THSCC Forums

A U.S. House committee passed an auto-safety bill with a number of changes in the original legislation that the auto industry and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., were looking for.

The new House Energy and Commerce Committee bill, heading to the House floor, requires installation of brake-override systems and event-data recorders, or black boxes, in the wake of Toyota's unintended-acceleration problems.

Regulators also want standards for pedal placement, electronic systems, push-button ignition systems and transmission configuration.



Read more: http://www.autoweek.com/article/2010052 ... z0p93fbfet

_________________
2012 MX-5 Sport SUV

On Sunday driving home from the mountains, I was listening to a Cato institute podcast of a Harvard professor reviewing his new book about libertarian policy.

His main point was that most Congressional legislation is well intentioned (which I completely agree with, I'm not nearly as much of a cynic about politics as most people), but all federal legislation has huge unintended consequences. His argument is that in MOST cases, a federal law results in consequences worse than the original problem.

So my question is this -- assuming legislation passes for brake override controls, push-button rules, blackbox recorders, etc ... what do you think are some possible unintended consequences of these laws?

_________________
Mike Whitney
whit32@gmail.com, 919-454-5445
V10, V8, V8t, I6, I6, V6, F4t, I4, I4, I4, I4, I2, 1, 1

The first obvious consequence will be increased cost to auto manufacturers, along with the portion passed on to consumers. Tucked into this bill is a neat idea to DOUBLE the NHSTA's budget.

There is the potential elimination of left footed braking as well as complicating heel/toe and double clutching (if the proposed "pedal location standardization" in the bill gets passed).

I wonder about the possibility a "two footed" driver (which will be encouraged more and more) accidentally dragging the brake a bit by resting their foot on it and not being able to accelerate out of the way of oncoming traffic. Its an unlikely scenario, but I thought people not being able to put a car in neutral was unlikely too.

_________________
2012 MX-5 Sport SUV

Anything about driver education in that bill?

_________________
In need of car.

I wonder if this will further restrict the US from getting neat ROW models from some manufacturers.

_________________
Mike Whitney
whit32@gmail.com, 919-454-5445
V10, V8, V8t, I6, I6, V6, F4t, I4, I4, I4, I4, I2, 1, 1

I mostly agree, although I am a little more cynical. I think that for the most part they think it will help, however, I think there is both some laziness involved as they depend on their staff who may have bias to give them information not all accurate and some of it plain old greed as in who is paying them to take their position in a matter.

I kinda like the black box idea, but I worry about how it will (could) be used in practice. It's kinda like all these other programs (TIPS, DNA, Medical Dbs) that have good intentions and are good for the purpose that they were invented for but have great potential to be misused.

I'll bet the insurance companies would love to get ahold of some of that black box data.

Let's say one of us take our DD to VIR and does 100+ for a few laps, but on the way home we have a wreck not even due to speed. The black box data get's downloaded and guess what happens next?

<Soup Nazi Voice>

No insurance for you!

_________________
Vincent Keene
'06 Ford Mustang GT (track rat)
'15 Dodge Charger R/T (yeah, it's got a HEMI!)
'07 Ford Fusion SE (205,000 miles and counting)
'98 Chevy Z-24 (retired)
'93 Acura Integra (Team SWB 24HOL Car)

Probably not. who needs education when big brother can watch over his mindless sheep (no im not trying to be political, I am just stirring)

Im more worried about the black box's. Give it a few years and a cop will be able to plug into your car and not need radar... or be able to read the G's you are putting down in a corner.

<stirring>

Mix the following ingredients:
Black Box
Car Phone-Home systems (aka On-Star)
GPS
And one or more of the following databases:
- pick your government agency
- insurance company
- auto manufacturer/warranty dept

And now we 1) don't have a license, 2) can't afford the insurance to drive, and 3) can't get our cars fixed

Of course, while all these pieces of technology exist today, integrating systems across governments to get to these scenarios is likely problematic and expensive enough to at least slow this process down for a good long while. Or maybe not.

</stirring>

_________________
Dustin Fredrickson
-- I'm a nobody --

For grins, since I've made my living and paid for my car "racing" hobby with the in gotten gains of being a SAFETY engineer (you too Jason M ) .

Think about where we would be without all those unanticipated consequences laws. Take for example the cars of the 50's. Do you really want you and any loved ones to be out there driving without you/them and other drivers/passengers having all the safety technology that is a direct result of those laws? We might have some of the improvements but the laws drove most of them.

Assuming the cellphones, texting, GPS had been developed anyway would you really want you or your loved ones in a 50's car while you/they or another stupid driver crashed as a result of the distraction?

I wonder if the phone companies hadn't been deregulated so much if cell phones would even have been developed. If not, maybe there wouldn't be so many distractions.

Do you want your kids to die because of unsafe consumer products or because they weren't as lucky as I was when I fell HARD on pavement from my bicycle in the "before bike helmets days"?

Sometimes (probably always) there are negative unintended consequences from any intended improvement. Usually there are also unexpected benefits. Mike, how long did your job/income benefit from being a lead IBM RoHS compliance engineer of some sort?

_________________
Dick Rasmussen

FS 50 2018 Mustang GT

Since all this stuff is "all about Me" I'll be glad when all "YOU" crazy guys are not driving MY cost of cars and insurance up because the companies have to cover YOUR "racing" activities.


Of course a large percentage of "younger folk" these days give all this info away anyway via Facebook, blogs, forums, etc.

_________________
Dick Rasmussen

FS 50 2018 Mustang GT

Hey guys, I just read this cool book: http://www.amazon.com/1984-Signet-Class ... 0451524934

Its definitely questionable as to whether or not these technologies wouldn't have been developed without government intervention. There is no real way to know, but I would argue that the mere presence of a brand like Volvo shows that people are willing to pay for safety. Airbags, crumple zones, and ABS were all introduced b/c manufacturers thought people would pay for them, not b/c government mandated them.

The only part that I might buy that wouldn't have been developed would have been car design features that lessen the impact that your car has on OTHER vehicles or pedestrians (and very few of the laws have mandated these sorts of things). I'm ok with this sort of intervention. If the govt wants to dictate that I'm not allowed to mount a full propane tank to my front bumper, I can understand that and applaud that. However, consumers have a definite incentive to buy a car that is safer for themselves and thus would have been willing to pay for them. If they want to choose to put their own safety at risk to save a couple $ b/c they otherwise would have been unable to afford a car, they should have that choice.

I'm not as concerned about the big brother side of this (the black boxes will record the last 60 seconds before impact and 15 seconds after) as I am the expansion of government (another agency doubles in size), the added cost for things I don't want being MANDATED on a car (like tire pressure monitors, for example), and unqualified lawmakers dictating critical characteristics of a car (gas/brake behavior as well as pedal spacing) rather than leaving it to perfectly qualified engineers.

_________________
2012 MX-5 Sport SUV

Dick, I'm with you on the sections about having guidelines on new technology. The start/stop button is a good example. Before this thing arrived, the start/stop functionality of cars was pretty much standardized. Turn the key to the "off" position and the engine stops. I view the kill switch of a car as your last line of defense after everything else has gone wrong. As such, that should've been a standardized feature as soon as the manufacturer's started changing the way you stop the engine on a car. They shouldn't have waited for the Toyota Killing Spree to happen.

Now, the monitoring equipment. I'm torn on that. I can see a usefulness of having the information available, but I don't want anyone monitoring ME like that.

_________________
In need of car.

I'm pretty sure that the owners manual tells you how to turn a car off, even if it has a start/stop button no matter who makes it or whether you need to press it once or you need to press it to the beat of "shave and a haircut".

It all comes down to whether you think its up to the government nanny to protect a consumer, or up to the consumer to actually try and understand how to use the second most expensive thing they buy in their life.

_________________
2012 MX-5 Sport SUV