Facts have yet to stop a Polititian. I've got several at the state level that I'd love to have a chance to vote against but they're not in my district.

Main problem I can see with that is return on investment. I like the convoy idea. They've already got the technology to do that. Search the forum for "safety video". You'll need broadband to get it because IIRC it's about 400MB. Sensors tied into the cruise controls will maintain speed & distance relative to another car as long as the other vehicle is within the sensor arc. Instead of sounding the horn, use a receiver & audio alert at the pedestrian, that way you only need oneway data transmission and content is a binary signal. Simpler to implement for a base model. More advanced functions such as distance & speed could be built into more advanced receivers based on signal strength and change in strength over time. Blowing the horn seems like it would have too much chance of startling the driver and other pedestrians.

Easiest solution is a guide dog. No cost to the general public and can assist in other situations too. They are specifically trained to handle vehicular traffic. If it's unsafe to cross they have been trained to indicate this by "intelligently disobeying".

39 city/41 hwy

If this goes through, hopefully they'll just be a fuse we can pull to rid ourselves of such a worthless use of a wavelength.

Now this, I like! I think I like the latter more, though it's a toughie.

First 4WD Hypermiler

Have you read the FEH FAQ?

Live in Michigan? Let it be known in Michigan Roll Call

Read My Automotive Blog at Rich Rambles

Here's an idea, instead of requiring vehicles to make noise, how about requiring blind people to wear headgear that uses proximity sensors to detect approaching vehicles? The headgear could then use speakers to produce a beeping sound indicating the direction of the approaching vehicle.

how is that any different from this:

Loud Stereo's Save Lives

It would look good on a bumper sticker.

Well, my suggestion has a higher level of abstraction in that I don't specify a particular sensor technology. Your suggestion specifies radar.

Your suggestion has the blind person using a unidirectional sensor (a gun) whereas my suggestion has the blind person using an omnidirectional sensor. Since the typical user would be blind, an omnidirectional sensor would be necessary as they wouldn't have to aim the sensor.

Your suggestion uses volume to indicate distance, and although I didn't state it, I envisioned using a series of beeps that repeat at shorter and shorter intervals to indicate an approaching vehicle.

Your suggestion only indicates distance (using volume), whereas my suggestion would indicate both distance and direction.

Your suggestion has 38 words. My suggestion has 44 words.

Are those differences helpful to you? I didn't read every post in the entire thread before writing my response, so I wasn't trying to make a point that my idea is different. I was just posting my response to the initial posting. So in short, chill dude. Dupes happen, l2cope

psshhhhh details details. I was being half sarcastic, but I guess I need to apologize for the fact that sarcasm doesnt go over well and I did a *insert the most common synonym for excrement here* job of doing it too. I am chilling actually, thanks for informing me of the best course of action that I should take. I will go ahead and do .

The notion of a hybrid train is interesting.

It really could be extended to other kinds of vehicles. Most cars get dramatically better FE if they "draft" the one in front. The only problem is that drafting is quite dangerous because the braking reaction time is greater then than the following time. IF the braking reaction time could be reduced to (very near) zero by an automated sensor, that problem would be solved. Then, if that sensor could also be linked to the cruise control, it could regulate the following distance to just a few feet. With computerized cruise control and brake controllers, the current hybrid technology seems to be missing only the sensor and a little bit of code to control it.

If the entire fleet could have this sort of technology, the net result could be greatly increased highway capacity, reduced incidence of rear-end collisions, and increased fuel mileage across the entire fleet. If the sensor and brake controller could also detect pedestrians and such, it might solve that other pesky problem also.

The only problems would be that the person in front would control the speed for the entire line of cars, but the slow drivers on their cellphones do that now anyway. No one would have to go faster than they want, because you could always slow down. You would just end up being the lead car in the train.

The only real problem is transition. How do you introduce this technology safely into a fleet that doesn't have it? That requires that the new technology be backward compatible with older cars on the same road, and so the new sensor could not depend on any feature being present in the car that it is following. The sensor would have to be a stand-alone thing. But we have various kinds of radar and low-power laser sensors now that could fit that requirement... so it seems very doable.

Road conditions would also affect this. If the pavement is wet or snowy this would have to be taken into account.

If everyone did the speed limit then this wouldn't be an issue really.