Because this is an important safety issue, and the thread in which this discussion was present has been locked by someone who wishes to remain anonymous, I continue the thought here.
In Kansas, State v. Baker, the ruling opinion states:
"Unexpected brake failure and unexpected malfunction of the throttle on an automobile, both being essential components to the operation of the vehicle, differ significantly from the malfunction of a cruise control device to which the driver has voluntarily delegated partial control of that automobile. It must be said that defendant assumed the full operation of his motor vehicle and when he did so and activated the cruise control attached to that automobile, he clearly was the agent in causing the act of speeding. The safety and welfare of the public, particularly in high risk areas such as those with heavy traffic, construction zones, target enforcement areas where accidents are more common, etc., require that the motorist operate his vehicle in accordance with state law and other rules of the road, and such obligations may not be avoided by delegating a task which he normally would perform to a mechanical or electronic control device such as a cruise control."
"Defendant contends that because of the malfunction of his cruise control he was not then the "driver" of the vehicle in the technical sense because he was not then in "actual physical control" of his vehicle. We consider this argument to be entirely without merit, as the failure of a component of the vehicle which then causes the cruise control to malfunction does not mitigate or absolve the driver in any way, as the driver was the one who relinquished control of the vehicle to an electronic control device."
In Kansas, State v. Baker, the ruling opinion states:
"Unexpected brake failure and unexpected malfunction of the throttle on an automobile, both being essential components to the operation of the vehicle, differ significantly from the malfunction of a cruise control device to which the driver has voluntarily delegated partial control of that automobile. It must be said that defendant assumed the full operation of his motor vehicle and when he did so and activated the cruise control attached to that automobile, he clearly was the agent in causing the act of speeding. The safety and welfare of the public, particularly in high risk areas such as those with heavy traffic, construction zones, target enforcement areas where accidents are more common, etc., require that the motorist operate his vehicle in accordance with state law and other rules of the road, and such obligations may not be avoided by delegating a task which he normally would perform to a mechanical or electronic control device such as a cruise control."
"Defendant contends that because of the malfunction of his cruise control he was not then the "driver" of the vehicle in the technical sense because he was not then in "actual physical control" of his vehicle. We consider this argument to be entirely without merit, as the failure of a component of the vehicle which then causes the cruise control to malfunction does not mitigate or absolve the driver in any way, as the driver was the one who relinquished control of the vehicle to an electronic control device."
No, you don't quote. You chop off a sentence or two and take it out of context expressly to make me look like I said something I didn't say. If you're incapable of actually quoting something in context, then don't do it.
I don't need to reread my post. I posted it, and I know what I said. So do you. But since you don't agree with it, and it makes you look somewhat less than intelligent, you choose to selectively edit my comments and then try to turn them back on me. That's not exactly the best way to win friends and influence people, much less garner respect and validity for your comments.
Being a computer geek, I know that the 99.9% figure is absolutely false.
Actually, that's a particularly bad example. Speed sensors, while physical, are in fact electronic sensors and not mechanical sensors. If an ECM takes the data from a speed sensor and fails to compare and reconcile that data with a couple of dozen other data inputs with respect to the speed of the vehicle (known in Geekland as high computational control law with high computational requirements and redundancy issues), then it's a significant software issue that the programmers failed on. When a speed sensor's data isn't compared to the speedometer, RPMs, MAP, MAF, engine load, transmission speed and gear, and injector sensors, then what you have is a computer that is making decisions based on severely limited information. The failure of any one data input should not allow the vehicle to go faster, it should cause the vehicle to go slower, or to stop completely until faulty sensors can be replaced and all the data inputs can be reconciled. I have a computer controlled diesel engine that when a sensor failure causes data points to be irreconcilable, the ECM puts the engine into "limp home mode" which dramatically reduces the power output and maximum speed, so as to not allow the engine to be damaged or run out of control.
It wouldn't be stupid to ever trust it again. But it would be astonishingly stupid to ever trust it in a construction zone, especially for someone who has already once experienced precisely the kinds of problems that trusting it can cause. I still can hardly fathom that anyone who has experienced a runaway situation with the cruise control could even try and make a case for its use in a construction zone. You're taking real actual experience and knowledge, and then dismissing it utterly in favor of real actual abject stupidity.
I dunno. We're not really talking about tires now, are we? In any event, what if it blows expectedly?
Lots of people. If I'm going to cruise at 50 MPH, I'll use it at 50MPH. There are lots of rural highways that are 55MPH, but at night I'm more apt to cruise those at or near 50 MPH to reduce the risk of hitting an opossum or a skunk.
Actually, cruise is typically used at speeds of 55 MPH and above, but that's not what the cruise is typically meant for. It is typically meant for whatever speeds at which the cruise control will engage, which for most North American vehicles is 35 MPH, and for European vehicles it is generally 25 MPH, but it will vary by vehicle type and manufacturer. Not sure what the minimum cruise control speed is on big trucks, tho.
I think I've already done that. Hеll, you've proved it to yourself, but for some reason can't seem to see it. You asked me to give you "facts and valid reasons" for why it is unsafe and stupid to use a cruise control in a construction zone. I did that. You don't agree with my facts and valid reasons, nor with your own experiences, so now facts and valid reasons aren't good enough, you want actual proof. Are you kidding me? If you want to use your cruise control in a construction zone, fine, use it, but don't recommend its use to others, or think you're smart and safe for doing so, because using it in a construction zone is both unsafe and stupid.
