unveils-self-driving-concept-car-promises-fleet-by-2017.html> > The reality is that no matter when (or if) these cars do get released,
also wrong, nor does it need to be the majority of vehicles.
they're doing that not because of choice, but because stupid lawmakers
are requiring it.
that does not need to happen for there to be massive benefits.
elf-driving cars operate as ground-based surveillance drones collecting ima
ges and data on both drivers and the public at large, according to World Ec
onomic Forum insiders.
“The availability and resolution of imaging from satellites, drones
, self-driving cars and more will continue to increase exponentially,?
? said Sedicii Innovation CEO Rob Leslie, an agenda contributor for the 2
016 World Economic Annual Meeting in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland from Jan.
20-23. “This will drive the creation of ever more sophisticated ana
lysis algorithms, products and companies.”
In other words, the tech elite – and their partners in government
– are attempting to transform the automobile from a symbol of freed
om into another surveillance node in a centrally-controlled data network in
which car companies, insurers and government bureaucracies track, tax and
Another Davos attendee, Business Insider’s Matthew DeBord, previous
ly revealed that data collection is the “glue that binds up?
? both self-driving cars and soon-to-be-released cars communicating to on
e another via vehicle-to-vehicle communications.
“General Motors has made a big bet on high-speed wireless connectiv
ity throughout its vehicle fleet,” he wrote. “Luxury carmak
ers such as BMW and Audi are rapidly enhancing the ability of the their car
s to be as digitally enabled as smartphones, and Google and Apple are aggre
ssively experimenting with both software and hardware, through Android Auto
, self-driving cars, and Apple Car Play.”
The Department of Transportation is already trying to require vehicle-to-ve
hicle communications installed in every new car and truck sold in the U.S.
which would force vehicles to share data such as speed and direction with e
ach other via WiFi-style technology under the guise of “accident pr
“Our goal is to see this technology put in place as soon as possibl
e,” Transportation Secretary Antony Foxx said.
It’s quite plausible this technology will also allow cops parked on
the side of the road to gather speed data from passing cars without the ne
ed of radar guns.
And with vehicle tracking, big government politicians could also accomplish
their goal of taxing drivers by every mile driven.
Car companies and their technology partners also have an interest in data c
ollection which can be resold to third-parties for advertisement purposes.
For example, General Motors admitted in 2011 its OnStar system collects and
sells personal data from your vehicle such as speed, location, seat belt u
sage and other information.
“Who would be interested in that data, you ask? Law enforcement
agencies, for starters, as well as insurance companies,” Zach Bowman
with Autoblog.com reported. “Perhaps the most startling news to come
out of the OnStar terms and conditions is the fact that the company can
continue to collect the information even after you disconnect the
Oh, I agree with that. Manufacturers are making it harder and harder
not to be distracted while driving.
But cell phone use is still a choice, and it's not the phone that's the
problem, its the conversation. I've seen no indication that hands free
use of a phone is any safer. The facts seem to indicate that talking on
the phone at all, while driving, is dangerous.
The ability to render a cell phone useless while in a car already
exists. Why they don't use it is beyond me.
Individual phones can be set to drive mode so passengers are not
affected. The driver can get back to normal in a touch or two. if you
don't want to use the phone while driving you even have the option of
ignoring it. There really is no excuse.
I sometimes make or receive a call, other times I ignore it. I always
ignore text messages until I'm stopped.
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:40:50 -0600, SeaNymph wrote:
All the cellphones-are-killing-us folks are arguing that cars are getting
safer at the exact same rate that the cellphone-caused accidents are
So, you're arguing both sides of the coin.
You can't have that.
You have to either pick that cars are getting safer, and *that* is
why nobody can find the accidents - or - if you argue that cars are
getting more distracting - you can't then argue that those distractions
are causing accidents.
It seems that you'll argue *anything* as long as it results (in your
mind) in accidents (that you can't find).
I sure hope you don't vote.
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 14:23:52 -0600, Muggles wrote:
If you're gonna ban cellphones, you may as well ban GPS.
And radio dials.
And that damn defroster button (now where is it?)
Oh, and ban crying babies.
And, while you're at it, let's ban wives who nag incessantly.
Certainly let's ban putting on makeup (unless it's hands free).
Or, reading a map (unless it's also hands free).
Let's ban coffee hotter than 120 degrees or more than 3/4 full.
Since we're banning distractions, we have to ban loud music.
And about ten thousand other common distractions.
People who hold their phone horizontally out in front of them as if
they're balancing an invisible drink on it, having conversations on
speakerphone as they shop, so everyone else in the store is forced to
hear both sides of their worthless blathering.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.