Goin' down the highway at 75...
- Thread starter Trekker4747
- Start date
I use my cruise control frequently. I find that it helps to keep me from inadvertently driving faster than I intend to. When I do, I put my right foot on the floor, close to the brake pedal.
Trekker, I think you'll find that by actively practicing defensive driving tactics, you'll find that that extra fraction of a second isn't something that you need. If you are in a situation where it does, then you are either driving to fast or following to closely.
Trekker, I think you'll find that by actively practicing defensive driving tactics, you'll find that that extra fraction of a second isn't something that you need. If you are in a situation where it does, then you are either driving to fast or following to closely.
I only ever had cruise control on one car and I rarely used it. There was just something unsettling about not directly controlling the application of the gas.
Even so, it does get kind of annoying to drive 10 hours to Indiana with no cruise.
Guess it keeps me awake, though.
Even so, it does get kind of annoying to drive 10 hours to Indiana with no cruise.
Guess it keeps me awake, though.I don't usually use my cruise control, even if the freeway's empty. I'd probably get too lazy and stop being careful.
And if the freeway IS that empty, I'm not doing 75. I've gone from Vegas to Pasadena with an empty freeway (years ago), averaging 85--and from Pasadena to Fresno, averaging 80. If there's NO traffic, NO cops, and the weather's clear, I'm gunning it. I like to go fast.
And if the freeway IS that empty, I'm not doing 75. I've gone from Vegas to Pasadena with an empty freeway (years ago), averaging 85--and from Pasadena to Fresno, averaging 80. If there's NO traffic, NO cops, and the weather's clear, I'm gunning it. I like to go fast.
That's 3 or 4 car lengths, quite the distance and in an emergency could mean the difference between stopping and crashing. So that half-second it takes one to move their foot from the floor to the pedal, rather than the foot already being in the area, can make all of the difference in the world.
I've never used my car's cruise control. If I ever took a long road trip, I probably still wouldn't use it. 
^ Ha bloody ha.
^ So 85 mph is considered fast in the States?
Well, it could earn a ticket for reckless driving, as opposed to "just" speeding in most areas. But I've been on plenty of freeways where most of the cars--few are actually on the road--are doing 80 mph.
But it is fun to go fast when conditions allow. Note the "when conditions allow" part.
If there's not much traffic, foot on the floor.
I like the new intelligent cruise control systems, you know, the ones that work with a proximity radar detector to automatically vary the exact speed you're cruising at based on the distance to the car in front. You have to learn to trust the system, but once you do, it's great. Allows you to use cruise without worrying about sudden speed changes in the traffic flow, and without the nuisance of having to tap it off and on frequently.
Systems like that I don't like. I think people would rely on the car "braking for them" too much and become even lazier drivers. Do we need to give drivers more ways to not pay attention driving? "Why bother covering my brake to stop when the car will do it for me. Now I can do my texting!"
I'll take one if I can talk to it and play Intelivision games with it.
Sure, but don't end up then taking your eye off the road like the dude I posted earlier in the funny vids thread...
I'm still trying to figure out how the whole liability thing is going to work the first time someone in their Honda gets into an accident. "I wasn't driving, the car was!". That's one of the main things that's going to prevent self-driving cars from being a practical reality any time soon, even if it's technically feasible. The automakers know it too, which is why they're not the ones really pushing the technology beyond a bit of sponsorship.
Most likely people will simply sue the city. A driverless car will surely have records to show *if* the driverless mode was active during the accident (assuming that mode can be overridden).
Fricken' lawyers.
Although you could turn that on its head - push accident prevention as a main reason TO have driverless cars (since most accidents are caused by driver error). If all cars are controlled remotely, and multiple redundant backups and safety features prevent computer malfunction, ideally there would never be accidents.
