m4ttm4son Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 Yeah, but if you have universities/ government research then they own the findings. Hence my military comment. Private research is all consumer paid for in advance and doesn't bring advances quickly or cheaply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 If we can get obstacle avoidance and auto braking tech going a bit better, surely we can cut down on safety features like crash zones and therefore weight. = better economy and higher performance. ....Oh dear! Automatic braking and obstacle avoidance may well be technically in their infancy but I think are flawed in their concept. Anyone with bad intentions could step out in front of or place obstacles in front of a car to action auto braking against the driver's will. I dislike engines auto switching off when briefly at a standstill too - You're waiting to exit a busy junction and just at the wrong moment your engine cuts? Or there's a delay on the throttle? Not safe imo. As for reducing safety features in a car's build, are you serious? - What happens when these all-singing-dancing auto electronic features fail or hiccup? The other negative aspect of such technologies are that they encourage drivers to de-focus and become even lazier and potentially more dangerous in their driving habits. There's enough of such drivers out there already! We want less of them, not more. Besides which, does anyone really believe that mankind's painfully slow efforts to reduce vehicle carbon emissions will now make any difference to how this planet evolves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarMad Posted December 17, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 ....Oh dear! Automatic braking and obstacle avoidance may well be technically in their infancy but I think are flawed in their concept. Anyone with bad intentions could step out in front of or place obstacles in front of a car to action auto braking against the driver's will. I dislike engines auto switching off when briefly at a standstill too - You're waiting to exit a busy junction and just at the wrong moment your engine cuts? Or there's a delay on the throttle? Not safe imo. Robin the systems are design to work in those situations. If you have the clutch depressed they don't stop simple, if you take the car out of gear then it does. Also we are obsessed with leaving engines running in this country. In other countries Switzerland for example if you are not in the first few cars at the lights you have to switch of you engine by law in summer. Taxis can't wait with the engine running either in fact they often push them forwards rather than starting them to move in a queue. But I saw this going over there over 15 years ago, and we still don't have anything like this in place but we are meant to be being green, do me a favour. Cars always need to advance, should we not have ABS, anti-skid systems, brake systems that keep you in a straight line or that apply a greater force to help avoid an accident, I'd say an emphatic yes we should. Car designers and engineers should always move things on and these systems are design to help in situations that us mere mortal human beings can't react fast enough to avoid an accident. As soon as we don't want to progress and improve things as a race we die, simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelwind101 Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 The replacement batteries for the 1st gen Prius were not as expensive as people thought. The replacement hold more charge and last longer as well. With regard mining for batteries and it being bad for the enviroment etc. these are people jobs and lives. Whether that be up in Canada or down in in Africa these things happen and they need too. Sitting here in Britian its easy to think "oh i wont have a job and enjoy a cuppa on benefit money" its real benefit to these people lives for an increase in work. If managed well it can be so much more then just a job for so many communities around the world, esp. the 3rd world and i hope that these "batteries chemical" companies do the right thing in these modern times. There is an chance here to do some good in this new venture, there is the option to have a "green" and "ethical" badge on display. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 Cars always need to advance, should we not have ABS, anti-skid systems, brake systems that keep you in a straight line or that apply a greater force to help avoid an accident, I'd say an emphatic yes we should. Car designers and engineers should always move things on and these systems are design to help in situations that us mere mortal human beings can't react fast enough to avoid an accident. As soon as we don't want to progress and improve things as a race we die, simple. ....I can agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stooH Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 With regard mining for batteries and it being bad for the enviroment etc. these are people jobs and lives. Whether that be up in Canada or down in in Africa these things happen and they need too. Sitting here in Britian its easy to think "oh i wont have a job and enjoy a cuppa on benefit money" its real benefit to these people lives for an increase in work. If managed well it can be so much more then just a job for so many communities around the world, esp. the 3rd world and i hope that these "batteries chemical" companies do the right thing in these modern times. I quite agree that mining when done properly can be massively beneficial especially for developing countries the problem is when you're mining for toxic chemicals and the right safety and environmental measures aren't in place you end up with huge areas of waste lands, toxic rivers, pollution pouring out to sea, fish and food chains destroyed etc etc. I'd like to say that developing countries also tend to have worse controls over the environment but after the Deepwater Horizon incident that clearly ain't the case! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruiser647 Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 I quite agree that mining when done properly can be massively beneficial especially for developing countries the problem is when you're mining for toxic chemicals and the right safety and environmental measures aren't in place you end up with huge areas of waste lands, toxic rivers, pollution pouring out to sea, fish and food chains destroyed etc etc.I'd like to say that developing countries also tend to have worse controls over the environment but after the Deepwater Horizon incident that clearly ain't the case! The big sludge lake in Hungary that burst, threatening the 'blue' Danube is another example. But in developing countries without the infrastructure/price controls/H & S then mining is a dangerous thing. As thhey used to find out in this country (and still are in China!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stooH Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 (edited) and Chile... and New Zealand. But everyone knows thats still a 3rd world country, just ask Mort... Edited December 17, 2010 by stooH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now