when nobody is around), I have a big problem falling asleep when driving (gotta keep the air cold and crisp), I listen to the stereo too loud, I go down hill too fast and I overload my truck (it's a long bed 1/2 ton that has had over 3,000 lbs of shingles in the bed).

There, nuff said!

There are several vehicles on the market that already have this type of technology.

However, the current automated reaction is to apply the brakes and take evasive action away from the approaching vehicle which is causing a significant amount of wrecks that otherwise would not be occurring.

Logic Formula:

Automated steering response + Automated increased vehicle speed or Automated decreased speed + Electrical control failures + Uphill grade + underpowered 4 cylinder engine => Total loss of vehicle control by operator in traffic and catastrophic wrecks.

Imminent death risk to occupants! Abort! Abort!

I agree with Lyn in that your suggestion is not a safe one.

Warnings are fine, but leave the driving to me. I don't want the car deciding what to do.

I would agree with you. Somewhere I read that there are more than 20,000,000 lines of code already in most vehicle computers. How many more do you want to add? As with anything else, the more complicated it is, the more chance of something going wrong. Adding extra features would mean extra sensing devices as well, would it not?? More that can go awry.

If you want everything done by "machine" wait and see if the driverless car fad comes to fruition. Personally, after doing my own driving for more than 50 years, I like to keep some control as well.

Infiniti makes a Blind Spot Interention system that is better suited to the modern day driver. The system detects a vehicle in the blind spot and when the driver turns on the turn signal and starts to move toward the other car, the opposite side brakes are activated and the car pulls away from the car next to it.

The positive is that blind spot accidents are reduced - the goal of the system.

The negatives are:

1. The driver must use the turn signal.

2. The driver can override the braking by turning the wheel even further.

3. The braking will reduce the speed of the car and could cause an accident either directly behind or further back.

Here is some information about the system. http://www.infinitiusa.com/now/technology/blind-spot-intervention-system.html

Causes more problems than it solves IMHO.

Are people so useless that they need the 'computer toys' to complete a simple act of driving onto rocket science. It seems to me that the car manufacturers are making you lazy, telling you how dumb you, all in the name of progress, giving you more time for yourself and more time to be on Facebook and internet.

Headline: "Autonomous car sue manufacturers due to human race becoming extinct".

Stay of cell phones and concentrate on the road and surroundings and you may avoid the need to avoid the faster vehicle at the last minute.

"Laziness is not a trait to brag about but a trait to correct". Johan Sebastian Shakesbeer.

Or it could be a grand conspiracy to lull us into submission and finally give all control to the car. (as many science fiction writers have foretold)

I tend to follow the first rule of Italian road racing, "What is behind you, doesn't matter." :-P

Pretty much the world wide rule, in fact, as the car behind can see what you cannot see, therefore the car behind can plan better for any corrective actions, just as you behind a car can plan too. In today's world no one gives a damn but wants you to be responsible when they screw up.

Let people ride a motorcycle before they get cars, they will soon appreciate an enclosed space with much safety, and they will learn to be more considerate when they know what can happen. Remove their safety and they learn quickly to drive safely.

We are taking away responsibility and care and we will have much blaming the car, system, computer, app', because it did not do what we assumed it would do. It logically assumed the IP, (Intelligent Person) would do something.

If one wants an autonomous vehicle, take a train or bus.

Question: Does the autonomous car computer need a driving license? If so, how is the test administered? On line, multiple choice?

Also, cars today do not have the large engines of old. Passing a car has to be better planned now. Try passing a car on a hill can get exciting even when legal.

Alas this also is a misnomer in most cases, the smaller engines of today are capable of spanking the big monsters of yesteryear.

I drive a CTS Cadillac (no not the V model cause i'd be in jail) that will run circles around some of the old muscle cars with twice the displacement.

The so called "tuners" are getting over a thousand HP from just over 2 liters but the catch is it's not all that reliable when ran on the ragged edge.

But back to your point, I have no problem passing other motorists when the need arises.

Most people would agree that a 1969 Chevelle SS with a 396 is a muscle car. Check this out. A while back, I had a 2003 Infiniti M45 with a 4.5L V-8. Passing time 40-70 mph - 4.27s. The '69 Chevelle SS ... 4.99s.

I currently own a 2003 Porsche Boxster - non S. 40-70 time? 4.93s. Or my 1996 Volvo 850R. 4.80s. Or our 2012 Honda Pilot with a 3.5L V-6 - 6.64s - compared to a 1968 Chevy Impala with a 327 V-8 7.1s!

These are facts.

I still own a 1965 Plymouth Fury. But I would rather ride my bicycle.

Used to own a 1968 Chevy Impala. But I wouldn't call it muscle car. More like a really nice two-door fastback sedan. It had a 327 with a three-speed automatic. It was pretty fast but it wasn't going to smoke the tires. Used it like truck. Would half a ton of presto-logs in the back seat. Used it for camping. Wish I still had it.

Now I have a 1965 Plymouth Fury four door sedan. Not a muscle car, but it has a towing package. Big motor, low gear ratios, but only a two-barrel. Probably to keep you from burning up the motor from heavy towing. Also has dual glasspacks. Looks like a granny car, sounds like a hotrod.