go to http://www.auto.com/industry/iwirc15_20020815.htm it does show that a C-5 is a safe car in a crash
interesting posting
Collapse
X
-
Re: interesting posting
Isn't it just wonderful what the presence of thousands of bottom-feeding, scum-sucking, greasy, shyster contingency-fee plaintiff attorneys have done to permeate every little corner of our lives and totally abrogate the concept of individual responsibility for simple stupidity? Yes, I've always had a problem expressing my true feelings on the issues.- Top
Comment
-
Re: interesting posting
I've always seeing myself buying one more Corvette - a C6, but this black box really bugs
me. The guy in this particular case got what he deserved, and I would never rear end
someone at over 100 MPH with a BAL of .26% - not my style, but it's possible I could
screw up and have an accident either on the street or the track, and I don't want a digital
big brother lurking over my shoulder ready to tattle if I ever make a serious mistake!
Duke- Top
Comment
-
Re: interesting posting
I think there is a real money making opportunity here. Some way to disable the recording capability without disabiling the air bags. Some company is going to do it, and we will see it in the various Corvette catalogs.
On a related note: How far away are we from federally mandated devices that electronically report you when you exceed the speed limit. I can see it now, a transmitter on the highway speed sign tells your car that the speed limit is 55 mph. Your car's "police module" compares your vehicle's speed to the posted speed, and transmits a message back if you are exceeding the speed limit, along with whatever information is necessary to identify your vehicle (VIN, etc.). You then get a ticket in the mail. This is not much further that the current "photo ticketing" that a number of municipalities do. This is yet another reason to keep restoring and driving old cars.- Top
Comment
-
Re: interesting posting
I have another money making opportunity for you. Aftermarket stealth add ons for cars. Given the impracticality of the hardware requirements, perhaps a radar jamming device would be a better seller. The FCC would most likely haul your butt to the slammer in short order but maybe an off-shore manufacturing operation and a web site....You could catch a few sales. Users beware!
-Mark.- Top
Comment
-
Re: interesting posting
Along the same lines, there are several creative ways to make the license plate covers to make vieing on a photocop camera impossible to read. Also, cell phones will be coming with GPS to allow for rescues. The technology is mandated by the FCC (E911 legislation) and users pay for the buildout in the form of a tax on their bills - you pay to allow yourself to be "bugged"!!
The problem with technology - for every good use, there is a downside. The issue becomes HOW we use the data and what fail safes are in place to protect against improper use.
It does not have to be technology. We have a Safe Baby Program designed to prevent children born at home be dropped of a a hospital anonymously, with no questions asked, rather than be dumped in a trash can. Moral issues aside, it is saving lives. Today, I baby was given up where the mother was known. She may be charged with abandonment and have to go through proper channels to severe her parental rights.
Moral here - pay antention and get involved. We cannot avoid technology, but we CAN be its watchdog!- Top
Comment
Comment