If you have been following the Pansy Patrol for any length of time you know that I have not posted in a while. Well, today I saw something online that enraged me enough to end my hiatus.

Recently, iRacing.com opened their website to the public. On it they explain their still-in-beta product to the world in the hopes of raising excitement and brand awareness. Basically, their product is a virtual world (based loosely on the World of Warcraft model) in which customers pay a monthly fee of about 20$ to race cars in virtual races against other people. The basic subscription gets you a Pontiac Solstice and admission to only a few simple tracks. If you wish to race anything more exciting you have to fork out your Mastercard.

Normally I would be all for this. As the founder of a very nascent technology startup I can sympathize with new companies trying to get customers and opening the site up to show people is a great way to do it. But what really rubs me the wrong way about these guys is their attempt to distinguish themselves as a serious online racing community and not a game.

In an interview on opening day one of their executives said the following:

We don’t think of ourselves as a game company… World of Warcraft has a real appeal…But our system is more serious, frankly. If you are serious about racing, our product is for you, because getting on a [simulated] track with a full field of other drivers and racing against them safely involves as much commitment and time investment as if you went to racing school.

They even go so far as creating a new acronym so you don’t confuse their online world with an MMO. For you see, they are an MMIS, or ‘massively multiparticipant Internet sport.’

Perhaps I am doing something wrong, but my efforts to get into serious racing have cost a lot more than 100$ for an electronic steering wheel, 20$ for a monthly subscription, and a comfy office chair. How this company can compare the cost, the risk, and the reward of actually racing a vehicle with an online simulator is beyond me.

On their website they explain it in greater detail:

iRacing.com is not a video game. It is a subscription-based simulation service for real-world racers and racing enthusiasts, as well as a platform for a new branch of global motorsport - known as internet racing - which is the sport of real-time, online racing

Internet racing… Definately sounds like the next big sport. Might be too new for the Summer Olympics in 2012 but I hope to see you there in 2016.

Somebody over there needs to get off themselves and update their page to accurately describe their product. It is a game made out of a racing simulator built on top of a popular Nascar game which the company bought the rights to. If you are in the market I would recommend Live for Speed because at least they don’t have an identity crisis.

In the meantime, I’m going to all the popular local racing sponsor companies and try and get some funding to start my iRacing career!

DISCLAIMER: The opinions and analysis expressed in this post should not be construed as legal advice, nor do they establish any attorney-client relationship. Consult with an attorney to ensure you understand the law and any consequence that might stem from your actions or inactions.

The end result is typical: a suspect flees from police in a high-speed car chase, only to have his plans foiled by an officer running him off the road. We see it time and again in the movies and on TV, and indeed we come to expect, at the very least, the police have the legal right to do this. But for the very reason that high-speed pursuits are so dangerous, so too is purposely running the fleeing vehicle off the road. As was bound to happen, the legal question of whether the police actually have the legal right to run a car off the road was raised in Scott v. Harris, decided by the United States Supreme Court last year. Scott v. Harris, 127 S. Ct. 1769 (2007).

The facts of the case are typical of most high-speed chases. 19-year-old Harris was clocked at 73 mph in a 55 mph, 2-lane road. When the officer tried to pull Harris over, Harris fled, reaching speeds of almost 90 mph, weaving in and out of traffic, and running red lights. At one point, he was cornered in a parking lot, but evaded police by making a sharp turn and strking a police cruiser. After fleeing for over 6 minutes and 10 miles, Officer Scott (the officer Harris had struck) requested permission to perform a “Precision Intervention Technique,” or “PIT” maneuver. That is just a fancy way of saying that he wanted to hit Harris’ car to cause it to spin out. He got the go ahead from his supervisor, but Scott felt the vehicles were traveling too fast to execute a PIT maneuver safely. So, ironically, he just hit Harris with his bumper, causing Harris to lose control of the car which left the road and ended up crashing badly in a ditch. Harris was rendered a quadripilegic from the accident.

Harris sued Officer Scott, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated by Officer Scott’s aggressive maneuver. There were a number of legal issues at play, but the ones that relate to driving and terminating a chase are whether terminating the chase constitutes a “seizure” under the 4th Amendment, and then if Officer Harris’ act constituted “excessive force.” Neither party contested the definition of “seizure,” which means that when the Police halt your vehicle after a high-speed pursuit, they have technically just seized your car. Read the rest of this entry »

DISCLAIMER: The opinions and analysis expressed in this post should not be construed as legal advice, nor do they establish any attorney-client relationship. Consult with an attorney to ensure you understand the law and any consequence that might stem from your actions or inactions.

While most officers treat people fairly and courteously, there will always be instances where some officers enter questionable territory or outright violate people’s rights. In these cases, justice is usually hard for the citizen to obtain, as the evidence usually boils down to “he said/she said.” In such cases, deferrence is usually given to the Police. Wouldn’t it be easier to prove your case if you had an actual recording of the encounter, as then you would have irrefutable evidence of the alleged violations of your rigths? It certainly would. But unfortunately, the very tape you had hoped would exonerate you and bring you justice could very well send you into a legal nightmare you had never imagined. You see, in Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Court held in Commonwealth v. Michael Hyde, 434 Mass. 594 (Mass. 2001), that secretly recording a police officer constitutes a violation of Massachusetts’ wiretapping statute (Chapter 272: Section 99. Interception of wire and oral communications).

The facts of the case are fairly straightforward. On October 26, 1998, Michael Hyde was stopped by the Abington police in his white Porsche for having an excessively loud exhaust system and an unlit rear license plate. The stop quickly became confrontational, with Hyde insisting that his long-hair and appearance was the reason for the additional scrutiny paid to him that night. Unbeknownst to the officers, Hyde had been recording the entire traffic stop. Hyde then filed a complaint against the officers, and used this recording as evidence. The officers were cleared, and much to Hyde’s dismay the department filed charges against Hyde for having secretly recorded the encounter. Hyde was convicted and appealed up to the Massachusetts Supreme Court (the highest court in Massachusetts). The court affirmed his conviction. Read the rest of this entry »

CNN has an interesting article on the rise of fake cops pulling people over, and what to do if you think you are being pulled over by a fake cop. They go through all the normal advice - keep driving slowly with your blinkers on until you get to a populated area, call 911, keep your doors locked and windows opened just enough to slip your license through - but the way they describe such encounters is off in la la land. Sure, most policemen, most police departments, and most judges will be sympathetic to a citizen’s concern about being pulled over by a fake cop, but you better be prepared for encountering one who is not quite so sympathetic.

Let’s think for a second what your behavior looks like to an actual officer: you do something that gives him reason to pull over, so he pulls behind you and flashes his lights. Instead of pulling over and being cooperative, as you are supposed to, you instead continue driving. At best, he might understand your intention and just be annoyed that you are causing him extra work. Think you can normally sweet talk your way out of a ticket? Not if you just drove 5 miles at 10mph with that cop behind you. At worst, he thinks you are actively fleeing a police officer. Now you are evading a police officer, a very serious offense and one that is a very steep hill to climb up out of.

But that sounds so far fetched! you say? Perhaps, but law enforcement is trained more and more these days to simply cite for what they can and let the legal system deal with the aftermath. All I’m saying is, at least be aware of what the aftermath of your actions could be, details CNN has conveniently left out.

If you have ever seen the BBC show “Top Gear,” you probably noticed the decent-sized audience whenever the crew is at the studio. Well it turns out that you too can be in the audience, but there is a slight wait of 21 years. 336,000 people have sent in applications to be on the show, with some reportedly even putting their new born babies’ names on the waiting list.

As reported by Loqu, Rinspeed has created a modified Lotus Elise that can drive on land, drive on water, and, best of all, drive under water too. The vehicle (”car” doesn’t seem to fit quite right for this Elise) is called the “sQuba,” and is the creation of Founder and CEO of Rinspeed Inc. Frank M. Rinderknecht. Rinderknecht, a confessed Bond fanatic, apparently dreamed of building a car that would also double as a submarine. Just in case, I guess.

The sQuba is powered by 3 electric motors - 1 for the rear wheels, and 1 for each of its 2 propellers. The Elise’s normal gasoline engine has been removed. The vehicle will do 75mph on land, 4mph as a boat, and 2mph as a submarine. Being a targa, the sQuba is not waterproof, so air is provided for its passengers via an integrated compressed air tank. Time underwater is limited by the vehicle’s battery and air supply, and is generally about 2 hours.

So, is the sQuba an automotive breakthrough, or an unfortunate waste of an Elise? Lets just say that NHMS is prone to flooding during particularly violent rainstorms, and in those situations, the sQuba would definitely win any race…

19 year old inventor Ben J. Poss Gulak has developed what can best be described as a Segway that would fit in nicely in Blade Runner:

Gulak calls his creation the Uno, and he was inspired to create it when he saw the intense pollution of China caused by the myriad of small gas powered scooters in the cities. He sought to make electric vehicles more chic, and hence the unconventional styling of the Uno.

The Uno is electric powered, has two wheels located right next to each other and, like the Segway, uses gyroscopes to keep things under control. Top speed of the current model is 12.5 mph, although Gulak thinks that 40 mph might be doable in the future.

As reported by wired.com, Ferrari plans to introduce a lighter and far more vicious version of the Enzo, based on the Millechili. Most promising about this new car is that it embodies Ferrari’s new “less is more” ethos. That is less as in less weight - like a lot less weight. The Millechili will weigh exactly 1000 kilos, or 2200 lbs for us American folk. That is less than my Miata weighs, but with its 600 hp V10 it will have over 4 times the power. It is also 660 lbs less than the current Enzo, so the new car version should be ubervicious indeed.

The only downside is that only 300 cars will be made, and each will cost $500k. That means that even if you had an additional $500k to spend, you won’t be able to find a replacement car should you ever have a mishap on the track. And yes, I will only be jealous of anyone that owns one AND takes it to the track, as such refined machine is just a waste if it is not exercised properly.

As reported by wired.com, BMW has built a shape-shifting car made out of a cloth skin. The car is built on a Z8 chassis, and reportedly runs and drives. There are no plans at this time to produce the car, and this example is destined for the BMW museum in Munich.

The technology is certainly intriguing, and it could have some practical performance characteristics if implemented correctly. Cars could be programmed to shift their shape at higher speeds to increase downforce or drag, depending on if you want to maximize top speed or grip. It could function like the myriad of motorized spoilers already gracing the likes of Porsches and other performance cars, but on a much larger, more effective scale.

Whether such a system will prove cost and weight effective shall remain to be seen by people far more mechanically and manufacturing oriented than myself. Then there will also be the hurdle of convincing people that a cloth car is still a safe car. Nonetheless, it is an intriguing idea, even if it is never widely implemented.

As reported by KYW 1060, Philadelphia has employed “virtual” speed bumps in an attempt to slow down drivers:

The “bumps” consist of a flat hologram that makes it look like there is something in the road. This then causes drivers to slow down so that they don’t hit it.

I think that this is a TERRIBLE idea. Speed control can admittedly be a necessity in some neighborhoods, but drivers have enough ACTUAL hazards to worry about without having to worry about whether what they are seeing is actually even an object! Plus, if the hologram looks completely 3D, many drivers would likely come to a complete stop. After all, when I think something is in the road, I don’t just slow down and drive over it - I STOP so I don’t hit it!