Get creative challenge. Bye bye push to start button.

[Rusty PW]

"When you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there" - (George Harrison)

Sponsored

 

[USMC_1Wire6337]

Wow, this really took a nose dive into the muck. I highly doubt this even needs to be discussed any more since the OP hasn't been back since the 6th.

I just deleted a lengthy reply about laws and regulations that need to be changed before anything like proposed could be built into a new card.

I then deleted the reply about how comparing innovators and inventors with ideas of regressing a technology as being wolf like was oxymoronic.

I deleted these because I realized that no amount of logic, reason or even demeanor will ever help those that can't fathom that someone could have a different opinion and both parties could be right. There are just some people that have to find the negative in a situation and blame others for the turmoil they create.

This thread was fun for about five minutes, and I think I will go back to finding all the cool things my Jeep can do once it has finally been built and delivered.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

 

[Jt-wrx]

Only in the states.
People elsewhere prefer to take public transportation. Trains are never empty, subways almost always at capacity, people love the bus and public transport. Taxis are almost as common as other vehicles in some places (and almost all LP powered)
We're totally spoiled here. In many other places, the preference is to not own a car at all, let someone else do the driving.
Americans need to get out of their shells and get out and about and see how the rest of the world does things and get over the me-me-me bits.

Americans aren't necessarily born in, or want to move to, an ant hill. I agree with sentiment of if you don't like driving and don't take it seriously then don't have a license and let someone else do it that does qualify. An ant hill will require/allow such measures. Main point is we should be free to choose where we want to live and free to move there without anyone having access to limit those choices unless you're unsafe to do so. As I was saying, a heavy percentage here with drivers licenses shouldn't have them, that's problem number 1 and adding nannies and tech and regulations, safety gear compounding, is a bandaid approach, always has been and always will be. Make it harder not easier, to be licensed, period.

The seriousness of piloting a few tons at speed in public requires that. The nannies will only further help those who are legitimately qualified but wouldn't be necessary, we could/should have access to far simpler machines at far lower costs but that's just not possible in this current clusterfack arrangement. Your ability to move freely in this world is something to take a little more seriously and ownership of, that becomes clearer every day this movie progresses.

 

[sharpsicle]

Americans aren't necessarily born in, or want to move to, an ant hill. I agree with sentiment of if you don't like driving and don't take it seriously then don't have a license and let someone else do it that does qualify. An ant hill will require/allow such measures. Main point is we should be free to choose where we want to live and free to move there without anyone having access to limit those choices unless you're unsafe to do so. As I was saying, a heavy percentage here with drivers licenses shouldn't have them, that's problem number 1 and adding nannies and tech and regulations, safety gear compounding, is a bandaid approach, always has been and always will be. Make it harder not easier, to be licensed, period.

The seriousness of piloting a few tons at speed in public requires that. The nannies will only further help those who are legitimately qualified but wouldn't be necessary, we could/should have access to far simpler machines at far lower costs but that's just not possible in this current clusterfack arrangement. Your ability to move freely in this world is something to take a little more seriously and ownership of, that becomes clearer every day this movie progresses.

I'm confused. Do you want to enable people to move more freely, or do you advocate the revocation of their drivers licenses thereby limiting their freedom of movement? You seem to contradict yourself pretty heavily here. Pick one.

I'm also glossing over the fact that nothing about that has anything to do with installing new safety technology on anything. Crying about being safe and responsible is very self-centered.

 

[Jt-wrx]

treating piloting a few tons at speed through public with the care and attention required to pilot a grocery shopping cart is self-centered

in case you missed it, we must have this freedom, if you can prove your capable for the task at hand since others safety is at stake, so if you can't or won't do what's required to pilot a few tons at speed through public then you're still free to move about on your feet, your bike, in someone else's car or bus etc. it's just a human responsibility and accountability thing that we seem to think is a joke and driving is a right that requires no seriousness at all and licenses should just come in the glove box, step up to the plate, prove it, and then we wouldn't need so much regulation, nannies, tech etc. and we would have a wider range of vehicle types and options to choose from in cost etc. from uber simple to space ship....but no, instead we're all forced to pay for the same over built nanny stuff on anything new, gotta go to the 70 year old stuff to get a simple machine...which as you say is proven safer lol, and we agree it's because those driving simple machine understand and have the skills and care necessary, which is what's actually required regardless of tech/nannies etc. so we're all forced to pay more and have these bloated over regulated, over tech-ed, over safety'd cannoli's...one size fits all right? that sound like freedom to you? are you glad you can still pilot your amc's? wouldn't it be nice to buy one new? that's what this thread is about...there's people that want basic simple stripped down no fat machines, they understand them, they are enthusiasts, they will be as safe as anyone else if not safer, just like you are with your old cars...can't see why anyone would argue against this really, just missing the big picture is all...that's where a 40,000' viewer comes into play lol, you're welcome

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Actually, I feel a lot safer in my truck - my Gladiator.
It's fun to drive the others, but there are places I will no longer drive them because of the other out there.
I collect and restore for fun, hobby, not because I actually prefer the stripped down simplicity necessarily.
There's a reason they don't exist any more (aside from Iacocca's rape and pillage mindset and lies to get what he wanted)
I can stop my Jeep in a fraction of the distance I can stop my cars in (although I think I proved to someone a couple of years ago that it's not all about technology when I had to stop REALLY fast for idiots ahead of me screwing around, zipping in and out then running up against an accident up ahead - I hit the brakes, my Eagle stopped very nicely, quickly, and in a straight line while the modern SUV behind me was tearing rubber off their tires and swerving trying to avoid hitting me - and they finally had to hit the shoulder...... I guess they never heard of spacing, reaction time, or something)

 

[sharpsicle]

I do not believe that these "nannies" are the sole result of poor drivers. I believe they are the next step in the technological evolution of vehicles. Even if everyone was a perfect driver all the time, these things would still be invented and implemented. It's called progress. And yes, if you don't like progress, then you can hold tight to your old vehicles, that's your choice.

You really seem to be blurring the lines between rights, choices, and freedoms. They are not all the same thing. And none should stand in the way of progress. If they do, then they are something else in disguise.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Even if everyone was a perfect driver all the time, these things would still be invented and implemented.

As I've said before, there are studies proving that even good drivers are better and can pay more attention, be more observant, when certain safety equipment is in place.
It would appear on the surface to be counter-intuitive, but universities and the insurance industry have shown it actually improves even good drivers.

It's still going to happen. ABS came about simply because auto makers saw it on aircraft, liked it, thought it was a good idea and put it into cars. It was not any government mandate or law. ABS was a choice - and the buying public liked it as well.

It's a "majority rules" thing - MOST buyers like, want, appreciate, even demand certain things, it's going to happen even if 10 people hate it.

 

[IanNubbit]

So I apologize for skimming and skipping, but I'm going to actually reply to this, for the purpose it was actually made (Seriously, just don't reply if you don't like the idea)
1.) Auto start stop is the Main reason this truck HAS to have push button ignition. idiots of the world would be way to confused why their truck shut off with the key in the run position. blah blah blah politics, and EPA/CAFE standards make auto start basically mandatory
2.) certain feature of a push button start are baked into so much software in the vehicle you would have to rprogram it out. For example, ACC or leaving the vehicle in RUN but not engine on, will eventually time out preventing a dead battery, would have to figure out how to diable those feature through software, would be a nightmare
3.) this is the big one. every ounce of security goes through that little button on the dash, its not a "dumb" switch at all and has loads of checks and balances and verifications every time you press it.

in turn, could it be done, of course. But your gonna need a software engineer, get by alot of security gateways, and ultimately multiple features of the vehicle will become broken. I'd love it too being a sport, but this won't happen until someone maybe like Tazer decides to fully engineer a kit for it.

Sponsored