Will Nanny controls become mandatory ??

Seat belts aren't required to be retrofitted to older cars, at least in California.

There will probably be a transition period where automated and "legacy" cars co-exist, with the automated ones getting preferential treatment for insurance purposes.

 

UNLESS they are abusing the original engineering criteria.

Even so, this is open to interpretation. Certainly a full carbon fibre shell would be safer for the passengers and fuel cells instead of gas tanks. These are existing technologies and some makers actually have them in production cars.

Is Ford at risk for every Taurus they sell because it doesn't have these technologies?

Then... someone would still have to prove that the crash would not have occurred with the Nannies. From what I have seen of the events, it wouldn't have mattered. The CHP blamed it on old worn tires and excessive speed, not the car's inability to turn or stop or go out of control.

Why not blame the city for having a light pole there? Surely there are safer ways to light a city street with "new technology".

 

Our governments continue to give licenses to people who cannot drive, are disrespectful to other drivers, under-insured, alcoholic, or not mentally capable. There is virtually no training required either. So, no real regulation.

This results in nearly 40,000 deaths and over 2 million injuries (many permanently disabled) EVERY SINGLE YEAR in relatively safe cars in the USA alone. I won't even bother to give stats for places like Brazil or Russia. Basically, a slaughter.

In time, all cars will be self-driving ONLY.

Get your pilot's license, boys - at least pilots are qualified, well-trained, and courteous to each other. Even though flying is much more dangerous - in reality, it is infinitely safer due to regulation.

 

I would argue that nannies already have taken some of the fun away.
AND
You ain't seen nothing yet........

 

I suspect this case will not go to court..I suspect porsche will settle due to the famous actor ..etc..

 

can you elaborate on this .. maybe some specifics....

 

I think we are missing the point here. The family of Paul walker is bringing the suit and is risking nothing. The legal team I am sure is on contingency of winning the case. And if they lose, which they will they are out NOTHING. And the legal team will get free advertising, But Porsche has to pay their lawyers win or lose. and that cost will be past down on to the cars they sell.

Just my 2cents worth. spend it wisely

 

I've always respected Paul Walker and I feel bad that his legacy will be tainted by this frivolous suit.

 

That actually is BS. The family is risking nothing but the lawyers sure are. Do you think they can take year off without working on this case? How many expert witnesses are they going to have to find? Computer animations, reviewing eye witnesses, deposing Porsche people, etc, etc.

It's all "for free"?

 

I've met some really fun nannies.

 

I did not say the legal team would not have to work for their pound of flesh, and the more effort they put into the case the more they will benefit. I just find it sad that the one that is going to lose here is the consumer. But on the other side of the coin. When you need a lawyer you will always be thankful for a good one or the best one.

 

Pretend for a minute Paul had the strength to survive when he loosened up a little too much and made the fatal mistake of thinking another man could drive his car. He willingly handed over the keys to some half-ass greaseball. His father is suing Porsche because it is too hard to admit his son had a weakness and forfeited control of his destiny to another man.

 

100+mph in a 30 zone(there is a reason for that limit), 9 year old tires(negligant), and a tree. Doesent matter how the car is designed or who built it, the end result pretty much looks the same.

What a jury finds is of course another matter devoid of relaity but full of emotion.

But even if it can be argued that porche was irresponsible not fitting esp to such a machine,I would say that Paul Walker was very experienced in many hi po machines so should have known what he was doing in suchga car regardless of the fitting of best safety tech. In fact I will bet that a number of his personal modified cars were more dangerous to drive fast, so he was clealry a risk taker in this regard.

Reminds me of the light aeroplane carsh due to carb icing, the plaintiff argued that as FI existed which would have obviated the need for carb heat(which the pilot negelected to use) the manufactuerer was negilgant in not offerign best available tech. The court found for the defendant, as they should here.

 

Paul's defining characteristic was his role as some heartthrob on Young and The Restless. Just because he was cast the opposite of Vin Bogus that evaporated fast and furiously in a movie that depicted most of his stunts in CGI, doesn't mean he wasn't mostly a poser...... A poser conflicted enough to hand over the keys to some wannabe that hardly deserves to be in the country.

 

So Let The Bullet Fly, Thru The AIR

 

At least in Europe some of them are already mandatory.

 

And here, a ridiculous lawsuit like that, would never be possible.

Only in the US...

It's moronic. Old tyres, irresponsible driver, 3.5x the speed limit, and that man is suing Porsche??? I have so many not so nice ways of saying what I'm thinking about that man, it would probably ban me for 6 months.

What's next? He's going to sue the family of the driver? Or maybe he should sue the state of California for putting that tree so close to the road?

This man does not need a solicitor, he needs a couch doc.

 

Sounds like a solid case in California<--------how sad is that???

 

Indeed.

About as ridiculous and sad as the Florida case, where the wife of a powerboat racer decided to sue the sanctioning body, after her husband and his co-pilot was killed at the 2011 Key West finals of the World Super Boat World Championships - despite the fact that they themselves decided to run 190+ mph in 3-4 foot waves and high winds.

 

The thing is, when people try to remove aspects of reality that they don't like, it turns into a slippery slope wherein other parts of their life that they DO like begin to get banned or over regulated.

It's sort of like the arguments for and against regulation of the Internet. We would start off by getting what we want, but that would open the door to more and more regulation to the point where the Internet essentially becomes "automated".

 

My 2 cents FWIW:
I don't think sports cars are really going away! Every company has big legal departments. Yet... we have more wild sports cars with big power than ever right now!

If there were no nannies at all there would be no way any of these cars could be made. The new sports cars are not really so purist oriented. But if you want to be a purist you can get a Lotus or a Miata and go do a track day.

To answer your question- I don't think we will ever have a time where the nannies are forced on us with no way to disable them. But its conceivable one day in the future when you turn off the traction control you agree to a different set of terms and conditions that somehow transfer even more liability/ responsibility to you.

I think the fact that Ford invested in the new Mustang and the new GT, McLaren decided to invest BILLIONS into their new venture, Ferrari has invested too, GM has invested with the Corvette, Mazda did the new Miata and is saying they want to bring back the Wankel motor with a new age RX7, Acura invested big money and is trying with the new NSX, the Viper, Did Porsche have to really do the GT4? Look at how that worked out! So I think these companies are all saying something and that is: even in an age of iPhones, Facebook, Instagram, etc, there must be some demand for sports cars!

I have a feeling as more and more cars become more and more automated, the market for sports cars will actually remain solid. It might not grow, but I don't think it will shrink too much either. Every generation has people who are interested in driving and also it has people who are not.

Regarding ticket revenue- Id love to know the average % of municipal revenues attributable to various traffic infractions and fines. I bet its a healthy number. How will they replace that in an age of already too high property and income taxes?

I know its a great pastime to blame the lawyers. But in the Paul Walker case Mayor is right- the lawyers have opportunity costs etc. No one is doing this just for fun. The system isn't perfect. I personally think they would be better off not bringing this suit but perhaps this is really a big negotiation. Maybe someone at Porsche made them feel even worse and this is their response. I have no idea, Im just throwing out wild ideas.

Just some ramblings... lol.

 

It's the "DUMB DOWN" process.