Design the world's best range of autos for $250 Billion?

Read Nomen's comments below this news excerpt:

GM lost $10,000,000,000 last year, a DROP IN THE BUCKET when compared to
this failed war. While government has no business investing in private
enterprises like automobiles, instead of dropping $250 billion and rising
into this black hole, had it invested it in auto development, as a partner,
we would catch up and overtake what is now the best the world has to offer.

Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz all would be pale in comparison to what the
U.S. could do if it would not squander its resources in Iraq. Its the old
guns vs butter argument.

Why not a flying car? Individual inventors on $100,000 budgets have built
them, though not commercially successful. Would not a few billion invested
in this project reap practical rewards and a hundred thousand jobs to boot?

Its okay for government to partner with the automakers. They do it all the
time with aerospace companies. Think of the level to which we could bring
automotives if the government through its full weight behind its very much
needed advancement. Don't count on GM, Ford, or Daimler-Chrysler to do it.
They all are narrow minded, immediate gratifiers. Only the governmnent and
the taxpayers who fund it have the forsight to think progressively.

Our cars remain a century behind aviation in every respect. Its Russian
roulette when you have to go somewhere. Here's one of a hundred possible
proofs: Travel insurance covers a missed flight due to an accident on the
way to the airport, BUT does NOT COVER a mechanical breakdown which causes
a missed flight (even when backed by tow and repair bills). Cars are plain
unreliable and as far as travel insurance companies are concerned,
uninsurable. Just $10,000,000,000 of government money would rectify this
by financing the development of aviation-rated auto systems that would
assure you of getting from point A to point B without worrying about a
mechanical breakdown. (If that sounds like a lot, its only 1/25th of the
cost of this illegal war--yes, its illegal because Congress hasn't (and
wouldn't) formally declared it....read the Constitution instead of
listening to politicians who need impeachment)

We have become the laughing stock of the world. We don't even make forks
and spoons anymore in this country. We have reduced ourselves to having
our star high school graduates flipping burgers and driving cars designed
by ex-toilet bowl e-******-neers.

The truth hurts.

 

Better read the free trade agreement. Your suggestion would create
stiff sanctions from WTO.

 

Enough, right there, to make me want to get you down and beat the snot out
of you...

Nothing beats a throwaway line to make a point for the self-righteous
shortsighted ass-hole! Never mind it's ridiculous if it makes your point,
eh?

 

"Government has foresight." Now that's a new one!

"Cars are plain unreliable.." What fantasy world are you living in? Cars
are pretty reliable in my world.

"We have become the laughing stock of the world." Then why are literally
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people trying to get into the USA every year, both
legally and illegally?

Tom


Read Nomen's comments below this news excerpt:

Don't count on GM, Ford, or Daimler-Chrysler to do it.
They all are narrow minded, immediate gratifiers. Only the governmnent and
the taxpayers who fund it have the forsight to think progressively.

Cars are plain unreliable and as far as travel insurance companies are
concerned,
uninsurable.


We have become the laughing stock of the world.

 

BULLSHIT.. The history books are FULL of failed "Progressive Governments"
and the news is full of those that are failing, as we speak!

And how exactly are the taxpayers to have a say? Our elected in Washington
dont listen to us NOW! And dont lay that off on Corporate shenanigans...
If you do away with 'corporations' TOMORROW, there will be some group or
individual take their place at the trough. How's France's economy doing?
That's certainly a 'progressive' society.

All you have to do is look at the UN and see what lies ahead when we place
our trust in the 'enlightened alite'.

Nope... if you want a short-cut to fascism, all you have to do is create a
government full of the exact opposite elitist types, and allow the fascists
to play victim. That's happening right now, too... isnt it?

 

THat's probably why all small consumer aircraft are still using *carburated*
engines, because it's more reliable that way.

I wouldn't want an injector to fail at 25,000 thousand feet

--

(\_ _/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.

 

Can you imagine what they could have done with that money

I am not sure just throwing money at something is a solution
It matters also what you are paying for
Some throw the money straight out the window

The car industry could learn a lot from aviation

There each accident is investigated and the discoveries used to improve
the plains and pilots

Gradually over the year the plains and pilots have become better

If each car accident was investigated and the cause registered in each
case you could improve car safety a lot

In most cases it is either the road or the driver and not the car that
is not good enough

Brand new cars are often in accident because of inexperienced driver

Old cars are very often on the street because of lax inspection

They make cars according to regulations and new cars are not bad

That can be true in many ways but it is not the mechanical problem nor
is it the new cars

It is more the rules, regulations, inspections, roads and drivers that
are unreliable

True

 

The power/weight required would make this difficult, expensive, and
noisy.
the FAA certification and product liability would make this
impractical.

Keep in mind that an inexpensive new 4 place airplane cost more than
$100,000(Cessna, Piper)
These aircraft and engines were certified more than 50 years ago,
and have changed little since.

A well equipped travel type 4 place airplane will cost more like
$250,000 - $500,000 (Cirrus, Beechcraft, Columbia. The Beechcraft was
certified in the middle 1930's)

These are single engine aircraft. Depending on your attitude towards
risk, you may not want to cross mountains or lakes, and you may not want to
fly at night. If the engine quits, you can glide to a landing(I have several
times), but you will need to be able to see where you are going to land.


Insurance will cost between $500 and $1000 per month, and the hangar
another $300. Annual maintenance
maybe another $2000.

The airplanes I fly are a 1964 and a 1967 Cessna. They rent for
around $100/hour.

What do you think the auto industry should learn?

Al

 

Aircraft accidents get the rigorious treatment for a different, historical,
reason than auto accidents do. The reason is early on in the aviation
industry they discovered a few spectacular plane accidents immediately and
severely impacted the public's interest in flying. The aviation barons
got the screaming heebie jeebies when they realized that the industry was
only a few more accidents away from going completely bankrupt, and
huge support appeared for rigorious accident investigation.

The dirty little secret of the aviation industry today is that the rigiorous
and expensive accident investigation isn't justified by the cost compared
to the death toll we accept as normal for auto traffic.

If they did only a cursory investigation it would result in an increase of
crashes, but the increased death toll as a percentage of total travelling
public would still be microscopic compared to the percentage of auto
travelers killed and permanently maimed in car wrecks ever year.

If everyone was flying planes and crashing them at the rate that everyone
is crashing cars today, the newspapers wouldn't even bother printing
stories about most plane accidents. People would get immunized to
it, just as they have got immunized to the death toll on the highways
today.

It would be better to have rigiorous accident investigation of auto
crashes, but unless the society is willing to do what is necessary
to fix the problem - and that means in most cases, not allowing the
drivers at fault back into vehicles without forcing them into a long
and rather severe driver training class, or in the worst cases permenently
preventing them from driving and jailing people caught driving with
no license - then rigiorous accident investigation of car crashes is
pointless. So far the society in the US is not willing to go to these
lengths with auto drivers.

Bullshit, in most cases it is the driver. A good driver can compensate
for the road or vehicle shortcomings.

Bullshit, it is more the drivers that are unreliable.

Ted

 

YOU sure have! Well at least those who see your crap.

A racist as well!
You sure do give me a pain.
Thank goodness the Gov. doesn't listen to you.

 

It would be best to start at the top and take each death and
investigate that rigorously

Create statististics for all car accidents and document it against
where it happened

Many places are more problem prone than others

Take measures to stop cars, getting in trouble at those places

Close them down, get the speed down, remove the option of cars meeting

Increase public transport

Let the drivers get points for each incident and go through tests and
reshooling after gathering certain amount of points

Let the car inspections each year on old cars be more demanding

There are lot of measures already done for airplanes that can be
applied to cars and drivers

 

GM sold 78 percent of its equity in GMAC Commercial Holding in
exchange for more than $1.5 billion in cash, GM said.

The investor group was comprised of affiliates of Kohlberg Kravis
Roberts & Co., Five Mile Capital Partners LLC and Goldman Sachs Capital
Partners.

Yet another nail in the coffin

 

Totally not cost-effective. We don't need to investigate deaths caused
by drinking drivers, for example, we already know what killed the
people involved.

States and municipalities already do this, that is how they decide where
to allocate road dollars.

States already do this, but it is very expensive to come in and rebuild a
problem interchange espically when you have to make it bigger and everything
around it is already built up.

Cities are already doing what they can to do this, it isn't working very
well.
Even in New York City they have too many cars. People want to drive.

The problem with this is that you need to catch them before they have
an incident and get a point.

The absolute idea situation would be to require a DRIVERS TEST every
5 years when the license is renewed. I mean a test where a drivers
instructor sits in the passenger seat and you drive him around. This
business of letting people renew drivers licenses every couple years
by just paying a fee is fucking retarded. If the driver fails the test
they have to attend a drivers ed weekend course before they get
their license renewed.

The problem is that the states and such that issue licenses view the
process as a way to fill the government coffers, not as a mechanism
to insure that only qualified drivers are on the road. There's plenty
of money from a drivers license renewal to pay for an instructor to
do a 10 minute test.

Many places do not inspect vehicles at all other than emissions.

Ted

 

I guess we are basically in agreement what needs to be done
The problem with the rules the authorities give out are not enforced
The roads are not good enough
The plans for roads, trains, public transport and renewals as well as
security are not good enough
Most planners do not see further than the middle of their noses
If the transport system were planned a lot of money could be saved
People would live in safer environments
It would be easier and faster to travel
Because no plans are in place everything happens ad hoq and the whole
system is very inefficient
The airplane industry has done a much better job per se as the cars but
they too should be part of the complete system and not be an isolated
part
What the airplane authorities have done well is to make the planes safe
They are not very well fitted in the total transport system either

 

No, I don't think so. I think the problem is fundamentally the drivers,
playing around with redesigns of the vehicles or the transportation system
is merely nibbling at the edges. I think the problem is the political will
to
tighten down on the drivers doesen't exist in the US at any rate. People
would rather dump 10 million bucks into a newer interchange that is
supposed to be "safer" than drop a million bucks into mandatory
driver training, or 5 million bucks into increased traffic enforcement
at 3:00 AM in the morning. They would rather drop 5 million bucks
into a don't drink and drive campaign than 2 million bucks into random
roadblocks with breathalizer tests.

We can, today, manufacture a breathalizer sensitive enough that all
a cop would need to do is thrust it into an open window and take a sniff
of the vehicle inside air to detect the presense of alcohol. If it
registered
then the cop could demand a blow test to get the actual percentage.

If a municipality instituted a roadblock system whereby they randomly
selected
arterials in a city, and stopped everyone that drove through them from the
hours of 1:00 am to 5:00am, and did a quick sniff, they would probably be
able to get 90% of the chronic drunk drivers in the city cited within a
year,
and with repeated citations requiring vehicle forfeture they could probably
see a steep reduction of drunk driving crashes. But, people complain
their civil rights are being violated so they don't do it. How? The roads
are not
the private possession of those people, they are publically owned and you
must follow
the will of the majority when you use them. And a roadblock stops everyone,
it does not discriminate.

That isn't true at all. I know a planner and the problem isn't the
planners.
The city planners know how it's supposed to be. The problem is twofold,
first most cities and jurisdictions look at building permits as a cash cow
to fund other projects, they do not plow the money that they get from
issuing permits back into a better planning system. Second, almost the
entire cities control over the city design is when permits are issued for
new construction. If you have an existing setup that is a horrible setup,
and no developer is interested in going in and buying out people then
razing the setup and rebuilding, then nothing gets done to the existing
setup.

But that is the nature of the beast. Transport planning is a big catch-22.
People use transport to get to a destination. When sitting down to plan
a transportation network you have no idea what in the future is going to
prove out to be a popular destination. So you take a guess and if you guess
wrong (which usually happens) then your transportation network has
overcapacity in one place, and undercapacity elsewhere, it's lopsided.
Or, if you sit on your hands and decided to wait to see what proves out
to be popular, by the time you figure that out, the popular destinations
are all built up and it's horribly expensive to increase capacity in to
them.

Ted

 

I guess we are basically in agreement what needs to be done

Strange we both agree on the main problem - drivers - but you still can
not admit agreeing

Interesting

Beside that I think the whole transport system is not planned
It has just happened and individual parts are really bad

It is not enough to create a huge expensive monster if it is not
improving anything

Best plans make simple effective systems

When you just spend a lot of money trying to fix old problems it only
makes things more wrong and money out the window