By on March 12, 2020

The hosts of the Discovery Channel’s Diesel Brothers have been fined $851,451 for selling modified pickups that violate Utah law and the federally recognized Clean Air Act.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Shelby also said the plaintiffs, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, could submit their attorney fees for the defendants to pay. Cole Cannon, lawyer to the stars, has said the plaintiffs’ attorneys previously told the judge they were seeking $1.2 million.

Friday’s court documents stipulate that David “Heavy D” Sparks, Joshua Stuart, Keaton Hoskins, and “Diesel Dave” Kiley pay $761,451 to the U.S. government with the remaining $90,000 going to Davis County in Utah. The group has already been found guilty of removing particulate filters and exhaust recirculation systems on the cars used for the television program. The only genuine surprise was the sizable fine —  as well as some court-appointed rules that will probably make the show less exciting to watch. 

According to The Salt Lake Tribune, Judge Shelby was appalled by footage of the brothers (who are only related by their common love of all things diesel) rolling coal — especially because they seemed to be making a profit from it.

“These economic benefits,” he explained in his ruling, “continue extending well beyond the profits from these prohibited activities to defendants’ status as television and social media celebrities, the reputation and notoriety of their brands, and the economic leverage they have used to accumulate assets and start new businesses.”

Shelby also said the show will be prohibited from removing pollution mitigation systems for the show or selling any vehicles without the required emissions equipment, noting that any missteps could put them in contempt of court. Considering the Diesel Brothers’ entire premise revolves around the building of brash diesels with more power, it could be tricky rule to follow.

While the show’s habit of selling (or simply giving away) modified vehicles used in filming isn’t abnormal, it has opened it up to complications. Physicians for a Healthy Environment had an ace up its sleeve when it purchased one of the program’s modified trucks. Intended to be used as evidence from the outset, the pickup was sent to Denver for testing.

Documents show the rig emitted 36 times more pollution and 21 times the amount of particulate matter than an identical truck equipped with proper emission control devices. A case was made against the show, with plaintiffs adding that Sparks also runs a website, called Dieselsellerz, that allows customers to buy and sell used pickups with illegal modifications.

It appears to have been a rather effective strategy. Reed Zars, an attorney representing Utah Physicians, noted that the judge came extremely close to issuing the maximum fines allowable by law.

The Diesel Brothers have responded by saying the changes needed to keep diesels in line with regulatory laws have become ridiculous, noting that they’ve tried to adhere with rules as environmental groups continue hunting for ways to cripple aftermarket companies and tuners. Furthermore, they claim that some of the modifications performed on the show actually improve MPGs and power. It’s their belief that such modifications would be desirable to consumers. They added that the court completely ignored their routine usage of biofuels.

 

[Image: Toa55/Shutterstock]

Recommended

54 Comments on “‘Diesel Brothers’ Fined $850,000 for Rolling Coal...”


  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    USG hates diesel and has since about the 80s… but these guys were grade one asshats for rolling coal and drawing attention to themselves.

  • avatar
    eggsalad

    The other day in the gym, one of the TVs was playing a show featuring real-life moonshiners. What kind of morons think that putting their illegal activities on television is a good idea??

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Well, they apparently were making pretty big money off the show…

      https://www.standard.net/news/environment/million-in-penalties-possible-against-diesel-brothers-for-clean-air/article_6ea07615-7b50-54fd-873a-ec6a848a6422.html

    • 0 avatar
      Sceptic

      Limited moonshine making is not illegal in some Southern states. Even for purpose of selling it I believe. Maybe things have changed but that’s how it was in the 90’s.

      • 0 avatar
        EGSE

        Well if it was then it’s not allowed now. And the penalty has sharp teeth.

        “While individuals of legal drinking age may produce wine or beer at home for personal or family use, Federal law strictly prohibits individuals from producing distilled spirits at home (see 26 United States Code (U.S.C.) 5042(a)(2) and 5053(e)).”
        Citation: https://www.ttb.gov/distilled-spirits/penalties-for-illegal-distilling

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff Weimer

      They don’t. My understanding is that there is no illegal moonshine depicted on the show. It’s water.

  • avatar
    Halftruth

    It’s akin to modifying for loud pipes. It’s just an attention grab and only annoys other drivers. I never saw a coal roller or loud piper and thought “Oh my how impressive they must be!”
    Obviously, they are compensating for something else.. fine the sht out of them.

  • avatar
    Tele Vision

    The Cummins 12-valve engines ( the one-wire engines ) are utterly corked from the factory. One doesn’t have to blow black smoke to get a noticeable power and mileage increase, though.

  • avatar
    JimC2

    This story warms the cockles of my heart.

    A lot of Utahns take fresh air, exercise, and their own health seriously. Dunno why anybody would be surprised by this ruling…….. if I were to make a list of, say ten states where “rolling coal” and similar shenanigans might be socially acceptable enough that I could get away with it, Utah ain’t gonna be on that list.

    Or, in a single word,

    duh.

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      Considering all the stuff that’s illegal or restricted in Utah due to the moral sensibilities of much of the population, rolling coal must be looked upon almost like passing gas in the Temple.

    • 0 avatar
      MRF 95 T-Bird

      Salt Lake City unlike some Sun Belt and Southern cities has an extensive rail and bus network that has contributed to an improvement in air quality in the region. Clearly not the sensibility of the “Rollin coal” ‘Brodozer” demo. But hey you can do both. Commute on the rail and bus during the week and use the truck for the weekend jaunts.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Exactly they should have set up shop in North Arkansas…whoops, I mean Missouri.

  • avatar
    cprescott

    Neanderthals. Those smoke belching beasts are no worse than those noise maker modifications to rice burners and to V-8 engine cars. I’m so sick of cold start videos on youtube and those who think the more noise a regular quiet car makes is the best form of educated life. It is time to start really going after these noise makers – a six figure fine would do wonders to shape up youtube – like that clown vanityvlog (my name for him).

  • avatar
    Imagefont

    I’m just sorry the death penalty was off the table. Not for rolling coal, just for being morons that should be prevented from reproducing.

    • 0 avatar
      statikboy

      I’d be happy with castration.

      • 0 avatar
        -Nate

        Or maybe just involuntary vascetomy…..

        FWIW, I’m a Diesel head, I have three old Mercedes Diesels and none of them smoke.

        One has well over 300,000 miles, one has nearly 500,000 miles, and NO GOD DAMN SMOKE ! .

        It’s a _choice_ .

        -Nate
        (who also had a vasectomy by choice)

  • avatar
    mor2bz

    The government itself is guilty of ignoring and suppressing evidence of diesel dangers. Fines won’t stop this uncivilized behavior for either
    manufacturers (falsifying tests) or users. It is hard to believe that these two gems of individuals think that
    an improvement in power and mpg justifies their
    position. I cannot understand how people would pay MORE for diesel fuel for the sake of a few more mpg. I am thankful that the latest pickups have tremendous power without using diesel. I hate the smell of it.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    Any emissions-era truck emitting more than a puff of black smoke should be impounded and released only to a certified emissions shop, which should be permitted to release it to the owner only after certifying under penalty of perjury that all factory emissions systems are in place and functioning correctly.

    If that certification is not completed within 30 days (meaning any work necessary to restore factory emissions is complete and paid for), the truck should be crushed.

    Intentional spewing of carcinogens at other members of the public is assault and should be treated accordingly.

    • 0 avatar
      SSJeep

      This is the correct answer. Diesel exhaust is particularly carcinogenic and loaded with benzene and other compounds that end in -ene and -ide and are universally bad for one’s health. And the people affected arent the moron driving the coal roller, but everyone behind them and all of the residents in the houses surrounding where the truck is driven. The same should apply to any semi trailers or school buses that are belching black or white smoke.

      DEF treated diesel catalysts do help minimize harmful pollutants quite notably. ULSD has helped as well. Either way, someone that tampers with diesel emissions intentionally should get jail time and be fined heavily.

      And for the coal rollers who argue that “A gAs CaR iS jUsT aS bAd”, nothing could be further from the truth.

    • 0 avatar
      Jon

      There are other less than legal means of repercussion.
      1. Under-ripe grapefruit(s) stuffed into the tail pipe are not easy/cheap to remove.
      2. 4-6 ounces of wheel weights on the inside of the wheel cause a horrible vibration at 40mph+ and are not easy to spot.
      3. A bb placed under a tight valve stem cap causes a slow leak that is almost impossible to identify.

  • avatar
    Zipster

    Dan:

    Utah has at least one senator who is well aware of the moral sensibilities of the state and who does make some effort to adhere to and implement them.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    I occasional watched this show (usually while traveling) and would often think that there is no way that build would fly in my state…and I live in freaking Alabama for crying out loud.

  • avatar
    pmirp1

    They 100% deserve what they got and more. Idiots.

  • avatar
    TMA1

    I feel old, because I remember a time when the Discovery Channel wasn’t synonymous with white trash.

    • 0 avatar
      EGSE

      There’s a cohort in our society that feels threatened by socio-economic stratification that, as they perceive it, leaves them behind. That has spawned a mythology that claims being a “redneck” is a desired state-of-being and is more authentic than striving for continuous improvement in their situation. The networks exploit a need to self-validate that ethos and reap the financial rewards for doing so.

    • 0 avatar
      Ol Shel

      There the folk’s watchin.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    OK, the fine seems sort of excessive (personally, I’d have preferred jail time – I have a feeling these guys will actually make whatever they pay out in fines back playing “we’re oppressed by the big bad gubmint” with the bro-dozer crowd), but these clowns had something like this coming. You don’t broadcast your illegal activities on TV and then expect no consequences.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      When people are making big money, they won’t be deterred by small fines. The fine is at least big enough to make them pay attention, but I don’t know if it’s big enough to convince them to leave this business.

      If I were the regulator, I think I would have imposed the same fine, but also crushed all trucks in their possession with removed or modified emissions equipment.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Was their removal of stock equipment their only mistake? Suppose they started with older, pre-emissions trucks, then went whole hog? Is it the same under the law?

        From what I can tell, older diesel pickups are rapidly increasing in popularity/price.

        • 0 avatar
          EGSE

          From comments on other boards, ease and economy of maintenance has something to do with that. For one example, the 5.9 litre 12v Cummins was a simple beast from an earlier era. As of a few years ago, injectors were about $50 each at Rock Auto. You could do the job in your driveway for the cost of a few beers. No DPF or DEF, SCR etc.

          The 24v Cummins injectors were an eye-popping ~$550 each. And the box for each injector had a two letter code representing the fuel flow that had to be programmed into the EMU. Only the dealer had the software to do that (and possibly some indie shops). Except for niche use cases it swings the advantage back to the gassers.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    And to further cement these guys’ status as complete morons (and unknowing comedians)…according to C/D, they actually sold one of the offending trucks to the physicians’ group that ended up suing them; the group had the truck tested and the rest is history.

    (Cue the sad trombone…)

    https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a31399622/diesel-brothers-reality-tv-fined/

  • avatar
    IBx1

    All the black smoke is power you aren’t making.

  • avatar
    davew833

    The “dominant religion” in Utah didn’t create the geographical features of the Wasatch Front, which has a serious air quality problem due to the prevalence of temperature inversions that trap smog in the valley. And Salt Lake City is less than 50% Mormon now so the tired old Mormon jokes are just that– tired and old. Utah residents are a diverse group, and aside these idiots who got what’s coming to them, we all want clean air regardless of religion. I applaud this verdict and sentence.

  • avatar
    JimZ

    Remember, to people like this “freedom” means “I’m free to do whatever I want to you, and you’re free to sit three and take it.”

    Nothing but a bunch of insecure, “wannabe alphas” who are too scared to try to assert their dominance face to face, so they just carpet you in a cloud of soot then scurry away to safety.

  • avatar
    Justice_Gustine

    Lawyer name checks out.

  • avatar
    golden2husky

    Braindead trash that should be forced to sit behind their trucks and breathe that crap for a few hours. Why “people” do this is beyond me. If I was a cop and I saw a ‘roller, they’d need that pickup to bring home all the tickets I’d write them.

  • avatar
    Erikstrawn

    Do you want laws outlawing modifying any vehicles? This is how you get laws outlawing modifying any vehicles!

    As a guy who loves to build in his garage, I have no sympathy for Diesel Brothers. They’re endangering my hobby! Remember the EPA proposal that came out a few years ago, threatening to outlaw all modification? This is why.

    I bought an ’89 Chevy Stepside last year and discovered it had been straight piped. When I go to Pull-A-Part, most of the trucks there are straight piped. I built a new exhaust for the truck and paid the extra money to put cats back on it. Why? Because I believe in being a good neighbor. Now if I could just get some free-flowing mufflers that weren’t so loud…

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      I never understood that. Cats on those sorts of vehicles are never expensive and unless you are running a serious track machine maybe, removing them isn’t going to give you a power increase. It isn’t 1977 anymore.

  • avatar
    krhodes1

    These idiots told VAG to “hold their beer”.

  • avatar
    Hans Shtick

    Coal Rollers are yet another symptom of those in our society whose overarching philosophy can best be summarized as “F____ You.” This mindset has spread throughout too much of our culture, including our political discourse.

  • avatar
    Ol Shel

    Every Freedumb-lovin’ diesel owner in Montana immediately removes (and usually sells off) the emissions systems on modern diesels. They do so because there are zero emissions checks there. I guess this puts them, and the shops that do the work, in violation of Federal law, and I’d bet that many of these shops have produced far more dirty diesels than the ‘Dorks’ have.

  • avatar
    agroal

    After that fine how can the brothers afford their monthly meth bill?

  • avatar
    apl

    Why have not the medical organizations & the State of Utah sued garages & motorcycle shops who replaced noise complying exhaust systems with ear splitting and hazardously loud exhaust systems, such as those routinely installed on Harley-Davidson motorcycles. The intentionally loud exhaust noise is just as hazardous to your health as the diesel smoke – not taking into account the loud noise prevents riders from sirens and horns – besides the ‘Loud Pipes – Saves Lives’ being completely untrue and a false mantra in the attempt to justify loud exhaust systems that just distract motorists & is not heard by on-coming vehicles which are involved in most motorcycle crashes that involve injuries or worse. No difference between Rolling Coal and Rolling Thunder -both are harmful to the health and well-being of others.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Art Vandelay: I never understood that. Cats on those sorts of vehicles are never expensive and unless you are running...
  • Art Vandelay: The higher rates in Italy as compared to other EU nations are interesting for sure, whatever the cause.
  • Art Vandelay: Pretty much every modern manual has a “cheater” hill start feature though that will hold...
  • Michael S6: Ugly design, so so performance, and poor reliability. I am surprised that they sell them at all even at...
  • apl: Why have not the medical organizations & the State of Utah sued garages & motorcycle shops who replaced...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Timothy Cain
  • Matthew Guy
  • Ronnie Schreiber
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
    By on March 12, 2020

    The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has issued a set of guidelines for advanced driving aids, suggesting that the key to automated safety is making sure drivers are perpetually engaged with the vehicle’s operations. Unfortunately, this has turned out to be a Catch-22 scenario due to the way these systems function. Semi-autonomous features are supposed to be there to help promote safety by adding an extra layer of protection; however, many encourage motorists to disengage by nature of their design.

    Adaptive cruise control with lane keeping is probably the worst offender. Implemented as a way to keep cars a safe distance apart on the expressway, it offers an experience that borders on having the car chauffeur you around. The effectiveness of these systems vary widely, with none actually being capable of any legitimate self-driving functionality. You’re also not supposed to be able to tune out while they’re in use, but they all seem coyly contrived to do exactly that. The IIHS is concerned this phenomenon will only get worse as driving aids evolve and become increasingly commonplace.

    “Unfortunately, the more sophisticated and reliable automation becomes, the more difficult it is for drivers to stay focused on what the vehicle is doing,” said IIHS President David Harkey. “That’s why systems should be designed to keep drivers actively engaged.”

    Tesla has taken quite a bit of heat over claims that it intentionally misled customers with the marketing language of its Autopilot tech. Considering the number of YouTube videos explaining how to beat the engagement checks used by the automaker to see if you’re still paying attention, it’s easy to see why. But this is actually a problem that affects all manufacturers; practically everyone uses confidence-inspiring monikers for their driver assistance packages, and few warnings are found about the associated perils.

    The IIHS, however, is more interested in their design than in the marketing theories used in their promotion. It claims research supports the idea that the more driving a vehicle attempts to do on its own, the more likely human drivers are to start looking at their navels and phones (an issue we’ve discussed for years). The remedy, according to the institute, is to make it so people can never relax while aids are in use.

    From IIHS:

    The systems that are currently available either assume the driver is paying attention when his or her hands are on the wheel or use a driver-facing camera to determine if the driver’s head is oriented toward the road, but neither is foolproof. The researchers recommend employing multiple monitoring methods, including using a driver-facing camera and measuring things like manual adjustments to the steering wheel and how quickly the driver responds to attention reminders.

    When the driver monitoring system detects that the driver’s focus has wandered, that should trigger a series of escalating attention reminders. The first warning should be a brief visual reminder. If the driver doesn’t quickly respond, the system should rapidly add an audible or physical alert, such as seat vibration, and a more urgent visual message.

    Moments later, all three types of warnings should be presented. Throughout this sequence, the urgency of each alert should continue to escalate. If the driver doesn’t respond to the alerts, the system should increase following distance from the vehicle ahead and pulse the brakes to provide a warning that is difficult to ignore.

    If the driver continues ignoring the wall of sound and light, the IIHS says the car should automatically flip on its hazards and attempt a stop (ideally on the shoulder). From here, motorists would have the ability to resume normal vehicle operations, but would be prohibited from using any driving aids for the remainder of the trip.

    While a universal safety standard like this would undoubtedly force drivers to stay engaged, it’s more than a little ironic that the solution to underdeveloped self-driving technology is to strong-arm customers back into doing all the work.

    This also doesn’t sound particularly desirable from a consumer standpoint. For one thing, modern cars already make way too much noise. Departing your lane? Warning chime. Coming up to a stoplight faster than a crawl? Warning chime. Live in an urban setting where people routinely engage in “creative” driving? Prepare for the car to try and force you into having a panic attack. And all this does is encourage you to look frantically around the cabin as you try to decipher which issue the car thinks is the most pressing when you could have been scanning the horizon and checking your own blind spots.

    “Because these systems still aren’t capable of driving without human supervision, they have to help prevent the driver from falling out of the loop,” said IIHS Research Scientist Alexandra Mueller, who headed the recommendations.

    With the systems themselves often creating the perfect scenario for drivers to disengage, we’re starting to feel the entire premise is deeply flawed. Unless our reading comprehension has fallen off a cliff, it sounds like the IIHS is acknowledging that these systems actually create safety hazards. Problem is, the institute’s solution is to strip away some of their functionality while encouraging motorists to drive like they don’t exist by perpetually reminding them that they do.

    What’s the lesson to drivers here? Don’t trust the safety systems in your own car but please continue buying them as they hopefully become increasingly obnoxious? Doesn’t sound like an idyllic marketing strategy to us. No one is going to brag about how they spent their hard-earned cash on the safety suite that is the most adept at bullying them into paying more attention.

    [Image: General Motors]

     

    Recommended

    13 Comments on “Annoy the Driver: IIHS Offers Its Two Cents on Improving Self-Driving Safety...”


    • avatar
      SCE to AUX

      “That’s why systems should be designed to keep drivers actively engaged.”

      Sure, but the promise of Level 4 and 5 systems is that the driver doesn’t need to be actively engaged. But those systems will be stopped by the lawyers.

    • avatar
      sirwired

      The obvious solution is to keep the systems Firmly, Obviously, in Level 2, where a driver would have to be insane to completely turn the car over to the drive-assist features.

      I use the Lane Keeping and Adaptive Cruise in my CR-V pretty much every time I’m on the highway, but the systems are not *nearly* good enough for me to even *think* of doing any of the crazy stunts Tesla drivers amuse themselves with. The systems take care of short-range tasks (like lane-centering and following distance), leaving me to do the long-range tasks I’m much-better at than any computer system.

      • 0 avatar
        sgeffe

        ^ This!

        My Accord’s lane-centering and stop-‘n-go on the adaptive cruise is enough assist for me! I don’t need any further autonomous aid, thankyouverymuch!

    • avatar
      Fred

      I’d suggest you drive an old dangerous car without any safety devices. I’m very aware of the road and my surroundings every time I get in my Elan. Pay attention or die.

      • 0 avatar
        Tele Vision

        @ Fred

        This. The article above doesn’t read like it’s addressing driving at all – more ‘riding’ or ‘waiting to get there’. It’s the contemporary follow-on from automatics vs. manuals as far as engagement is concerned, and more’s the pity.

      • 0 avatar
        Steve Biro

        Agreed. Frankly, a manual transmission may be able to accomplish way more than this highly flawed “driver assistance” technology can do. If I ever really need to buy a new car again, the first thing I will do is pull the fuses on all of these nannies.

    • avatar
      redgolf

      I thought I was getting a real safety device when I ordered my 97 Grand Prix with ” heads up eye cue display” never have to look down to look at your speedo, but then there was the cassette deck, which one to put in, then soon after the cell phone where is it, it’s ringing, and the list goes on! Amazing the heads up display is still working after 23 years, as is the rest of the car!Don’t know if the air bags will work though!

    • avatar
      Halftruth

      Let’s make driving as annoying as possible so people abandon it for public transport.. Ahhh nevermind, you have to pay attention to be annoyed.. Won’t work here.

    • avatar
      DC Bruce

      Being just over 70, I’m sure that I’m rapidly approaching senescence (if I haven’t already achieved it). To me, there is a difference between driving aids that do things better than any (or most) humans are capable of, such as electronic stability control and ABS, and driving aids that attempt to relieve the driver of responsibility for paying attention. I’m all for the first kind of aids but fail to see the need for the second, except as marketing tools to attempt to differentiate otherwise highly similar products. I do plead guilty to using non-adaptive cruise control because (1) it seems to promote better gas mileage and (2) because in this era of aggressive speed limit enforcement the key to “making good time” is consistency in one’s chosen (legally acceptable) speed. But I shudder to think of the consequences that would result from having my “you’re closing the vehicle ahead of you too fast” warning system actually connected to my vehicle’s brakes. It falses about 40% of the time.

    • avatar
      Imagefont

      I’ve been making some repairs and upgrades to my ‘94 Miata. Great visibility, great brakes with excellent balance and feedback, fantastic steering feel, nimble and responsive, a 5-speed to keep you engaged and not a single driver aid – no ABS. You stay alert because you have to, you have no choice. Listening to the radio is almost pointless since it’s pretty loud, likewise talking on a phone. Over 300k without an accident. Several close calls I’ve been able to avoid thanks, in part, to great handling.
      Personally I think the touchscreen is the most dangerous thing ever put in a car. Completely idiotic and incredibly distracting. With no tactile feedback you must look at it to navigate the senseless menus just to turn down the bass on the radio. And let’s not forget the agonizing lag time between button press and screen response. I have no desire to own a new car with that trash installed in the dash.

      • 0 avatar
        Erikstrawn

        “Personally I think the touchscreen is the most dangerous thing ever put in a car. Completely idiotic and incredibly distracting. With no tactile feedback you must look at it to navigate the senseless menus just to turn down the bass on the radio. And let’s not forget the agonizing lag time between button press and screen response. I have no desire to own a new car with that trash installed in the dash.”

        Agreed. My Mustang has a traditional style stereo while my wife’s 300 has the touchscreen radio. I can adjust my Mustang’s stereo without looking at it. My wife’s stereo is bright at night, and I have to navigate through a few menus to put it on ‘screen saver’. Each menu requires attention and a dexterity test to hit the screen in the right place while driving on crappy roads. Not safe. I was shopping stereos to put in the truck, and I’ve decided I’m buying a single-DIN with traditional buttons instead of a double-DIN tablet style stereo.

    • avatar
      Wheatridger

      Since my 2017 isn’t blessed with these sorta-self-driving tricks, I can only imagine the pleasure … no, the horror of sitting in the driver’s seat not quite driving, but negotiating with a car that’s automatic, but fallable. I’m expected to make regular steering corrections to a self-steering car? In real time, at freeway speeds? Thanks, but I’d rather just unplug and drive. Another blogger today compared his Tesla’s Autopilot to a well-trained horse that knows the way, except when he doesn’t. That sort of watchful monitoring is better suited to horse-and-buggy speeds. Let’s also consider the view of “Sully” Sullenburger, pilot of that ditching in the Hudson River. He thinks the technologists have it backwards. Humans are poor at passively paying attention, monitoring machines, he says. The better solution is to use the computers to monitor what human drivers and pilots are doing.

      Considering that I’ll draw the line at lane departure warnings.

    • avatar
      Schurkey

      Self-driving is evil. NO vehicle should be legally allowed to steer, brake, or accelerate without direct driver input.

      “Speed-holding” devices should be legal, provided they don’t engage brakes or accelerate without direct driver involvement.

      If self-driving is not made illegal, every collision involving any level of “self driving” beyond “speed-holding” should require the manufacturer of the vehicle to assume all liability. End of problem. We all know that human nature is to let the vehicle drive itself while the “driver” goofs-off. Therefore, vehicles that encourage driver inattention due to “redundant” “safety features” like adaptive cruise, monitoring other lanes, etc, are inherently counter-productive.

    Read all comments

    Back to TopLeave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

:)