Why do we hate Auto Start/Stop so much?

[adam1991]

That works in theory, but a law is worthless if it is not enforced and upheld.

are you kidding? The infrastructure is in place. Take pictures, send violations out.

They were ALL over red light cameras for revenue; citizens objected, and forced the issue down over several years. But turn these into green light cameras, and watch the revenue roll in--

--or watch people choose not to do the behavior that keeps traffic rolling.

Sponsored

 

[CV428]

are you kidding? The infrastructure is in place. Take pictures, send violations out.

They were ALL over red light cameras for revenue; citizens objected, and forced the issue down over several years. But turn these into green light cameras, and watch the revenue roll in--

--or watch people choose not to do the behavior that keeps traffic rolling.

I get the impression that you think I'm disagreeing with you- I am not. We are in agreement that a solution is needed and that the infrastructure is already in place. My point is that logic doesn't thrive in bureaucracy.

They could easily implement a software update that geofences and restricts phone usage while in motion, with a delay, when in a driver's seat. Those nannyisms already exist for infotainment systems- why not phones?

Again, I am all for a crushing level of accountability to cut down on distracted driving.

 

[adam1991]

I get the impression that you think I'm disagreeing with you- I am not. We are in agreement that a solution is needed and that the infrastructure is already in place. My point is that logic doesn't thrive in bureaucracy.

They could easily implement a software update that geofences and restricts phone usage while in motion, with a delay, when in a driver's seat. Those nannyisms already exist for infotainment systems- why not phones?

Again, I am all for a crushing level of accountability to cut down on distracted driving.

We have laws that, as you say, aren't being enforced (well, not much*). Throw some revenue opportunity into the mix, and watch the fun happen.

Then it will eventually settle down into, as you say, some mechanism that stops the phone screen from working while the driver is occupied (don't know how that will work vs allowing the passengers access, but I know Apple has some patents on knowing where the phone is in the car). People will scream loudly enough about the fines, so Android/Apple will come to their rescue while currying favor from govt entities by "helping" them enforce the laws.

*SOME cops enforce the law:

 

[CV428]

We have laws that, as you say, aren't being enforced (well, not much*). Throw some revenue opportunity into the mix, and watch the fun happen.

Then it will eventually settle down into, as you say, some mechanism that stops the phone screen from working while the driver is occupied (don't know how that will work vs allowing the passengers access, but I know Apple has some patents on knowing where the phone is in the car). People will scream loudly enough about the fines, so Android/Apple will come to their rescue while currying favor from govt entities by "helping" them enforce the laws.

*SOME cops enforce the law:

It depends on the state- some states enforce it better than others. Two years ago when we brought our son home from the hospital after he was born, we had to drive the Bronco off the road to avoid a distracted driver who crossed lanes at us head-on. I had gotten sick of this, but that was the last straw. ~2 day old infant in the vehicle, and someone else's dumb Instragram scrolling could have cost our son his life. I put in a dash cam and started recording every negative encounter, which filled 32gb in less than a month. That's ~300 separate videos in one month's time. I tried to share this with my backwards little town's politicians as evidence of an issue where DOT metrics do not reflect the severity of the issue. The response was "I don't see the problem, and it hasn't affect me so far, so therefore the problem doesn't exist." They are preoccupied with arguing over drapes in the town hall, which is substantially more important than public safety, apparently. I talked with several police officers about it, and they basically said that enforcement is limited by bandwidth, and they're so busy attending accident scenes that there isn't much dept bandwidth left for enforcement.

Most people are so oblivious and reprobate, they have no clue that their actions affect others and don't care. A/S/S is just another technocratic distraction and hindrance, on top of the parfait-of-crap that is modern electronics and vehicles.

It's sad that technology was meant to reduce the load and increase efficiency, and all it has really done is make life more complicated, less efficient, and more stressful.

 

[GoHawks63]

I dislike it, because... my radar detector stops and restarts every time the engine loses power. Yes, I tapped the mirror connection... ug...

So some idiot engineer or manager at Ford let that happen. Why does ANY circuit go down just because the engine stops running???

So now you're at a traffic light and your autodimming mirror undims because of ASS. Nice.

I have my radar detector and dash cam connected through the mirror tap and they do not turn off when the engine shuts down (although I now press the button until I get the Auto Stop Eliminator).

Sounds like it may be an installation issue.

 

[SeptuagenerianSasquatch]

@adam1991 You have a real burr under your saddle blanket here. There are all sorts of things which annoy me. People who don't move with the green light is an annoyance, creating a "slinky effect," but so are people who drift to the right -- risking sideswiping vehicles next to them-- as they overcompensate for their left turns.

I just watch those jerks carefully.

With all respect, trying to get a law written for a growing problem is rarely appropriate or effective, even if it gets positive media and political attention. The correct answer, sir, is to enforce the laws that are out there. For example, laws to remedy phone use could just as easily be enforced under existing "distracted driving" laws. But anti-phone laws became a hot item, so new laws were added.

Increasingly, officers are reluctant to write tickets. "A traffic stop is the most likely event that will get me before Internal Affairs, so why should I risk it?" said one cop to me. Here's a likely scenario:

1) Cop writes a ticket.
2) Violator files a complaint, offering to drop the complaint if the ticket is voided. ("He only stopped me because I'm fill in the blank.")
3) Complaint goes to Internal Affairs, irrespective of the ticket, which is handled by other superiors.
4) Officer's superior puts him on desk duty, which deprives him of overtime and moonlighting ("detail") assignments--he's reduced to 40 hours of base pay.
5) Worse, he's suspended, all of which can take
6) Months to resolve

There's a lot of anti-cop sentiment, and you know it's concentrated in jurisdictions of a certain color.

Another factor is ideological: Enforcement of laws is--by political direction--reduced "because it impacts a certain demographic more than others," which is code-words for "profiling." Profiling has ben proven to be a myth, but partisans of a certain ideological persuasion continue to use it for political purposes.

With all respect, Adam1991, tell your politicians to direct the police to enforce the laws, instead of writing new ones, building exotic traffic patterns and lane markings, etc.

Or is our society in a state of irrevocable decline?

 

[adam1991]

@adam1991 The correct answer, sir, is to enforce the laws that are out there.

I agree with you a thousand percent.

I'm not asking for new laws. I'm asking for enforcement of existing laws. Just like that cop on that video who caught shit from those self-absorbed Debbies.

And the way to hammer that home, frankly, is to make it hurt. It's not reasonable to put people in jail for holding their phones while driving, but it's dirt simple to catch them holding up traffic at a light--which is antisocial behavior--and send them a huge bill for it.

I see people all the time holding their phones while driving. There's a law against that now, for obvious reasons; now enforce it. It would take almost zero effort to do so in a manner which gets the message across to everyone.

You can't fix it 100%--people still drive drunk, for example--but you can seriously affect it with the right kind of enforcement.

 

[CV428]

@adam1991 There are all sorts of things which annoy me. People who don't move with the green light is an annoyance, creating a "slinky effect," but so are people who drift to the right -- risking sideswiping vehicles next to them-- as they overcompensate for their left turns.

I just watch those jerks carefully.

With all respect, trying to get a law written for a growing problem is rarely appropriate or effective, even if it gets positive media and political attention. The correct answer, sir, is to enforce the laws that are out there. For example, laws to remedy phone use could just as easily be enforced under existing "distracted driving" laws. But anti-phone laws became a hot item, so new laws were added.

Increasingly, officers are reluctant to write tickets. "A traffic stop is the most likely event that will get me before Internal Affairs, so why should I risk it?" said one cop to me. Here's a likely scenario:

1) Cop writes a ticket.
2) Violator files a complaint, offering to drop the complaint if the ticket is voided. ("He only stopped me because I'm fill in the blank.")
3) Complaint goes to Internal Affairs, irrespective of the ticket, which is handled by other superiors.
4) Officer's superior puts him on desk duty, which deprives him of overtime and moonlighting ("detail") assignments--he's reduced to 40 hours of base pay.
5) Worse, he's suspended, all of which can take
6) Months to resolve

There's a lot of anti-cop sentiment, and you know it's concentrated in jurisdictions of a certain color.

Another factor is ideological: Enforcement of laws is--by political direction--reduced "because it impacts a certain demographic more than others," which is code-words for "profiling." Profiling has ben proven to be a myth, but partisans of a certain ideological persuasion continue to use it for political purposes.

Or is our society in a state of irrevocable decline?

Extremely well stated, and I agree 100%

 

[skyhunter]

But facts have proven that isn’t the case-the last time I replaced a starter on something was almost 30 years ago-and it was a Bradley, not a car.

Your logic is like if I don’t spend any money, I’ll have four or five times that amount lol

My 2016 F150 starter gave up the ghost in 2021 and it was not a start/stop vehicle. My Dad's 2019 Taurus in 2022.

 

[Sherminiator]

My 2016 F150 starter gave up the ghost in 2021 and it was not a start/stop vehicle. My Dad's 2019 Taurus in 2022.

using cherry picked information doesn’t prove your point. I haven’t had to replace a starter in 25 plus years in my family.

 

[timhood]

using cherry picked information doesn’t prove your point. I haven’t had to replace a starter in 25 plus years in my family.

I replaced a starter on a '69 Opel GT in about 1987 or so. That's the last one I remember.

 

[Lcubed]

I replaced the starter in my r53 mini cooper s back in 2015.

That vehicle suffered a devastating accident while parked in front of the French embassy shortly after that replacement. Some one crashed into a line of four vehicles and mine took the brunt of the damage

 

[Cash22]

Simply, I as the operator of machine, want to retain as much control as I possibly can over the machine im operating.

Also, as with any moving mechanical parts; the more it moves, the more it wears. I turn it off first thing everytime.

 

[skyhunter]

using cherry picked information doesn’t prove your point. I haven’t had to replace a starter in 25 plus years in my family.

Says the cherry picker. My point is with the last the last 2 cars in our family, which also happened to be late model Fords all lest than 5 years old, we had starters replaced in what is well below the designed service life.

You are such a boob. "your experience does not prove the point, my experience proves the point". EABODBAA

 

[CV428]

My argument against the "just push the button" rhetoric is this... It's one extra unnecessary motion in a time where unnecessary motions and commands have become normal because everyone is blind to it.

Think about "surfing the internet" in the 90's. Gee, those pop-up ads were so annoying, right? Except, they were easier to deal with than today's barrage of "click the wheel, join our newsletter, cookies cookies cookies, chat with us, hey are you chatting with us? Limited time offer! Can we send you notifications?" nonsense.

Let's say there's a fire in your home. You grab the fire extinguisher, but there are 5 extra buttons to press before you can fire it. You finally hit those buttons in the right order, but lo and behold, it needs a software update! Your house burns down.

Anything separating me from the intended function of a device is an issue, and supporting such things is indefensible.

Sponsored