The Solution To Unintended Acceleration

Outlaw automatic transmissions. Clearly they are too advanced for most Americans.

You are welcome.

Outlaw cars? It would decrease the US vehicle accident rate to 0%

Naah, we would still find a way to drive fast and hit stuff

How about we implement some sort of training and testing requirement before we let people drive? Not just the "driving trivia" thing we've got going on now.

The only thing I recall from my drivers test is that you're supposed to turn off your highbeams when an oncoming car is less than 300 meters away. It was the only question I got wrong. It's good information to have. I guessed 500 meters. Imagine such a world. Everyone would loose 200 meters of high beam visibility.

skruffy wrote: How about we implement some sort of training and testing requirement before we let people drive? Not just the "driving trivia" thing we've got going on now. The only thing I recall from my drivers test is that you're supposed to turn off your highbeams when an oncoming car is less than 300 meters away. It was the only question I got wrong. It's good information to have. I guessed 500 meters. Imagine such a world. Everyone would loose 200 meters of high beam visibility.

I see why you missed the question, they asked you in meters and we don't know meters. 500 meters must be about 50' right?

In reply to carguy123:

No, 500 meters is 200 feet after they've passed you.

It terrifies me that so few people understand how to shift a car into neutral.

Seriously--you call 911 before you consider shifting into neutral? Really???

I have been wondering if I missed something, does the Toyota transmission lock out neutral at high speed or something?

When this story first broke I suggested that perhaps some people were just too stupid to operate machinery, and in some cases, to live at all. I was met with some hostility.

^ I am all for removing ALL nanny features on all new vehicles. No airbags, no stability control, no ABS, no traction control, no collision avoidance systems, no brake assist, no autopark features.... leave this in place for 5 years and I guarantee the herd will finally shed some of the dead weight.

Instead of airbags, we need a big spike pointing out of the steering wheel directly at the driver's chest: sharpened, polished, and glinting menacingly in the sunlight. That would probably encourage folks to be a little more careful.

In all honesty, the best thing I ever did for my defensive driving skills was start riding a motorcycle in traffic. Something about being exposed to pavement and multi-ton hunks of steel without a cage for protection makes one really alert, really fast. Kinda like climbing out of the shark tank after you've been baiting them with raw meat and poking them to get 'em real angry: you're suddenly aware of the real danger of your situation.

So, I propose 1 year of mandatory motorcycling, restricted to 250cc for the 1st year, license granted upon completion of a course similar to the MSF's 1st 2 tiers of classes. After 1 year, you can get a bigger bike or take a comprehensive driving course - not the 'driving trivia' (nice, Skruffy) prep course they give now.

alex wrote: Instead of airbags, we need a big spike pointing out of the steering wheel directly at the driver's chest: sharpened, polished, and glinting menacingly in the sunlight.

In the meantime... just duct tape a bag of finishing nails to the airbag cover.

alex wrote: So, I propose 1 year of mandatory motorcycling, restricted to 250cc for the 1st year, license granted upon completion of a course similar to the MSF's 1st 2 tiers of classes. After 1 year, you can get a bigger bike or take a comprehensive driving course - not the 'driving trivia' (nice, Skruffy) prep course they give now.

Yes, 'driving trivia' is right on the money. The motorcycle thing would definitely keep a lot of people off the road, that otherwise would be driving.

I've always said that it should be mandatory to take your license test in a manual shift car. If you can't drive a manual, you're not a qualified driver, IMO.

In reply to alex:

interesting, kinda like how in europe, you're allowed 50ccs at 14, 250cc at 15 or 16, then can drive a real car at 18.

I've heard for years that licensing laws are far more stringent in Europe. Can someone clarify? Might be a good idea here.

If only there was some sort of switch that could be used to turn the car off...

slevain, you might be on to something there. We should form a corporation and patent a switch to turn the car off. Perhaps it should involve a key for also turning the car on. We'll get Billy3 to do the IP work. Then we'll go around sueing anyone that tries to use a switch (even if attached to a key reciptical mechanism) to turn the car off and settle for $10 million per vehicle design they put that on or $50 per vehicle, whichever is more. Yeah, That's what we need to do. Let's call it "GRM SWITCH CORP" or GSC. Our standard company paid for car (car allowance) will be (user's choice) an Elise or Exige SC. Those with munchkins can opt for an Evora because it has back seats (sort of.)

aussiesmg wrote: does the Toyota transmission lock out neutral at high speed or something?

I don't know about the third generation prius, but there's no lockout on the second generation car; i.e. you can shift the second generation prius into neutral when it is already at 70 mph and still accellerating. A friend of mine tried it yesterday on his drive home and called me afterwards to report the results of his little experiment......

I believe the many of these cars don't have ignition keys in the traditional sense. They have those proximity key transmitters and push button start. Pressing the start button won't immediately shut the car off if it is moving. You have to hold the button down for a prolonged time - not something the average owner would know, or think of in an emergency.

Many of the drivers in these cases report that they tried every available gear - including neutral and reverse with no effect.

I don't know if any of that is true, exaggeration, make-believe or whatever - but multiple drivers have reported that they tried these things and it didn't help.

cwh wrote: I've heard for years that licensing laws are far more stringent in Europe. Can someone clarify? Might be a good idea here.

There it is... the little push this thread needed to take us from our carefully poised stand on the very edge of a 20 page precipice... to a full flounder all the way to the bottom.

This will end in an abortion debate.

cwh wrote: I've heard for years that licensing laws are far more stringent in Europe. Can someone clarify? Might be a good idea here.

Finland's driving laws got a lot of play on teh interwebs after they were briefly mentioned on Top Gear when Capt. Slow went there to learn the scandanavian flick. We even had a troll who showed up here (promoting hoonage on the streets) who talked about finland's drivers' training. I don't think that individual realized that getting two speeding tickets in Finland is enough to have your licence suspended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_licence_in_Finland

I know nothing about other countries in europe, and only know that because of the debate this moron caused...

bludroptop wrote: I believe the many of these cars don't have ignition keys in the traditional sense. They have those proximity key transmitters and push button start. Pressing the start button won't immediately shut the car off if it is moving. You have to hold the button down for a prolonged time - not something the average owner would know, or think of in an emergency. Many of the drivers in these cases report that they tried every available gear - including neutral and reverse with no effect. I don't know if any of that is true, exaggeration, make-believe or whatever - but multiple drivers have reported that they tried these things and it didn't help.

this reminds me of something a friend told me about his pontiac grand prix, supposedly you could accellerate to 60mph, throw it in reverse, and the computer is supposed to figure it out, rather than grenading the transmission.

perhaps this is some "protection" that is keeping things from responding to inputs

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: There it is... the little push this thread needed to take us from our carefully poised stand on the very edge of a 20 page precipice... to a full flounder all the way to the bottom. This will end in an abortion debate.

You know, if we had just properly funded federal abortion for all births so that "women could properly exercise their Constitutional right to kill their child," we would have none of these sudden acceleration problems. Or global warming. Or landfills.

(Just trying to help.)

JoeyM wrote: I don't know about the third generation prius, but there's no lockout on the second generation car; i.e. you can shift the second generation prius into neutral when it is already at 70 mph and still accellerating. A friend of mine tried it yesterday on his drive home and called me afterwards to report the results of his little experiment......

Hey Joey, did the car flip over? I thought they all immediately flipped over if you put them into neutral.

this reminds me of something a friend told me about his pontiac grand prix, supposedly you could accellerate to 60mph, throw it in reverse, and the computer is supposed to figure it out, rather than grenading the transmission.

perhaps this is some "protection" that is keeping things from responding to inputs

most automatic transmissions made since at least the early 70's or so don't allow the car to go into reverse when the car is going forward at more than a few mph.. i say "most" because sometimes that feature doesn't work- one of my cousins has tried it out on pretty much every car he's ever owned (mostly $200 beaters that get beaten), and some of them do, indeed, go into reverse at 60mph with spectacularly tire-smoky results. a few of them even go into park, too, but generally there is just a rather loud whirring sound as the parking pawl grinds away the teeth that it's supposed to engage into to hold the car in place..