Return to index.

Will the car become nothing more than a large microwave oven on wheels?

Technology is the driving force in business, industry and the surveillance-control spectrum of what’s becoming an apparent totalitarian-type of society couched in – and implemented – under the guise of ‘smart technology’.

Besides microwave energy tech devices that now are capable of opening or closing our front doors while we are away at work or, perhaps, some other apparent ‘fabulous’ feature which can be hacked into by some two-bit, half-sophisticated hacker, we now have the push for the “self-driving car.”

Self-driving cars are the “dream teams’” next consumer commodity that we are being programmed and acculturated to accept, want and, especially, purchase.  Don’t believe that?  Well, please do some research about it. 

If you are concerned about the utility companies’ AMI Smart Meters being forced upon you, your  homes and the EMF (electro motive force) and RF (radio frequency) they produce; microwave ovens leakages and microwave oven-cooked food deficiencies; Wi-Fi in schools, your place of employment or elsewhere, especially the proposed Wi-Fi in the sky—G5, then maybe you ought to contemplate or do a reality check on what will happen to your physiology  that sitting in a self-driving car with a radar dish directing your life will do.  Its radio frequencies just may not be what you as a consumer-owner will want to become involved with, even as a passenger in a rental car.  Think about the ramifications of sitting under a small functioning radar panel, dish or system!  Read what the World Health Organization has to say about radar.. Radar in the family car?

Don’t we have enough potential problems being forced upon us from all the consumer products that contain radioactive materials?  However, the airlines now are considering placing RFID chips on to passengers’ luggage bags to track them.  Whoopee!!!  More and more EMF contamination—we’re living in a sea of brain-damaging EMFs/RFs.  When will we awaken to that fact?

Control of the vehicle is in the ‘hands’ of technology and the computer program designed to ‘drive’.  We all know how screwed up computer software is and can be.  Personally, I loathe it!  I feel if Henry Ford were to have invented the first automobile with the same efficiency of many of the software programs and computer tech stuff, we’d still be shoveling horse manure out of our garages!

Technology is being forced onto us for the apparent ultimate reason of the total control they can implement as easily as possible and without our recognizing it for what it truly is.

Furthermore, technology is the perfect addiction meme that society has bought into even though it’s making life more problematic on levels we have yet to realize—loss of jobs and employment potentials; loss of personal autonomy; loss of unalienable rights—even constitutional freedoms!  That, however, I think is the ultimate goal of the controllers and the cabal who program us into cooperating willingly – literally buying into it – and not questioning or challenging their Hegelian Dialectic principles of manipulation: problem-reaction-solution.

What I can’t seem to fathom is how humans are so willing to become addicted—and it’s a verifiable addiction]—to something rather ephemeral—even holographic in a sense—but very real and controlling as this technology.

Only 40% of Obama’s electric cars are on the road. None meet the 150-mile-per gallon standard he promised.

Last year 17.5 million cars, SUVs, and light-weight trucks were sold in America. A mere 115,000 of those (two-thirds of one percent) were electric vehicles.
Let’s press the rewind button back to the 2008 presidential campaign trail, in which Barack Obama declared:

    "We will help states like Michigan build the fuel-efficient cars we need, and we will get one million 150 mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrids on our roads within six years."

In March 2009, two months after he became President, Obama delivered a speech at the Southern California Edison Electric Vehicle Technical Center in which he similarly asserted:

    "We will put one million plug-in hybrid vehicles on America’s roads by 2015."

In these closing months of 2016, it’s reasonable to ask how those green promises worked out.

In short: abysmally.

Governments at both the state and national level have tried to persuade consumers to buy electric vehicles by offering rebates totaling thousands of dollars a pop.
But only about 400,000 are currently on US roads, including those purchased by government bodies.
The only way we reach a million is by counting all the electric vehicles in the entire world.

Despite spending billions, Obama delivered less than half of the electric cars in the time frame he promised.
And let’s not forget his insistence that these cars would achieve the equivalent of 150 miles per gallon.

A 2016 US Department of Energy list of the 11 most efficient electric vehicles indicates that not a single one meets that criteria.

BMW’s i3 achieves equivalent 124 miles per gallon.
The Chevrolet Spark is in second place at 119, and Vokswagen’s e-Golf is in third at 116.

The 11 best-case-scenario electric vehicles on the road eight years later fall 25% short of what Obama said would be entirely normal.
Between them, they average only 112 miles per gallon. In other words, Obama and his speech writers were pulling numbers out of the air in 2008,
confidently promising to meet goals they had no reason to believe were actually feasible.

Time and again, we run up against this problem.
Anyone can stand at a podium and promise to make all manner of green fantasies come true. But even US presidents with billions at their
command aren’t magicians.

Barring unexpected developments, changing the way we fuel our cars and heat our homes will be a long term, gradual process.

There aren’t any silver bullets. We need to stop imagining that there are.

The ultimate cyclist put down.

Jeremy Clarkson’s doesn’t hesitate to let you know what he thinks.

It’s because of his sharp wit and perhaps quick moving fists that he has never been short on controversies, and has also been let go by the BBC back in Spring of 2015.
In his latest column with The Sun, Jeremy Clarkson rips apart Jeremy Vine’s video, where he captured the road rage of a female motorist, as he was in front of her riding on a bicycle, causing a traffic blockage. We know Clarkson is one to praise all things that create massive POWEEERRRR and belittle those machines that try to save the earth, so this latest column is right up Clarkson’s comfort zone as he presents another side of the argument that’s rarely seen through road rage videos on Youtube.

In case you don’t know Jeremy Vine, he’s a presenter for the BBC Radio 2 program who bikes from his Chiswick home to the Radio 2 Studios in Oxford Circus. He also happens to be a cycling safety campaigner. Vine had uploaded a video to his Facebook page, capturing a motorist unleashing a verbal tirade upon him for slowly traveling down a very tight and packed road in Kensington, West London.

As a response to this apparent motorist witch hunt, Clarkson wrote up an awesome response that presents some of the frustrations felt by fellow motorists that has come across to similar sanctimonious and self-righteous bicyclists. Reading the column below reminds us why Jeremy Clarkson is awesome and deserves all of the riches he’s raking in.

LAST weekend, while driving through the Cotswolds, I found myself stuck behind two cyclists who were riding alongside one another.
Of course they were.
Elevated these days to godlike status by modern environmental thinking, cyclists are propelled from place to place on a wave of self-righteousness
and a pious belief that they’re the new knights of the road.

Five days later, near the South Coast, the same thing happened again, only this time it was a lone cyclist, his gnarled and nut-brown thighs beating out a Victorian rhythm as he crawled slowly up the hill, proud that behind his wizened, Lycra- clad buttocks there was a queue of cars stretching half way to Dover.

Then in London, we have hundreds of them, ignoring the new multi-million pound cycle lane on the Embankment so they can make a nuisance of themselves on the main carriageway.
There was a time when you could take these morons to task. You could shake your fist and shout and point out that it’s absurd for a fully grown adult to be
playing in public on what is a kids’ toy.

But not any more…

Today they all wear helmet cameras to record your rage.
Then, when they get home, they upload it to YouTube and you’re made to look like a short-tempered fool.

Which brings me to the BBC radio ­presenter, and keen cyclist, Jeremy Vine, who this week uploaded some footage of a woman who’d become frustrated with his slow progress through Kensington, West London.
In it, he can be seen cycling down the middle of the road, deliberately blocking the cars in his wake, and when one gets too close he stops
— still in the middle of the road — so he can record the woman driver’s foul-mouthed tirade.jeremy vine cyclist road rage

The message is clear.

He’s been verbally assaulted while on a noble quest to save the polar bear.

But hang on a minute, Vine. How did you know that the woman in the car behind wasn’t rushing to see her injured child in hospital?
How did you know there wasn’t a pregnant girl on the back seat who was about to give birth?

Can you imagine how frustrating it would be to be stuck behind a sanctimonious cyclist when you really are in a genuine, tearing hurry?
Vine says he was cycling in the middle of the road because that way he’s unlikely to be hit by people opening their car doors without looking.

Really? Because if safety is your number one priority, why are you wearing a helmet festooned with GoPros?

Are you not aware that it was, in all probability, a camera attached to Michael Schumacher’s helmet that caused his terrible head injuries?
In fact, if safety is your number one priority, why are you on a bicycle in the first place?

Of course, it is not illegal to cycle slowly down the middle of a narrow street. But it is selfish and annoying for everyone else.

How would he like it, I wonder, if I followed him around for a month, blowing gently on the back of his ears?

That’s not illegal either, but after a few days I’m sure he’d turn round and have a strong word.

I may try it.

Clarkson is right here in that tantamount to safety is the ability for motorists and cyclists to respect the rules of the road and to respect each other.
It’s unclear what happened right before, during, and after the entire video was recorded, but what is clear is that Jeremy Vine’s sense of cycling
and road entitlement has overtaken his ability to exercise common sense and the ability to share the road. While we don’t condone the driver’s
behavior in this case either, this entire situation could have been prevented had everyone just worked together instead of acting like entitled jerks.

Prepare to be totally underwhelmed by 2021’s so-called autonomous cars.

BMW, Ford, and Uber have all recently said they plan to have “fully autonomous” cars ready to drive themselves on the road in 2021.
Ford says its fleet of vehicles will lack steering wheels and offer a robotic taxi service.

But don’t expect to toss out your driver's license in 2021. Five years isn’t long enough to create vehicles good enough at driving to roam
extensively without human input, say the researchers working on autonomous cars.
They predict that Ford and others will meet their targets by creating small fleets of vehicles limited to small, controlled areas.

Probably what Ford would do to meet their 2021 milestone is have something that provides low-speed taxi service limited to certain roads
—and don’t expect it to arrive when it's raining.

Many media outlets and members of the public are overinterpreting statements from Ford and other companies that are less specific than they appear.
The dream of being able to have a car drive you wherever you want to go in the city, country, or continent remains distant.
It ain’t going to be five years, the hype has gotten totally out of sync with reality.

One of the main reasons that 2021’s robotic fleets will be more limited than some people expect is the difficulty that software has understanding the world.

Computers can react to things much faster than a human, and self-driving cars’ sensors can look in many directions at once.
But software is at a significant disadvantage when it comes to interpreting what it “sees” to identify and understand objects and situations,
such as a traffic cop gesturing in the road. Nor is software very good at planning how to deal with out-of-the-ordinary situations.

Figuring out how sensors limit the situations a vehicle can reliably handle on its own is one of the most crucial challenges for companies working
on autonomous driving.

The crash earlier this year that killed a driver using a Tesla sedan’s Autopilot feature underlines the problem. Tesla said the car’s sensors did not detect
the side of the tractor trailer it ran into.

Because the real world and its roads are a complicated place, it will take a lot of testing to be sure that automated driving technology has run up
against all the scenarios it needs to handle to be reliable.

Weather is also a problem for automated cars. Rain, snow, and hail challenge the laser-based lidar sensors that many prototypes rely on to track
their surroundings in 3-D, for example.

It's all about inexpensive, reliable, convenient mobility.

We are nearing the "second great electric-car extinction." The first extinction happened after the financial crisis, when numerous electric-vehicle
startups went bankrupt and vanished.

Since then, the EV market has been dominated by the single significant survivor, Tesla, and by the experiments of the major automakers.
The best-known example of the latter is probably the Nissan Leaf.

But various other all-electric cars and plug-in hybrids dot the automotive landscape. And they aren't long for this world.

That's because the narrative in the future of mobility is shifting. Since the mid-2000s, it's been all about alternatives to gas-powered propulsion, chiefly EVs.
The remaining, ambitious players for this story are of course Tesla, which is hoping to bring out a mass-market vehicle, the Model 3, in 2017;
and General Motors, which wants to rival the Model 3's 200-miles of range with its own all-electric Bolt, slated to hit the road in late 2016.

Tesla sales have been growing year after year, but overall EV sales are declining.
It's possible that GM's Bolt will validate the long-range concept, something that Tesla has kind of already done, albeit at a much higher price point.

A sexier idea

But the real issue is that the sexier idea right now in the car-tech realm is self-driving.
Uber is rolling out a small fleet of autonomous Volvo SUVs in Pittsburgh, Ford has committed to a fully autonomous test fleet by 2021,
GM is talking about using its $500-million investment in Lyft and its acquisition of self-driving startup Cruise Automation to set up a self-driving fleet in big cities,
and Google's work on its driverless Google Car continues apace.
For its part, Tesla has stressed that the Model 3 launch and the continued development of its Autopilot technology are the company's highest priorities.

To get to full autonomy, you don't really need to go electric. Plain old gas-powered platforms are fine.
They're available in massive numbers, are large enough in the case of SUVs to lug around all the processing power, sensors, and radars you need to
advanced autonomy, and can be refueled in a snap.
No waiting around for an hour or two, which you're up against even with fast electric recharging.

The self-driving all-electric car is an elegant solution to several problems, from the theory of global warming to highway fatalities to time lost in traffic.
But it's also two new technologies being engineered at the same time. Focus on one or the other and you probably stand a better chance of winning.

The pace of driverless advancements also seems to be accelerating faster than what's happening with battery chemistry, meaning that widespread
electric mobility for the masses might not happen before cars can drive themselves.

It's obviously unclear whether consumers will actually want cars that drive themselves, outside of ride-hailing fleets and taxi services.
I don't thnk that they will.

The tech is currently expensive, and even if the cost comes down, it will still be an add-on that has to be absorbed by someone, eventually.
It remains to be seen whether car buyers will want to cough up a few thousand more on the purchase just to get a hyperactive version of cruise control.

But it is clear that the advanced-mobility storyline has changed, probably sooner than anyone expected.

And it isn't about what makes the cars go — it's about who controls them once they get going.

Other blogs worth reading

41) In praise of the good old station wagon.

44) Future shock, the unending complication of electronic devices in you car.

47)  The case for annual safety inspections.

51) The piston engine is going to be with us for a very, very long time.

52) Avoiding rip offs in the car repair business.

58) Electronic brake force distribution.

61) Hydrogen vs electricity - no contest.

63) Why flushing brake oil makes sense.

64) When should I change my oil?

66) W/W antifreeze and long term warranties.

67) Nitrogen

68) Recirc A/C

70) Electric car radiation danger

71) Fuel saving devices that don't

75) Scheduling appointments.

78 Modern design of alternators and batteries.