White House may seek brake overhaul

[Russ Chung]

A recent news article on the Wall Street Journal (but has appeared on other wire services, too) says that the White House is considering recommending that all U.S. vehicles be equipped with technology that stops the car when both the gas pedal and brakes are activated.

This is in response to recent well publicized problems with Toyota automobiles, but it illustrates the "law of unintended consequences". One of the unintended consequences is the effect that this has on us while off-road, or on icy or snow-covered pavement. As many of you already know, I've wheeled for a few years with open diffs, and only recently got lockers on my Jeep. In order to improve traction with my open diffs, I sometimes stepped lightly on the brakes and the accelerator at the same time. I'm glad I finally got locking differentials on my Jeep, because I don't have to do this anymore, but this proposal, if enacted, will make it more difficult for drivers with open diffs to wheel under poor traction conditions.

[sarah]

Agreed. Plus, more laws never fix anything.

[RAT]

Agreed. Plus, more laws never fix anything.

I disagree. More laws fix the lid to the coffin....

[peteyg]

You all realize, this would only apply to new cars being manufactured, and any requirement like this would likely not be implemented for several years.

Also, while effective, the brake-and-gas poor mans locker technique goes well beyond the manufacturer's recommend use guidelines I'm sure they will not be viewing that as a valid criticism of the policy.

Also, I'll bet that in the off-roading world, a way will be found to bypass that device nearly as fast as it is released. For the same liability reasons, Factory-Fresh Jeep Rubicons have never allowed the front locker to be engaged unless the rear locker is also engaged, but of course we all know that is an easy fix.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over this one quite yet...

[RAT]

You all realize, this would only apply to new cars being manufactured, and any requirement like this would likely not be implemented for several years.

Also, while effective, the brake-and-gas poor mans locker technique goes well beyond the manufacturer's recommend use guidelines I'm sure they will not be viewing that as a valid criticism of the policy.

Also, I'll bet that in the off-roading world, a way will be found to bypass that device nearly as fast as it is released. For the same liability reasons, Factory-Fresh Jeep Rubicons have never allowed the front locker to be engaged unless the rear locker is also engaged, but of course we all know that is an easy fix.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over this one quite yet...

I'm sure the bypass is already being designed.

[OU812]

This annoys me because they are using one piece of electronics to back up another piece of electronics. Why not just use an accelerator cable? More complication, more cost, and less reliability. Sooner or later they are going to get the picture that people don't want disposable cars that are meant to drive 100K miles and then salvaged.

[RAT]

This annoys me because they are using one piece of electronics to back up another piece of electronics. Why not just use an accelerator cable? More complication, more cost, and less reliability. Sooner or later they are going to get the picture that people don't want disposable cars that are meant to drive 100K miles and then salvaged.

You're right. I want a Jetson's breifcase car...

[RAT]

You're right. I want a Jetson's breifcase car...

Sorry, I'm sitting in a hotel in Yuma bored out of my mind...

[OU812]

Your not at the Hilton are you?
I know the Chef there. Chef James

[peteyg]

But the evidence shows that people DO want to buy disposable cars. And have for a long, long time. Hence the Focus, Fiesta, Escort, Hyundai anything, Kia anything, anything small by GM, the Neon (Hi!), and, of course, the Yugo. All except the Yugo were anywhere from wildly to moderately successful, even though they are, for the most part, garbage.

[lakev2]

I gotta say i thought i bought a disposable car a few years ago, bought a 97 saturn with 50k on it. 200kmiles later its almost dead, but the only investments on the car have been routine maintenance, oil change/tires/brakes.

Now that im looking for another commuter i am upset that i can't buy a new Saturn, found them to be a reliable non-disposable car.

[Schmo]

[Shadly1]

people don't want disposable cars that are meant to drive 100K miles and then salvaged.

In the manufacturing process, that's the goal. Vehicles are designed to last an average of 100k miles and about 10 years. Of course, if you know how to maintain a vehicle, that number will increase to anything you want it to be. What scares me is if cars become designed to last as long as the average lease or loan... 3 years. Peterbilt has the right idea... 1 million miles. If they made cars, I'd buy one or at least want one.

[OU812]

A lot of cars have non serviceable transmissions. You use them till you are ready to spend 4K on another one. I wouldn’t buy anything like that.

[peteyg]

A lot of cars have non serviceable transmissions. You use them till you are ready to spend 4K on another one. I wouldn’t buy anything like that.

I dunno about that. I ran my Suburban till the tranny died, towing the whole time. It made it 170K miles (not bad at all for an abused 4l60e). I didn't have any problem at all putting $2100 into a new one, instead of buying a new $35K tow rig. And when the 5.3 quits, I'll put another one in. I think that's way better than buying a new car.