Jane! Help! Jane! Stop this crazy thing! Help! Jane!

[Anti Federalist]

$#@! a bunch of computer cars.


How to Stop This Crazy Ride

https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2018...comment-680105

By eric - February 18, 2018

A Florida man claims his BMW X3 accelerated unintentionally – contrary to his intentions, that is. News story here.

The reasons why are being debated. Could it have been a glitch with the BMW’s “drive by wire” electronically-controlled throttle? Possibly. Many new cars no longer have a cable that connects the gas pedal to the engine. Instead, sensors translate the degree to which the gas pedal is depressed into how much the engine revs – and how fast you go.

It is certainly creepy to realize that basic functions such as throttle (and also – in newer cars – steering) are controlled by a computer.

Thus – at least potentially – not by you.

If the computer goes haywire, what then?

BMW – like Toyota, after similar incidents – claims that run-amok acceleration caused by a defective electronic accelerator pedal is impossible. That it had to be the driver’s inadvertent foot (as when Audi was accused of the same thing – and nearly destroyed by the false accusation – back in the ’80s) or a misaligned floor mat that was the cause of the trouble.

It’s being looked into.

Meanwhile, why aren’t people being taught how to deal with problems such as this? It is telling that neither Joseph Cooper – the BMW’s owner – nor the Florida State Police, who were communicating with Cooper via phone in real time as these events unfolded – knew how to slow down and stop a car with a stuck accelerator – whether stuck electronically or otherwise.

There is this thing called the ignition switch, for openers. The same switch that one uses to turn the engine on can also be used to turn the engine off. This will cause the car to slow down.

Cooper’s BMW may not have had an old-school ignition switch/key/ Many late-model cars also use electronics to turn the engine on, too. But there is still an On – and an Off – button. If you push the button for Off, the engine will generally turn Off.

This is the intended purpose of Off.

Of course – for saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety – it is often the case that one must press and continue to press the Off button in order to override the saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety protocol built into the thing by the manufacturer. It can take several long-feeling seconds between the pressing and the shutting off.

Still, the fact remains: The engine will probably turn off. Unless HAL 9000, of course.

Drivers are not told this – and few (apparently) exert the initiative needed to cause the owner’s manual to convey the protocol to them, so that in the event their vehicle accelerates in an unwanted manner, they will know how to put an end to the show.

Instead, they touch the button, briefly – and nothing happens. Cue mess in pants.

A second method – in the event the engine cannot be turned off due to some evil electronic genie – is to disconnect the engine from the transmission – and thus, from being able to continue imparting force to the wheels, thereby causing the vehicle to cease accelerating – even if the engine still is.

This is achieved by moving the gear selector into neutral. It works the same whether the car has an automatic or manual transmission. The problem here, though, is that gear selection is also often no longer mechanical in many – most – new and late-model cars. A sensor detects the range selector being moved from Drive to Neutral or some other range. Then the computer signals the transmission to shift to the range selected.

But what if the sensors do not detect it?

It’s at least worth a try.

You can also depress the clutch – if the car is equipped with a manual transmission. That one is evil genie proof.

Incidentally, this will not blow up the engine – unless the car is extremely old.

Every car built since the late 1980s has computer controls and one of these controls is a rev limiter. It prevents the engine from being over-revved (we used to call this red-lining it) for the express purpose of keeping the engine from over-revving, with the attendant mechanical catastrophe in the event it did.

Try it yourself and see. With the engine warmed up, and the transmission in Neutral (or Park – assuming the car is not moving) floor the accelerator pedal and hold it down. The engine will rev to near redline but the electronics will prevent it from exceeding redline.

In any event, Cooper could have put the transmission of his X3 into Neutral. The BMW would then have coasted safely to rest. He could also have geared down, to reduce his speed. By moving the shift selector from Drive to 4 then 3 then 2 then 1, he could have used mechanical leverage to whoah nelly! the BMW.

It appears this is becoming a lost art, too. Which is ironic, given that almost all late-model cars with automatics have a manual shift control function, specifically designed to let the driver control when the transmission shifts up and down.

He also could have applied the brakes.

Really applied them.

One wonders why he did not.

Even at 80 or 90-something MPH – the speeds reached by Cooper in his supposedly run-amok BMW – the high-performance four-wheel disc brakes the X3 was fitted with ought to have been sufficient to at least ramp it down to a manageable speed such that he could have safely driven into an earth berm or similar to scrub off the remainder of the speed.

He might have fried the brakes in the process, it’s true – assuming an engine that was actually fighting him – but they should have had bite enough to bring the BMW’s speed down to a lot less than 80-90 MPH and safely, too – because his BMW had ABS and so no matter how hard he applied the brakes, the wheels (and tires) wouldn’t stop rotating completely, lock up – and send the thing into a skid.

This is supposition, but perhaps Cooper was too afraid to apply the brakes. Hard, that is. All the way to the floor – both feet, if need be.

People are not taught such “aggressive” tactics anymore, despite such tactics occasionally still being very necessary.

Which brings us to the Last Resort – the emergency brake. There is a reason why it is called the emergency brake. It is not there just to hold the car in place when it is parked.

It is there specifically to be used in the event of . . . an emergency. Such as a run-amok vehicle.

Cooper could have pulled the lever up, which would have slowed the car down. The emergency pull-up brake is a mechanical fail safe. It does not rely on electronics. When the driver yanks the lever up, a cable is tightened and this cable applies tension to the brakes, which are then applied – and the car slows down.

There is the possibility that the wheels might lock up (no ABS) and the car therefore skids. But it will slow, too. A skilled driver knows this – and knows how to modulate the force he applies via increasing and decreasing (if need be) how much is applied via the emergency brake lever.

Cooper did not know this. Neither – apparently – did the cops.

Passivity is encouraged instead. Death grip on the wheel, dial 911 and talk to an operator who has even less clue what to to. The kind of active driving needed to be able to cope with situations such as this – whether caused by run-amok computers or a bunched up floor mat – has been practically equated with pederasty for a generation and the results are blossoming all around us.

People used to know how to deal.

Nowadays, they mostly squeal.

[Anti Federalist]

The story.

One you're going to hear more and more often as the first wave of fly by wire cars reach the ten year mark.

Oh, the horror...95mph!!!

That X5 could cruise comfortably at 120-130.


‘My gas pedal is stuck ... I’m about to hit somebody’ — and he was going 95 mph

By Howard Cohen

February 14, 2018 01:09 PM

Updated February 14, 2018 03:03 PM

Joseph Cooper’s BMW roared down a Florida highway for 45 miles at nearly 100 mph.

He wanted to stop. Troopers wanted him to stop. Everyone wanted him to stop.

His SUV, however, did not want to stop.

That’s what he told a 911 dispatcher, Florida Highway Patrol and members of the Fellsmere Police Department.

It took the combined efforts of all three agencies to finally bring Cooper’s runaway Beemer to a stop Monday afternoon near Vero Beach.

Cooper, 28, was northbound on Interstate 95 when he lost control of his SUV at mile marker 110 as it hit top speeds of 95 mph — with no end in sight.

“I believe my gas pedal is stuck in my car and I’m on I-95,” Cooper calmly told a 911 dispatcher at around 1 p.m.

“You have no idea why it might be stuck?” the dispatcher asked. “No, ma’am, I do not. I need traffic assistance,” Cooper said, in what was not an understatement.

VeroNews.Com released the 911 audio between Cooper and the dispatcher. Both try to keep their cool as they tried to find an answer — emergency brake, regular brakes, ignition cut, cruise control, neutral gear.

“I can’t, ma’am, I tried that already,” Cooper told the dispatcher when she suggested shifting the automatic transmission BMW into neutral. “I’m trying to hold onto the wheel and talk to you at the same time,” Cooper responded.

The dispatcher then asked if Cooper could set his cruise control and then manually use it to slow his speed.

Not working, he said. “S---! I’m about to hit somebody, goddammit it!”

BMW, in a statement released to ABC News, called the scenario “implausible.” The car company echoed the dispatcher’s suggested solutions on how to stop the vehicle and added that the car’s computer and floor design should not have allowed for a stuck pedal in the first place.

“All BMW vehicles, including the 2003 X5 described in this incident, employ an electronic accelerator pedal which uses software logic to override the accelerator whenever the brake pedal is pressed while driving. This fail-safe software means that if the vehicle detects that both pedals are depressed, the on-board electronics will reduce engine power so that the driver may stop safely. … We would be happy to work with the Florida State Police to investigate the cause of this incident,” BMW said.

Troopers used spiked stop sticks in an effort to slow the vehicle, which was still zipping along at 85 mph. Two tries with the sticks got the car down to about 60 mph after blowing out a couple of tires. Then 40 mph as the car traveled on four rims, TCPalm reported.

The Fellsmere Police Department released dash-cam images that show one of its officers, later identified as Sgt. Scott Newsom, deploying spike strips on the interstate in a third attempt to stop the SUV with the strips.

This time it worked, as Cooper’s BMW swerved to a stop at mile marker 155 on the inside lane — 45 miles after the adventure began.

No one was hit. But Cooper complained of chest pains and was taken to Indian River Medical Center.

The Florida Highway Patrol is going over the BMW to learn why it would not stop.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/stat...#storylink=cpy

[Anti Federalist]

And once again: do not call cops.

Spike strips with an SUV close to 100mph?

Kid's lucky he didn't flip and get killed.

[Anti Federalist]

And for the youngsters who do not know WTF I am talking about in the headline:

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

He also could have applied the brakes.

Really applied them.

I'll take the stoned drivers of yesteryear over the sober drivers of today.

[specsaregood]

I had the gaspedal on my ramcharger get stuck when I was 16. It was a scary moment for about 5 seconds until I flipped the ignition off and coasted into a parking lot. The spring had gotten stuck under the hood on a wire. These computer cars scare me.

[tod evans]

I had the gaspedal on my ramcharger get stuck when I was 16. It was a scary moment for about 5 seconds until I flipped the ignition off and coasted into a parking lot. The spring had gotten stuck under the hood on a wire. These computer cars scare me.

You have air bags.

[specsaregood]

You have air bags.

I have to take my current vehicle in for a recall at some point because evidently the airbags will kill you.

[tod evans]

I have to take my current vehicle in for a recall at some point because evidently the airbags will kill you.

They'll certainly kill kids.

[specsaregood]

On a brighter note, when they finally get around to making a remake of "Christine" it should be fairly realistic.

[specsaregood]

They'll certainly kill kids.

Fortunately I can turn off the passenger side airbag for my kid when he rides in the front illegally.

[euphemia]

I would not buy a BMW for anything. They are money pits. Most of the repairs are dealer-only, and cost more than the car is worth.

[Brian4Liberty]

The story.

One you're going to hear more and more often as the first wave of fly by wire cars reach the ten year mark.

Oh, the horror...95mph!!!

That X5 could cruise comfortably at 120-130.

The wonder of modern cars. Remember the old GM v8 muscle cars? They could go 120, but they usually got a terrible case of the shakes somewhere after 70 mph. Guess it was primitive tire balancing and front end alignment...

[pcosmar]

The wonder of modern cars. Remember the old GM v8 muscle cars? They could go 120, but they usually got a terrible case of the shakes somewhere after 70 mph. Guess it was primitive tire balancing and front end alignment...

I averaged close to 120mph, on a 500+ mile run. late 70s.

Good tires are a must. you don't get away with maypops.

[Brian4Liberty]

I averaged close to 120mph, on a 500+ mile run. late 70s.

Good tires are a must. you don't get away with maypops.

Appropriate speed rating on the tires is recommended...

[TheCount]

I'm confused. If it was stuck wide open, he'd be going a lot faster than that. If it was stuck on partial throttle, then brakes would definitely work.

[acptulsa]

Troopers used spiked stop sticks in an effort to slow the vehicle...

Deflating tires doesn't keep a vehicle from applying power to the wheels. Deflating tires just prevents the driver from being able to steer the thing the right direction.

Attempted murder.

Attempted $#@!ing murder.

That's not criminal negligence. That's not psychotic stupidity. That is an attempt to murder that guy.

The wonder of modern cars. Remember the old GM v8 muscle cars? They could go 120, but they usually got a terrible case of the shakes somewhere after 70 mph. Guess it was primitive tire balancing and front end alignment...

Gee, I'm pretty sure my 1969 Charger used the same primitive tires, and I'm pretty sure the guys down at the front end shop used the same piece of chalk to draw the line around the tires when he aligned the front end. But I never had that problem when I did that. Those torsion bars kept the tires planted to the ground just fine. They reacted so quickly to road imperfections it's almost like torsion bars aren't moving parts (and the almost aren't--they may twist, but they never go anywhere).

Government Motors, meanwhile, used massively overweight suspension pieces and coil springs which reacted to bumps so slowly that the road goes down, but the wheels are still going up. They couldn't react instantly because they had too much momentum. You aren't in contact with the road half the time at that speed. Pat their engineers on the head and say, Good Monkey.

I remember the first time I was in a car which accelerated of its own accord. It was a 1968 Chevrolet, and the motor mount broke. How do you make a car that overweight, and still have pieces as key as motor mounts break? Good Monkey! Corvairs, aluminum V-8s, Vegas, Citations, Olds Diesels--what a fine history of following innovations up with recalls they have!

Yeah, yeah, everyone hated Chrysler because it was different. 'The starter sounds different!' It also has gear reduction, and will still start the car when the battery's half dead. 'Torsion bars are weird!' Yeah, if you consider keeping the wheels on the street at 120 to be a weird thing. 'It has gauges on the dash!' So sorry you don't want to know something's wrong with the car until after it blows up. 'The automatic transmission feels different!' Well, yeah, it has a link to the throttle, and downshifts the instant you press on the gas, and upshifts the instant you let off the gas, instead of waiting until the engine vacuum changes and thinking about it for a while. 'The square key opens the doors!' Sure, didn't you want the valet parking attendant to lock your car--or did you want to have to give the valet the round key, too, so he could rifle through your glove box and trunk?

Yeah, I remember those GM muscle cars. The Chevelle SS396 came with nine inch drum brakes on all four wheels, unless you hit the options list. You could not get a Road Runner with nine inch drums. Ever. Good Monkey! Alfred P. Sloan has a banana for you. GM engineers were as murderous as those psychotic cops and their spike strips. And don't talk to me about Fords, either, or I'll blow your Pinto up.

Chrysler products were different before Iacocca took over. Better is different. Always has been.

Of course, that was then and this is now, and Obama forced Chrysler to merge with Fiat--the company once colloquially known in the U.S. as Fix It Again, Tony. Government Motors clearly gave Obama plenty of brib--er, I mean campaign contributions. GM gets billions in bailout money, and Chrysler gets given to Fiat.

No, the engineers aren't any better--and neither are the bean counters, who will switch from the best computer in the world--remember, we're talking about the computer which can now take over the throttle, the gears, the bags of poisonous gas that blow up in your face and knock your hands off the steering wheel, the kill switch, the steering in some cases, and maybe even the brakes--will switch from the best computer in the world to the worst to save three cents per car.

You think it's bad the cops won't save you, and won't let you save yourself either? Wait until your car refuses to let you save it and yourself.

I'm confused. If it was stuck wide open, he'd be going a lot faster than that. If it was stuck on partial throttle, then brakes would definitely work.

The brakes would work in any case. You sound like one of those 60 Minutes yellow journalists who blew up the whole Audi "unintended acceleration" hoax, no doubt because GM was a better customer of CBS advertising than Audi. Even the Chevelle SS396 with six and a half liters of engine and nine inch drum brakes could hold the car at a standstill at full throttle.

However, now we have anti-lock braking--a "safety" system which can bleed pressure off the hydraulic system without your approval. Isn't that special? I'm surprised they haven't made it mandatory yet. They basically made sport utes mandatory--so when we have to do emergency maneuvers and overdo it, we don't slide, we roll over. Thanks for looking out for our "safety", you government psychos.

A wise man once said no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. No one ever went broke underestimating their good sense, either--least of all the government.

[otherone]

Retards

[Anti Federalist]

However, now we have anti-lock braking--a "safety" system which can bleed pressure off the hydraulic system without your approval. Isn't that special? I'm surprised they haven't made it mandatory yet. They basically made sport utes mandatory--so when we have to do emergency maneuvers and overdo it, we don't slide, we roll over. Thanks for looking out for our "safety", you government psychos.

This is a great point.

For all the leftist caterwauling and safety nazi crying over SUVs, it's good to point out that such a thing would not even exist if it wasn't for Uncle Sucker and his ridiculous fatwas and edicts and mandates.



The Last Redoubt?

https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2018...-last-redoubt/

By eric - February 14, 2018

Some of you may remember station wagons.

Before SUVs and crossovers – before minivans – station wagons were the family car of choice for millions of American families. They were as everywhere as SUVs and crossovers are today. As minivans were, before SUVs and crossovers supplanted them.

Wagons were natural things, created as the result of market demand for them. They were in demand because they could comfortably carry more than five people and a bunch of stuff in the back plus pull a trailer, if the need was there. Such attributes appeal to families, to people who have kids and often have to cart around other people’s kids, too.

The big wagons were based on the big sedans that were dominant at the time – the time being the ’60s and ‘70s.

This was the time before government got into the business of dictating to the car industry how many miles-per-gallon cars would have to deliver in order to avoid being fined for noncompliance. When cars were designed to meet buyer – rather than government – demands

When that reversed, the car business hit the equivalent of a patch of black ice and skidded in a different – and unplanned – direction. Station wagons disappeared almost overnight, because the large sedans they were based on had been fatwa’d out of existence by fuel economy mandatory minimums which made them too expensive to build, due to the “gas guzzler” taxes heaped on them.

But – at the time – there was an end-run.

Pick-up trucks were not yet subject to the fatwas – which only applied to passenger cars. It occurred to someone at one of the car companies – it was Ford that hit paydirt first – that pick-ups share the same basic attributes which made large sedans – and the station wagons spun off from them – so popular with the market. The were big and had lots of room inside. They had big engines.

And they were rear-wheel-drive.

Exactly like the big sedans and wagons extincted by fatwa. Just with a bed out back, open to the elements.

Well, how about we enclose that bed? Lay down some carpet, bolt seats to the floor? Add extra doors?

Voila – the SUV.

It was Ford’s Bronco II which began what would soon become a boom. It was a Ranger pick-up with an enclosed bed. Which made it agreeable as a passenger carrying vehicle that wasn’t – in regulatory terms – a passenger vehicle; i.e., a “car.”

It was – for regulatory purposes – a “light truck” and these skated elegantly past Uncle and his fatwas, as they did not have to abide by the MPG mandatory minimums that had forced an unnatural changed in the way cars were designed. But the most unnatural thing was the sudden effusion of these SUVs, which Blitzkrieged the roads like the panzers into Poland. Within three years of the Bronco II’s appearance as a new model in 1983, others had joined in. By 1990, every major car company had at least one SUV in its lineup – and those that didn’t were working on it.

It was like the muscle car frenzy set into motion back in 1964, when John DeLorean pretty much invented the muscle car by taking a mid-sized Tempest coupe and replacing its small V8 with a huge V8 from Pontiac’s full-sized cars – with the difference being that DeLorean was end-running GM’s internal edict that its smaller cars must only have engines so big (and no bigger) while Ford and the rest were end-running Uncle.

But there was a common thread – the car companies were trying to give the people who bought their cars what they wanted, not for altruistic reasons but rather because that’s how you made money. Well, used to – before it became possible to make money by passing laws forcing people to buy your goods or services (e.g., car insurance, Obamacare).

And now comes the next end-run, the last redoubt.

Uncle’s MPG fatwas have been applied to “light trucks” – and so, to SUVs built off them – and these fatwas are already at a level that cannot be complied with. Uncle demands they – like “passenger cars” – average 35.4 MPGs – or else. And the fatwa is on track to almost double, if the National Cockatiel doesn’t intervene. The good news is it looks as though he might. The bad news is that even if he does, the odds of his successor re-imposing the fatwas are high.

But the fatwas do not – yet – apply to heavy-duty trucks in the 2500/3500 series (and up) class. Why not let history repeat? Why not take, say, a Chevy Silverado 2500 dualie pick-up and enclose the bed.

Voila – instant super-sized SUV!

With an even bigger V8!

If people can no longer buy “light truck” – and SUVs – on account of their having been fatwa’d out of existence, but the same basic thing is still available to them in something even bigger and heavier and – the irony is almost too much – even less fuel-efficient – then they will buy it because the car industry will build it.

Because there’s money in it.

It’s what people want – a concept the people who work as Uncle’s minions seem congenitally incapable of grokking. Stifle what people want and people will find a way around it – often, with the net result being more of what the government claims it didn’t want and tried to prevent via the original fatwa.

Right now, Uncle – his minions (and this includes the media, which might as well be officially christened the Ministry of Truth or some such equivalent) moan mightily about what they regard as the not-so-great economy of the average new vehicle. Which is an SUV – or a crossover SUV, which is the same basic animal (i.e., big, heavy and so, thirsty).

Which is a class of vehicle that would not exist – not as a mass-market offering – were it not for the distortion of the marketplace caused by Uncle’s fatwas. Trucks would have remained trucks – built in small proportion relative to cars and sold mostly to tradesmen, farmers and so on. Most people would have bought cars – and if the market signaled that most people pined for smaller, gas-sippier cars, the car industry would have made them, no fatwa necessary.

Because there would have been money in it.

Doubt this? Check into how many old Beetles VW sold. Or Honda Civics. Pre-fatwa, when market demand for them was what served as the genesis for their manufacture.

But this was not enough for Uncle. It never is. He had to meddle. Had to intervene – had to supersede and second-guess. And thus was born the arguably grotesque SUV boom, which continues to blossom like an endless far cloud to this day. Vast fleets of jacked-up hybrid truck-car things that suck oceans of gas – not that there is anything wrong with that; people have every right to be as profligate with their resources as they wish to be. Once pumped, gas is their to burn and the idea that a third party busybody should have anything to say about it is as obnoxious as a busybody issuing fatwas about what kind of carpet you may throw down in your own home.

But it’s silly for so many millions of people to be driving around in these grotesque truck-car things, which are creatures of Uncle.

And it may just be about to get a lot sillier, once production of of 2500/3500 series SUVs ramps up.

[TheCount]

Even the Chevelle SS396 with six and a half liters of engine and nine inch drum brakes could hold the car at a standstill at full throttle.

Trucks' brakes can hold them at a standstill when they're sitting on a steep grade, and yet runaway truck ramps exist. Stopping a vehicle that is already in motion is different from holding it at a standstill.

At 95 mph, wide open throttle, full brake panic stop, it would be a race between your car stopping, your brake pads catching on fire, and your brake fluid boiling. One of those will happen. Probably you'll stop... but I don't consider it a definite, as it'll come down to a lot of different factors. $11 Autozone brake pads? They'll catch on fire. 2 mm of brake pad left on the backing plates? Yeah, that's not going to work. Old, watery brake fluid you've never changed? It's going to boil. Everything is in good condition? I bet you'll stop. Probably.

[CCTelander]

And for the youngsters who do not know WTF I am talking about in the headline:

I'm old enough to remember that. Damn, I need a nap.

[Raginfridus]

You have air bags.

Oh yeah, thanks! cue late bags

[Schifference]

Well once the inevitable happens and self driving cars are everywhere, there will be no fault on the passengers. Gas pedals will never stick because it is impossible!

[Anti Federalist]

Well once the inevitable happens and self driving cars are everywhere, there will be no fault on the passengers. Gas pedals will never stick because it is impossible!

That's right!

A case of computer PMS will result in this instead: