[ExI] fuel economy vs danger

[spike]

> ...On Behalf Of Jeff Davis
> Subject: Re: [ExI] fuel economy vs danger
> 
> 2010/4/1 spike <spike66 at att.net>:
> 
> > The big talk is about how much more dangerous these tiny 
> cars will be,
> 
> 
> Are you certain, Spike that you are not just expressing the 
> inherent red white and blue bias for "more vroom vroom is 
> better"? ...

Hmmm, not really, rather I am saying something that is almost opposite of
this.  I am saying there seems to be a systematic error in the contention
that smaller cars will result in more death and injury.  I contend that
smaller cars will improve safety for those who do not drive them, and that
we shouldn't use the same standards for both because smaller lighter cars
are slower.

This came to mind for me because as new CAFÉ standards do not really impact
me directly: I can likely keep Mister Lincoln running for the next twenty to
forty years.  But it benefits me if a lot of the other proles are driving
minicars.  Of course it presents a marketing problem worthy of Professor J.
Scott Armstrong, to figure out a way to sell these tiny cars: 

	...If you drive this eco-friendly device, the drunken prole who rams
into you is far less likely to be injured or seriously killed...

	...Don't worry if it is a little slower, just leave earlier...

These might be difficult to sell, but it really is just fine with me if the
other proles drive them.  As I have contended here before, our current
Detroits are waaay bigger than they need to be for what they most often do:
haul a single ape.  Almost all cars sold today have four seats, but when is
the last time you saw four adults in one?  Seldom.  Big families, sure, but
we have minivans for that purpose.  Most passenger cars could do just fine
with two seats or even one.

... 
> Google up "cars that drive themselves".   I've been waiting forever
> for this...

Jeff, I do fear this isn't going to happen.  It isn't because of the
technological difficulty, but rather the legal one.  If a self-driver gets
into an accident not its fault, who gets sued?  The manufacturer of the
self-driver probably.  See why they are not working seriously on this?

>... well, the writing is on the wall, "Auto-Chauffeur" 
> is on the way...

I agree it would be way cool, disagree it is on the way.  I am betting
against seeing it in our lifetimes.

> No doubt you will say "They can take our lives, but they can 
> never take our freedom!!!!!"  and insist on the right to 
> manual control. Fine.  But you'll have to pay for it...Jeff Davis

Hmmm, possibly, but consider Toyota's recent experience.  They are facing
grave danger of huge lawsuits, even tho there may be nothing wrong with
their products.

I could imagine highway lawsuit lottery players going around looking for
cars driving themselves, then intentionally pulling over into them.  Two
lottery players working together, one on either side, smashing the
self-driver.  Then they would argue that a human driver would have
successfully avoided the accident, but if the manufacturer were to pay
generously this could all go away.

We have blocked robo-chauffer with our legal system I fear.

> Are you certain, Spike that you are not just expressing the 
> inherent red white and blue bias for "more vroom vroom is 
> better"? ...

Your earlier comment would work better had you said "...red, white and green
bias..."

Anyone who lives in Taxifornia knows what I mean by that comment.  Those
with red, white and green flags on their Detroits on Cinco de Mayo tend to
take their macho very seriously.  I could see how the CAFÉ standards could
be labeled racist.  

spike