No More Natural Gene Pool Cleansing
This is a discussion on No More Natural Gene Pool Cleansing within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; I know this has nothing to do with CCW but man it's getting my dander up. While driving to work I was listening to the ...
September 16th, 2006 03:09 AM
No More Natural Gene Pool Cleansing
I know this has nothing to do with CCW but man it's getting my dander up. While driving to work I was listening to the local conservative talk radio program. The report on was about how American auto manufacturers had until 2010 to have "Electronic Stability Control" on every vehicle sold.
They went on to say that when the seatbelt law was enacted that it saved 15000 lives in the first year. Then when air bags were introduced they saved 10000 lives the first year, and anit lock brakes saved 2500 lives or something like that. They are saying that electronic stability control will save some 2500 lives the first year it is out.
Now to me this only means one thing. The Nanny Government thinks it is helping everyone out by making the world a safer place for all. When in actuality it is allowing all of the people with no sense the ability to keep on living and endangering the lives of people that have common sense. Thus, no more natural cleansing of the gene pool and more liberals !!!!
We are stuck, now I'm not saying that I don't do stupid things now and then and didn't do crazy stuff when I was younger, like jumping our dirt bikes over triple jumps at 70 feet in the air. But I knew,accepted and understood the risk. I am talking about people who don't even understand that they are putting themselves at risk. They depend on someone else keeping them safe and feel that they are entitled to some lawsuit money from the manufacturer of whatever product they were using at the time of their "accident". Like suing gun manufacturers!
Sorry for the long rant and if really outa place mods go ahead and delete it.
George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed."
September 16th, 2006 03:09 AM
September 16th, 2006 09:03 AM
I saw this on the news and actually told the wife basically the same thing. Just gives the idiots of the road more reason to drive recklessly since the now have "stability control" . Guess we need to be protected from ourselves .
September 16th, 2006 02:30 PM
It will expand the same false sense of security and shrugging of responsibility that we see on the highways now. Not to mention add more to the cost of a vehicle and probably damage fuel efficiency.
September 16th, 2006 03:34 PM
What ever happened to defensive driving? You know...as in...when you drive your vehicle at a safe speed according to road conditions.
DAH..."Electronic stability control" which my 1999 SUV has in addition to full time 4-wheel drive, is helpful at times, but never rely upon. This technology will IMHO, simply make it easier to YAK it up on the cell phone, watch the onboard TV/DVD, drive to fast and further remove the driver from the burden of driving safely and responsibly.
September 16th, 2006 03:52 PM
September 16th, 2006 05:09 PM
Oh heck - indeed more nanny crap - and yes too - anything that is done to make vehicles ''safer'' will be abused to the max - and still idiots will wreck.
Chances are when they do - it'll be an even bigger wreck. I share your rant Rugerman!!
Chris - P95
NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.
"To own a gun and assume that you are armed
is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."
- a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.
September 16th, 2006 07:14 PM
this may work out.
maybe these people will put so much faith in stability control they'll hit corners so hard, that nothing, not even a roll cage with full harnesses could save them.
the only down side would be if they took out other non involved drivers.
they're always talking about suv rollovers, but never about how they're driven.
i guess a lot of people are too dense to realze that a suv is NOT a car, much less a sports car.
i drive a big sedan and i know it's limitations, (used to race circle track). there's no way i'd try to drive it like a corvette.
September 16th, 2006 07:20 PM
All those lives saved was countered by the higher numbers killed when the FedGov mandated higher gas mileage for vehicles.
Mnfgs made smaller cars and more people died.
Be Safe and Careful,
Mountaineers Are Always Free
September 16th, 2006 07:50 PM
Actually I like the idea and I'll tell you why.
Originally Posted by Sonic Misfit
The stability control is amazing and it does work, both of our cars have it. It is not just for those who don't pay attention but can greatly assist in vehicle control when we need to avoid one of those that might not be paying attention or driving without consideration of road conditions.
It does add several thousand dollars to the cost of a vehicle, we know this first hand, however, with widespread adoption the price of the systems should come down. If it were to save a member of your family you would consider it priceless.
As far as fuel economy suffering? I would probably put both of our vehicles combined fuel useage up against the fuel economy of alot of single vehicles. With normal driving, not babying the cars, we each get over 48 MPG, I've had mine up to 66 MPG over a long trip with open roads and cruise control set, this is a vehicle equipped with antilock brakes, traction control and stability control.
On a recent trip (July of this year) we took a cross country trip with lots of side stops, 6012 miles all together in one of these vehicles for less than $250 in fuel. I might add that this did include crossing mountains and driving on roads where the speed limits were 75 mph.
Nope, I can tell you first hand that it won't affect fuel economy in a negative way.
The outlook that this is not a good idea is in my opinion anyhow, similiar to saying that adding safties to guns was a poor idea.
Note-This is not a flame or attack, rather the position of one who has spent the premium on these systems and seen their benefit.
September 16th, 2006 09:36 PM
Could we invent something to zap all the idiots talking on cell phones while driving????? That would be useful and it would cut accident rates drastically.
Why Ike, whatever do you mean? Maybe poker's just not your game Ike. I know! Let's have a spelling contest!
September 16th, 2006 09:38 PM
i'll stick with my big sedans.
i'm 6'5" and don't fit into small cars, and a wife, kid, and dog need room when on a trip.
as for mpg, i'm not that worried about it. they've got the mpg up to about 22 mpg with a 600 lb. load on the big cars now. at least that what the rental grand marquis got.
much better than the 10 to 12 the old ones used to get.
September 16th, 2006 09:49 PM
+ 1 Doc!!
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
It's not about the caliber you carry, it's about how you USE it.
1988 DIE HARD 2008
September 17th, 2006 05:36 AM
At least once per week I run into this issue where someone on a cell is talking and not paying attention.
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
I usually drive almost a thousand miles a week and I've seen it all inc people reading the newspaper while driving.
September 17th, 2006 09:14 AM
WVCCW and Graig45 , you guys sound like me.
First of all, I drive a LOT. It is not terribly unusual for me to drive 500 miles in one day for my job. Last Wed I pulled 720 miles in one day. I am a service tech, not a trucker, btw. Anyhow, I wear my seatbelt every time I get in a vehicle. I have been rear ended numerous times, side swiped a few, and been involved in two fairly serious accidents over the last couple of decades. (In both cases I was either stopped or parked) The most serious injury I have ever sustatined in a collision was from the airbag. I don't know whose idea it was to put a bomb in the steering wheel with a pillow case over it, but they need to be given an airbag enema. I am sure they are great if you hit a bridge abutment, or have a head on collision, but the things are way to violent for low speed collisions which they will readily deploy at.
Anti-lock-brakes. When they work, they work well. When they don't... I have had three vehicles now, which developed mysterious brake related malfunctions. I tapped a guy at a stoplight a few years back while driving less than 15 mph. There were two or three car lengths between us when I hit the brakes, but the pedal just started pulsing and the car wouldn't slow down. After a few seconds of standing on the pedal with no effects, I stomped the emergency brake. I was going less than 5mph when I hit the guy, and there was no damage, but what if I had been going 65, and had to stop quick?
The dealer never could find anything wrong with the vehicle either.
What is going to happen when someone just driving to work one day takes a turn a little to hard and the suspension reacts completely wrong to the conditions? Chances are, the driver is going to loose control and might wipe out someone else on their way to work as well.
Technology is great when it works. But let's face it, it breaks and goes squirrely. I should know, reparing things is how I bring home the bacon. At least equip cars with off switches for some of this stuff.
September 20th, 2006 09:24 AM
I'm going to side with the "this is not a good idea" crowd. First off, Electronic Stability Control (ESC) is not always seamless, so when it kicks in, sometimes the car stops behaving the way you expect it to. Sometimes I have to turn mine off to make U-turns properly (and if you know anything about S. FL, that means I have to turn it off about every other time I get in the car). If you ever learned to drive using the throttle steer to corner, forget it. And I know of at least one high end sports car that is undriveable without ESC, per Car & Driver magazine. That will probably spread to every car made with these systems. Why would a car maker bother with designing stable suspensions when the ESC will take care of it and is mandated anyway?
Don't get me wrong, I think it is a great technology, when properly engineered and applied to an already good suspension and steering system. My wife has an Audi A4 with Quattro and ESC. Unless you intentionally do something terminally stupid, I don't think you can get in trouble driving it. But I've driven the car without the ESC engaged, and it is still a very good handling (and expensive) vehicle. It also costs alot of money and adds complexity to the car.
I see it as another case of ABS. Do you know that ABS does not stop you any faster on most roads, and increases your stopping distance in some conditions (gravel, deep snow)? All ABS does is allow you to steer without pumping the brakes manually at the same time. Has anyone ever told you this while selling a car to you? Did anyone tell you that in drivers ed? Didn't think so.
Airbags are again, a good idea when properly engineered and applied. For the driver, at moderate to high speed, they prevent the upper body from impacting the steering wheel, providing the driver is wearing a seat belt and seated at least 10 inches away from the bag. Unfortunately, they are set to deploy (sounds so much better than detonate) at much too low a speed, and you can't steer the car after they deploy, like some were doing from hitting potholes a few years ago. The ones in front of the passenger? Worse than useless. I tried to get a legal airbag cutoff switch for the passenger side of a sports car I used to own, as I was driving my son to school every day. Even though I qualified under the law, I could not get anyone to install one for fear of legal repercussions, not even the dealership. The side impact bags work well, but again the cost jacks up the price of cars alot. Oh, and make sure your body parts aren't in close proximity to the deploying airbags, as they will break bones in contact with them.
By Jeff F in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: July 17th, 2010, 12:40 AM
By HKinNY in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: September 12th, 2009, 08:44 PM
By BigEFan in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: September 10th, 2008, 12:41 PM
By dukalmighty in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: April 20th, 2008, 08:00 AM
By CT-Mike in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: November 11th, 2007, 12:30 PM
Search tags for this page
cleansing the gene pool,
what does cleansing of the gene pool mean