US Federal Government to Require Stability Control

  • Thread starter Thread starter YSSMAN
  • 69 comments
  • 3,414 views
So then we agree it will save human lives at minimal interference to the vast majority of drivers?

Who cares? What happened to freedom? The freedom to make a product and sell it. The freedom to purchase a product you want. Obviously not everyone wants stability control who can aford it. Some people can't afford it. Who are you to tell them they have to buy it?

If people are worried about their security, let them pony up the cash voluntarily. (BTW: They are, and they do)
 
So then we agree it will save human lives at minimal interference to the vast majority of drivers?

Thank you Captain Obvious! I don't think anybody here would have ever jumped to that astounding conclusion! Really, thanks for putting all the pieces together!
 
Who cares? What happened to freedom? The freedom to make a product and sell it. The freedom to purchase a product you want. Obviously not everyone wants stability control who can aford it. Some people can't afford it. Who are you to tell them they have to buy it?

Hey danoff - this isn't the radical views forum. If you want to spread your extremely unpopular libertarian viewpoint, the opinions forum is where I'd do it.

Thank you Captain Obvious! I don't think anybody here would have ever jumped to that astounding conclusion! Really, thanks for putting all the pieces together!

Okay. So since you agreed it will SAVE HUMAN LIFE with MINOR INTERFERENCE, you therefore agree with the idea, and with me, since no sane person would want to NOT save human life with minor interference. Boom.
 
Hey danoff - this isn't the radical views forum. If you want to spread your extremely unpopular libertarian viewpoint, the opinions forum is where I'd do it.

Are my views on topic? Why yes, yes they are.

Answer my questions.
 
Okay. So since you agreed it will SAVE HUMAN LIFE with MINOR INTERFERENCE, you therefore agree with the idea, and with me, since no sane person would want to NOT save human life with minor interference. Boom.

You're an idiot. EVERYBODY KNEW THAT ALREADY. Nobody would use stability control if it didn't help in some way. Nobody said anything against that.

We were talking about situations that cause accidents and the possibility of problems caused by stability control. You mistakenly thought that we were arguing against stability control's ability to aid the average driver.

I honestly cannot believe that you are claiming victory over a stupid point that nobody was arguing against.

Care to argue over what color the sky is?
 
Okay. So since you agreed it will SAVE HUMAN LIFE with MINOR INTERFERENCE, you therefore agree with the idea, and with me, since no sane person would want to NOT save human life with minor interference. Boom.

Outlaw smoking, drinking, french fries, sky diving, bungee jumping, sports cars, and deep fried twinkies.

It would cause a minor interference and save lives.

When will you, and others, realize that saving lives is no the end-all be-all of objectives. A wise man once said "It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees".

You're talking about making it a crime to sell or buy a car without ASM. Who's rights were violated? Who was wronged in any way?

What gives you the right to deprive a poor person of a more affordable automobile? What gives you the right to force people to buy ASM they don't want?
 
We were watching a video on the internet in my Current Events class about stability control. My friend and I laughed the entire time. They showed an Audi (A3 I think) going through a slalom in a wet parking lot with and without the stability control on. You could tell it was staying in line a bit better, but the driver didn't look to be too car saavy. Immediately after (while they are saying how much more control there is...) they showed a Charger going through a wet slalom with asm on and it ran right through the last cone! :lol:

Maybe they hoped the viewers wouldn't notice that or not know the objective of the slalom?

Edit: This isn't the same video, but it shows what I think is some exaggerated sliding of a Kia through a lane change course. Note how sharply the driver steers and throws the car 70 degrees sideways. Of course it looks like a professional driving when they switch on ESP.

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?clip=/media/2006/09/13/video2003230.rm&sec=&vidId=&title=New$@$Automotive$@$Safety$@$Device&hitboxMLC=
 
Outlaw smoking, drinking, french fries, sky diving, bungee jumping, sports cars, and deep fried twinkies.

It would cause a minor interference and save lives.

When will you, and others, realize that saving lives is no the end-all be-all of objectives. A wise man once said "It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees".

First of all, this is hardly repression. Second of all, we're talking about the US government...wait, maybe we are talking about repression.... The real freedom in the US is not the freedom to be who you want or live the American dream, but the freedom to be a total lazy idiot. However, as long as I can remember, that freedom has been whittled away at, and it's really becoming a problem.

Requiring ASM is not the same thing as preventing people from driving. It's more like babysitting them. If the government can find some way of babying you (removing responsibility under the guise/intention of helping you), they'll do it.

In NYC, smoking has become illegal just about everywhere. The reasoning behind it had to do with second-hand smoke. In a round-about way, ASM is helping you in the same way: by preventing other people from crashing, you're less likely to get T-boned from them (and, uh, your insurance will be lower).

It's still babying people. Cruise control, ABS, dead steering wheels, SUVs...all these things give people a false sense of security and a total disconnect with what is happening with the car. The end result is a nil effect on fatalities and crashes. The only answer is better driving education, and continued education. Not traffic enforcement, not occupant laws (seat belts, cell phones), not converting cars into nanny-wagons. Better drivers will make the right decision more of the time, thus you won't see Britney with the baby on her lap yakking on the cell phone at 15 MPH on a busy street in an oversized SUV.
 
It's still babying people. Cruise control, ABS, dead steering wheels, SUVs...all these things give people a false sense of security and a total disconnect with what is happening with the car.

First of all, that's not true. They give people a very REAL sense of security which they then abuse and raise the risk of accident right back to where it would be before.

Secondly, making it a crime to sell or purchase an automobile that doesn't have ASM is a ludicrous invasion of government that goes against everything this nation was founded upon.
 
Can we keep the mud-slinging out of this please? Doug doesn't need to be told he's an idiot, and danoff doesn't need to be told his viewpoint is "extremely unpopular" - they are not relevant to the issue at hand, which is that the US government is requiring vehicles to be sold with a driver aid which some might opine would be unnecessary if drivers actually had proper training before the US government allowed them to drive.
 
Back