Feature

Safety Goal Unrealistic

Zero fatalities: This is the most bone-headed statement ever to come from Volvo in Sweden (see WAW — March '10, pp.22). Kids are going to race at night; salesmen are going to commit suicide; and old men are going to nod out.

Even if you take away all driver discretion, there will still be deaths. Look at train crashes. This is a politician's gamble with rising expectations. They always turn out badly. This doesn't mean you can't always make improvements. Just take your bows after the performance.
Gerrit Beneker
Lake Orion, MI

Back Off, Jack

I take exception to the comments of E. Snyder regarding your November editorial (see WAW — Feb. '10, p.4). He assumes drivers would not think to slip the car into neutral when faced with a stuck throttle. Having been in that situation myself, I can attest that a driver would think to move to neutral in a panic situation.

I also have experienced total brake loss on more than one occasion, as well as left front brake lockup at 55 mph (89 km/h). None of these experiences resulted in injury to me or anyone else. The two times when I have been injured by system failures, it was because of another driver.

I drive defensively and understand how the systems work in my cars, so if a failure occurred I could compensate. Far too many people trail the car ahead too closely. If one person makes a mistake or if something happens out of their control, there is no time to react before a collision happens. I learned early on to be aware of my surroundings and leave enough space in case of a problem.

The February article by John McElroy (see p.10) should be required reading for every driver. But the autonomous car he mentions is very scary. Electronics are not infallible and cannot always adapt to changing conditions. Give me control of my own destiny.
P. Syndergaard
Pocatello, Idaho

Being a former police officer from a small community (20,000), I disagree with the assumption by civilians that law-enforcement officers do not handle their vehicles well in a crisis situation.

During our police training, we attended the Emergency Vehicle Operator's Course (EVOC), which stresses the importance of staying in control of the vehicle at all times.

We were taught to react correctly during sudden and unexpected changes in external input (pedestrians, vehicles pulling out or stopping unexpectedly), climate changes (wind, snow, rain, fog, etc.) and the adrenaline rush all officers experience in high-speed pursuit.

A veteran police officer (especially CHIP) should have been able to maintain and/or gain control of his vehicle and resolve the issue. I will not speculate what was happening in the vehicle at the time or what was going through the officer's mind during his crisis situation.

I just want to set the record straight. The majority of police officers would know how to maintain or gain control in this situation, given the amount of reaction time stated in the news release.
Gregory J Brinkman
Brookston, IN

Safety First?

“Auto makers are learning from their mistakes. Unfortunately, drivers and journalists are not,” says it all in your editorial (see WAW — March '10, p.3).

Most drivers operate an auto like a toaster; they push the lever down and expect certain results with no input from themselves. Get in, start the motor, put it in gear, gas it and hope for the best.

Most mainstream writers have no clue when it comes to autos or how they work.

The real problem here is the fact Toyota knew there were issues and put profits and sales ahead of safety concerns.
Pat Tanzillo
Hudson, NY

We want your feedback. Please email comments to Editor Drew Winter at [email protected]. Include your name, city and state. Letters may be edited for clarity and length.