Prius hits motorcyclists on Freeway

I'm sure Toyota would have done that if it made business sense to do so. Very few people would buy a II with the $5,180 Advanced Technology package when they could get a base V for the same price. Most would prefer eye candy over safety.

 

The numerous safety features (deployed airbags, collapsible frontal, etc.) make the repairs more expensive and the vehicle more likely to be totaled. Like I said, the PCS is most likely to be triggered when you're about to actually hit something so I don't think it'll fly as a negotiation tool.

 

If, as you claim, no one will choose safety over 'eye candy' then it won't cost Toyota anything to offer a safety package, as they never have to build one into the car.

If, as I suspect, Prius owners value safety, (I believe Prius owners are involved in 1/2 as many fatal accidents per mile as the national average) the safety package would sell in high numbers, making Toyota both money and PR points.

I had a Chrysler dealer explain that he never ordered any safety options on any cars as he never sold any safety options. Given that he had none to sell, I bet he didn't sell any. I went to another dealer.

 

That's standard practice. They do that with all accidents if you pay attention. I think it's partly to identify the different parties involved in the accident without using names, to protect the (presumed) innocent.

 

Bob, the Prius radar is not as effective as you may believe. A human won't be detected. A motorcycle, maybe, but I doubt it. When Bambi crossed my bow just clear of my bumper (from my POV) the car didn't flinch and I didn't see it until it was in front of my left headlight.

 

Another option is all that expensive, shelved SDI technology. Maybe some sort of rail gun or laser cannon that vaporizes any object that gets in your way

 

Force field, perhaps. In my daydreams, my Prius has a field generator that projects an infinitely massive field around my Prius while not adding any real mass to the car, allowing me to conveniently drive *through* knucklehead drivers without losing even a single mpg.

Tom

 

No, no, no. Let's be reasonable here. Mass altering force fields are one thing, but that car you describe is complete fantasy.

Tom

 

All while emitting just enough tachyons to render them sterile *and* impotent

 

Thereby solving the immediate problem *and* future problems.

Tom

 

It is one of my pet peeves, because it is the ultimate in avoidable crashes.

I ran over an aluminum ladder on a 8 lane freeway in a Tacoma at 65mph. I did not see it until too late as the cars in front of me dodged out of the way at the last moment. It was sideways across the lane. The Tacoma had large off road tires so I managed to go straight over without damage or flipping, but it would have been a death sentence for a motorcycle.

The doofus who lost it had backed up on the shoulder to wait for an opportunity to run out and recover it. He was probably upset I ran over it.

 

I would have backed up and ran over it AGAIN just to get the doofus really upset

 

I would have guessed either of two other motives:
(1) remove it before it causes damage to someone else; or
(2) remove it before the police can collect it as evidence.

 

Can such systems allow some drivers to text and engage in other non-driving activities since they now can depend on the system to cover their gaps in providing full attention? (Just like improved football helmets allowed players to collide with more violence, not really make football safer.)

How many insist on having a cell phone for "emergencies" while driving? Have cell phones made driving safer?

Interesting questions.