Beware of high tech running amok

On Feb 25, 11:21*pm, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:48:19 -0600,
>
> (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
> >I have keyless entry. *It's called "not locking my door". *Never needs
> >batteries either.
>
> What do you use for your engine immobilizer?
> --
> Please don't give financial rewards to trolls -
> DO NOT CLICK on any URLs containing "calrog.com"

Running out of fuel?

In article > ,
(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:

> I have keyless entry. It's called "not locking my door". Never needs
> batteries either.

Bad idea. Not only is it illegal in most places, it also invalidates
your insurance if it was relevant to a claim. And think of the
consequences if some neighborhood kids figure this out, take the
car, and end up in a horrible accident. Do you want to carry that
around for the rest of your life.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III * * * * * 612-720-2854 * * * * *
Newave Communications * * * * * * * * * * * * http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

In article >,
(Brent P) wrote:

> In article >,
> John A. Weeks III wrote:
> > In article >,
> > (Brent P) wrote:
> >
> >> >> -- Keyless push-button ignition systems: How about inserting a key and
> >> >> twisting it?
> >>
> >> > I challenge you to find one person in America that would give up
> >> > keyless door locks and trade in the clicker for a key. I bet you
> >> > cannot find anyone, at least no one who isn't taking lots of meds.
> >>
> >> I've never had keyless entry. I don't really have a desire for it either.
> >
> > Replace the word "keyless" entry with "sex", and see how foolish
> > that logic sounds when you say it out loud. Just because you
> > haven't tried something doesn't mean that you will not enjoy it
> > once you have had it, and thus, you desire it again in the future.
>
> Why do I want more crap to carry around, another thing to break, another
> thing that needs a battery... For what advantage? Not putting a key into
> a lock? Then I'd never really trust the security of it. If it had a door
> lock as a backup it couldn't be more secure, if it didn't when the
> battery fails or the remote breaks one would be SOL.

Then why have electric start? After all, it is just one more key
to carry around, the starter is another thing to break, and another
thing that needs a battery...for what advantage? Not having to get
out in the rain and cold to crank the car by hand? What if the
batter fails...one would be SOL.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III * * * * * 612-720-2854 * * * * *
Newave Communications * * * * * * * * * * * * http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

In article >,
"Ed White" > wrote:

> Beware of high tech running amok
>
> Some features are nutty, unnecessary or maybe both
>
> Frank Aukofer
> Automotive News
> February 25, 2008 - 12:01 am ET
>
> COMMENTARY
>
> Volvo has a high-tech feature called BLIS.
>
> But it's anything but blissful. It's mostly annoying.
>
> And it's unnecessary, just like many of the other high-tech, high-cost and
> mostly useless features being foisted on gullible buyers as manufacturers
> think up ways to sell vehicles with faddish technology for technology's
> sake.
>
> Among them:
> -- Rain-sensing windshield wipers: They usually don't work, and besides,
> what's wrong with setting the interval yourself?
> -- Auto-dimming mirrors: You can't see anything but headlights at night.
> -- Keyless push-button ignition systems: How about inserting a key and
> twisting it?

My car has this feature and I love it! I hate rummaging for my car keys
when I have both hands carrying stuff or when its frigid cold out. Plus
with my Prius' smart key system, there's much less chance of my
accidentally leaving the car locked with the key still in the ignition
because they never leave my pocket.

> -- Radar cruise control: It slows you so the guy next to you can jump in the
> lane in front of you.
> -- Air-conditioned and heated seats: They're not needed if you sit on
> good-quality cloth instead of trendy leather.
> -- Surround-view cameras: What's wrong with looking around?

It adds an additional range of vision. I love my Prius' back up camera
because it allows me to park in tight spots much more easily than
without it.

In article >,
Arif Khokar > wrote:

> Ed White wrote:
>
> > BLIS stands for "blind spot information system." Cameras are mounted under
> > the outside mirrors; they pick up cars approaching on both sides from the
> > rear.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > Virtually all automobiles and trucks these days have large outside mirrors
> > with broad ranges of adjustments. Anyone can adjust the outside mirrors so
> > that blind spots do not exist.
>
> I'm surprised that someone who doesn't post to this newsgroup actually
> knows that. In any case, I wonder how expensive the following system
> would be:
>
> Using the position of the driver's seat, automatically adjust the
> mirrors such that there are no blind spots. Perhaps it could
> incorporate the height of the headrest as well to calculate vertical
> adjustment. If the driver adjust them inward, automatically revert to
> the correct adjustment.
>
> It shouldn't take much to implement a system like that

And how exactly is a side-view mirror going to help expand the view
directly behind the car?

In article >, John A. Weeks III wrote:
> In article >,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> John A. Weeks III wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > (Brent P) wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> -- Keyless push-button ignition systems: How about inserting a key and
>> >> >> twisting it?
>> >>
>> >> > I challenge you to find one person in America that would give up
>> >> > keyless door locks and trade in the clicker for a key. I bet you
>> >> > cannot find anyone, at least no one who isn't taking lots of meds.
>> >>
>> >> I've never had keyless entry. I don't really have a desire for it either.
>> >
>> > Replace the word "keyless" entry with "sex", and see how foolish
>> > that logic sounds when you say it out loud. Just because you
>> > haven't tried something doesn't mean that you will not enjoy it
>> > once you have had it, and thus, you desire it again in the future.
>>
>> Why do I want more crap to carry around, another thing to break, another
>> thing that needs a battery... For what advantage? Not putting a key into
>> a lock? Then I'd never really trust the security of it. If it had a door
>> lock as a backup it couldn't be more secure, if it didn't when the
>> battery fails or the remote breaks one would be SOL.
>
> Then why have electric start? After all, it is just one more key
> to carry around, the starter is another thing to break, and another
> thing that needs a battery...for what advantage? Not having to get
> out in the rain and cold to crank the car by hand? What if the
> batter fails...one would be SOL.

If turning a key requires so much physical effort to you that you compare
it with a hand crank well, you need to put more attention to your health
than to usenet. Turning a key or pressing a button is the same amount of
effort. It's not like a TV remote that removes the need to walk up to the
television... you still need to walk up to the car and get in it. There
is no big labor savings. None. Zero. Zilich. On the downside you have
carry another thing around with you or an even bigger key and have yet
another battery added to your life to deal with.

In article >, Scott in SoCal wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:02:28 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>Why do I want more crap to carry around
>
> Huh? You already carry a key on a chain with a fob. Where is this
> "extra crap" of which you speak?

I have no 'fob'.

>>another thing that needs a battery...

> My first battery lasted almost 3 years and cost $3 to replace. BFD.

It's not the cost, it's the annoyance.

>>For what advantage? Not putting a key into a lock?

> The primary reason people lock their keys in their cars is because the
> key is constantly leaving their pocket or purse. With KSE (Keyless
> Start and Entry) the key can stay in your pocket at all times.

Um... you're mixing things here. if you're keeping it in your pocket it's
RFID which is something entirely different.

> The car
> can detect whether the key is inside the car or not; if you try to
> start the car and the key is not inside, the car will not start. If
> you leave the car and they key is still inside, the car will not lock,
> and will warn you by blipping the horn that you left your keys inside.

And makes your car easy to steal by some RFID interceptor.

Easy low tech solution: Spare key in wallet duh.

> My car can be programmed with up to 4 keys. Each key has all sorts of
> personalized settings associated with it, such as seat, steering
> wheel, and mirror positions, climate control settings, radio presets,
> even the name displayed on the dashboard. One day when you get married
> and you're constantly adjusting seats and mirrors after your wife has
> driven your car, you'll appreciate things like these.

Only I drive my car.

> Another thing you might appreciate on occasion: my car has no lock
> cylinders in the doors to get frozen up in the winter.

It's called graphite lock lube. I've had to do it ONCE in 11 years.

And what do you do when the gizmo fails? Break a window?

On Feb 25, 7:41*pm, (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article >, John A. Weeks III wrote:
>
> > *"Ed White" > wrote:
> >> -- Auto-dimming mirrors: You can't see anything but headlights at night..
> > If that is what happens when you drive at night, perhaps your eyes are
> > not up to the quality required to safely operate a motor vehicle.
> > Time to give up the drivers license. *You can take a horse and buggy,
> > after all.
>
> Huh? I don't use the 'night' setting on my rearview mirror for the same
> reason, all the detail is gone. I have excellent night vision and the
> loss of detail annoys me.
>
> >> -- Keyless push-button ignition systems: How about inserting a key and
> >> twisting it?
> > I challenge you to find one person in America that would give up
> > keyless door locks and trade in the clicker for a key. *I bet you
> > cannot find anyone, at least no one who isn't taking lots of meds.
>
> I've never had keyless entry. I don't really have a desire for it either.

I have one but don't use it. Reach for the keys in my pocket and it
balances out that the key is pointed out. To use the clicker I have
to fumble around to get them turned around in my hand. Faster to just
use the key.

Harry K

On Feb 25, 8:53*pm, N8N > wrote:
> On Feb 25, 11:41 pm, "John A. Weeks III" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > (Brent P) wrote:
>
> > > >> -- Keyless push-button ignition systems: How about inserting a key and
> > > >> twisting it?
>
> > > > I challenge you to find one person in America that would give up
> > > > keyless door locks and trade in the clicker for a key. *I bet you
> > > > cannot find anyone, at least no one who isn't taking lots of meds.
>
> > > I've never had keyless entry. I don't really have a desire for it either.
>
> > Replace the word "keyless" entry with "sex", and see how foolish
> > that logic sounds when you say it out loud. *Just because you
> > haven't tried something doesn't mean that you will not enjoy it
> > once you have had it, and thus, you desire it again in the future.
>
> I've got a couple of those items. *Keyless entry really isn't on *my*
> must have list, but a few things I've been spoiled by and now miss
> when my car doesn't have them...
>
<snip>

> 2) Inside trunk release. *That way I'm not fumbling with my keys in an
> unfamiliar parking lot, and God forbid I drop them and they roll under
> the car.

<snip>

Try a new feature on my 2005 Ford 500. A great step backward.

Has the inside trunk release _and no key unlock_ at the trunk.

The inside release won't work and you have to push down on the trunk
lid (releases lock pressure) before the keyless thing will work. And
that is AFTER I took it back to the dealer twice.

I suppose it could be argued that not having a key hole in the trunk
lid is an antitheft measure but I consider it a very weak point.

Harry K

On Feb 25, 1:59 pm, "Ed White" > wrote:
> Beware of high tech running amok
>
> Some features are nutty, unnecessary or maybe both
>
Hmmm...
I like safety features.
Cars today are safer than they were 20 years ago my at least an order
of magnitude.
I want my wife and kids in the safest car possible.
It seems funny to me that we had a thread about traffic deaths
followed by a thread about how frivolous modern safety features are...
I guess I'm not much of a Luddite...
Ben