The big things, they’ve fixed.
You know . . . brand-new cars that won’t start – or stall out at the worst possible moment (like in the middle of a busy intersection). New cars used to do stuff like that pretty routinely, but only rarely nowadays.
It’s the small things they’ve made worse.
Some of these low-grade tortures didn’t even exist back in the days when cars would stall out – or refuse to start. No, they had to be invented. And continue to be perfected.
* The Curse of the Phantom Passenger –
You’re duly buckled-up and yet the electronic safety Fuhrer is on a tear, buzzer buzzing and warning light flashing. What gives? Apparently, very little. Weight, that is. In some new cars, it only takes a foot-long sub to trigger the passenger seat air bag sensor – and no, I am not making that up. One Hawaiian pork footlong from Firehouse subs did the trick. So will a purse, sometimes (ask my wife). Just this week, I had that happen in a new Scion FR-S. The seat sensors are that sensitive. And it means that you either have to buckle-up your groceries – or figure out some other way to defeat the electronic nanny. It’s either that – or turn up the stereo loud enough to drown out the incessant BEEP! BEEP! BEEP!
Safety first, you know.
* Mr. Intervention –
Traction/stability control has its virtues. It keeps the low-skilled out of trouble (though arguably, they remain forever low-skilled as a result of never learning about such things as grip threshold and how to deal with it themselves). But doesn’t it drive you to crawl the walls when they make it so you can’t turn the damn thing off? Or not all the way off? Or only after you’ve stopped the car first? Arghh! You’re the one making the payments. Shouldn’t it be your option to decide when – and if – the traction/stability control is on? There’s 100 proof automotive effrontery in this business of a car deciding for you – or rather, against you – whether the tires shall spin (and how much they shall spin).
Enough with the Byzantine steps and menus. A simple On – and Off – button. Or switch, if you must.
* Ray Charles Edition B (and C) Pillars –
New cars may be super safe – which is a good thing, given you’re probably more likely to wreck one. Because you’re more likely to pull right in front of someone. Because you won’t be able to see him coming. Because of these I-beam thick B and C pillars – which will hold up the roof if you roll the thing – but which also make it damn near impossible to see what’s coming at you from the side. It is a huge “safety” problem that affects almost all new cars – courtesy of the need to comply with roof-crush strength mandates.
Is it not a sick irony that a federal mandate imposed to make cars safer has arguably made them less so?
* No part-way power windows –
It’s either up – or down. No in-between. At least, not without some back-and-forthing. Which of course is super annoying. Blame the “one touch” idea. Rather, blame the people too freaking lazy to hold the switch for the two seconds or so it takes to roll up the window – who demanded a system that would enable them to just touch the switch and have the window roll up all the way all by itself. Great. Except now you’re wanting half-way up (or down) and the wretched contraption is fighting you all the way. You end up with an approximation. Not quite where you really wanted it – but close enough. I miss the gen. I power windows of the ’70s. They’d power up so fast they’d take your fingers off if you weren’t careful (no saaaaaaafety auto-stops back then) but at least they stopped when you wanted them to.
* Girlie-man brake rotors –
Back in the day, most cars had mediocre (or worse) brakes. They were – typically – just barely sufficient to stop the car competently under normal, routine conditions. Forget panic stops. And they’d fade faster than a December sunset, too, when descending grades. But, they were made of tough stuff that was very hard to damage. Massive, thick rotors that could be “turned” (shaved down, by a special machine, to re-create a nice flat surface) multiple times. New cars have fantastic brakes – and fragile rotors. They are easy to damage (as by a greasemonkey with an air gun over-torquing wheel lug nuts during a tire rotation) and when damaged, often can’t be turned (cheap, easy) but instead must be replaced (expensive). Why so? The main reason is the need to shave weight from a car’s bottom line wherever possible – and that includes brake rotors. They’ve been made less substantial to make cars lighter – and get better mileage. This saves you money at the pump – but may cost you a fortune at the shop.
At the typical $100-plus a pop for new rotors, the math rarely works out in our favor.
* Side-fill gas caps –
One of the things I love about my old (’70s-era) Trans-Am is that the fuel door is both hidden – and convenient. Two things you can’t say about modern car fuel doors. The TA’s gas cap is tucked behind the license plate – which is mounted in between the tail/brake lights – which means it doesn’t matter which side of the gas pump you pull up to. Either left or right works just as well. In a modern car, with the fuel door on the left – or right – side of the car, you’ve got make sure to line up with the appropriate side. When the pumps are busy, this limits your options – which means an additional layer of hassle and time-wastage. The side-fill fuel doors are also ugly – they break up the lines of the car’s flanks – and inevitably, you’ll spill fuel while filling. On the paint. Not good.
So why was this great idea – centrally mounted fuel caps hidden behind the license plate – thrown in the woods? Chiefly, it’s because of the relocation of the fuel tank – ahead of the rear axle rather than behind it.
For – you guessed it – reasons of saaaaaaaafety.
Your car’s less likely to spill gas everywhere if it gets hit from the rear. But now you’re more likely to spill gas everywhere when you fill up. And it’s more of a pain to fill up.
Throw it in the Woods?
I watched eric’s first video. Was it just me or was there an optical effect where the bike looked curved?
Anyway, I was looking forward to hearing it fired up. I didn’t see a part II.
I’m still learning about the video rig (Contour Roam; Dom recommended it). Second video – of the bike running – is here:
And here’s a 35 MPH Clover… on a road w/55 MPH speed limit:
After my TR-6, I welcomed side fill gas caps. It had a center mounted gas cap, but in front of the trunk. Or the boot, if you want to be British about it. There was no way to fill the tank without spilling some gas on your car. I used to keep two rags behind the front seat, one to wipe up gas spills and the other to “defrost” the rear (plastic sheet) window.
Pain in the butt car, but Gawd was it fun to drive.
Type R Libertarians include Murray Rothbard & Ron Paul: These are two above board guys with no aggression. They hold themselves to a pious saintly demeanor, but don’t expect that of others.
Type A Libertarians include Ayn Rand: She was a type of Monarch Queen. Objectivists don’t profess to be holier than thou, but rather reject the whole concept of self-denial as a type of altruism that diminishes your enjoyment of life.
My goal is to be a good neighbor and more respectful around type R libertarians and their property. I do see where my words and actions differ from type R’s. I think we can both can coexist and synergize, but being a Type A, I tend to overstep and hijack in the way that Ayn’s “demented followers try to kick each other out of the [greater libertarian ] nest for thought crimes.”
This article discusses street legal vehicles. The streets I have access to are such Big Brother Fishbowls that I am utterly indifferent in gettin from A to B, I just want to get to B ASAP.
Maybe I would care if there were a double tinted system available? The outer tint appears to be the legal amount of tinting and projects a false image of the interior.
Meanwhile a second level tinting is 100% opaque and fully protects the passengers privacy.
I would pay a driver to assume the burden of potentially being pulled over, so that I would not be at risk of being hassled or caged.
How about the relocation, in every new car of the last twenty-plus years, of the high beam toggle switch from the floor of the car to the steering column? THAT ranks as one of the worst automotive design decisions ever made.
One of the many things I love about my politically incorrect bright orange ’70s Trans-Am is that the dimmer switch is on the freakin’ floor – where it belongs!
@Hot Rod – you do not “own” your reputation. Your reputation is the subjective collection of what others think of you. You do not own their thoughts so you have no claim of property rights over your reputation.
Slander? Libel? Thought crimes perpetrated by the PC thought police.
Good point Don. I don’t disagree. I should’ve kept it simple at slander or misrepresentation like in fraud. Pretending to be someone or something you are not.
In my experience, with my F150,
The owner’s manual told me how to turn the incessant seat beeping off. Was easy.
Traction control has two settings, on and off.
Visibility really is poor, for what the vehicle is.
I really like auto windows and was tickled to learn that they also existed on the passenger side when I bought the unit. They’re really not difficult to put where you want.
I have already gone through front rotors, but they were able to turn them.
It’s a pickup, the gas cap is on the side.
The traction control on/off switch was always a big pain in the ass for me. My 08 Civic SI had a close ratio 6-speed transmission. Impromptu full throttle 1st and 2nd gear pulls from stoplights were always extremely frustrating due to the TCM system cutting the power. The SLIGHTEST bit of wheel spin would cut roughly 40% of available power even during the slight chirp of shifting from 1st to 2nd.
With the system turned off and doing aggressive 5k launches (not clutch dumps), the front wheels would BARELY spin in 1st and chirp when shifting. It was definitely nothing that would make me lose control of the vehicle considering that it was FWD.
Worst of all, if you turned the system off it would turn back on once you restarted the car. It was a fun little car ruined by government mandated nannies. I would love to buy an FR-S but I know the situation would be the same.
Pedro’…> There are traction control devices that can be employed for adjustment of traction control. One was available for your 08′ Civic ‘SI’, a real treat of a FWD, by the way.
The FRS/BRZ should have one available soon. The old hot rod way of doing it is to access the ‘wheel speed sensor’ at each drive corner and tandem switch them in the cockpit. A little wiring, a tandem switch, and you can negate wheel spin control. Downside, possible damage to drive components.
Another way, is the following applicable to BRZ/FRS…> http://brzfrsdiy.blogspot.com/p/disable-traction-control-permanently.html
Not; There is usually a minimum 3 second delay after turning traction control off. There can also be built in overrides activated by preset parameters, if conditions exceed certain profiles.
I mean only to speak on “your soapbox” in a way that advances “your interests” perhaps it is futile and arrogant to imagine I am worthy to do so. Any Clover can lay in ambush by demanding a discussion right now of whatever he proclaims to be the pressing issue of the universe right now.
“But I think Ron Paul (the famous one) would have every right to object if the not-famous Paul attempted to use the famous name to promote himself by association, to conflate himself with the famous RP, to make money off the famous RP’s name and reputation.. which are (rightly) his.”
I disagree with you, that’s what make this a great world.
It seems obvious to me that your vision would best occur through code and programming. I am prejudiced in the internet’s favor, and would argue against it’s needing consent to print itself out on paper and be submitted to arbitrators upon disapproval of anyone mentioned on the internet.
If you are correct, I fear the internet I knew will fade away and be replaced by a pod-person version under the thumb of a United Nation type body. It will be only a mutant retard replica of the strong sovereign internet it once was.
I hate the unearned Objectivist Didactic tone of these type of posts as soon as I send them. I soldier forth amid the karmic battlefield of many inconsistencies and decency & courtesy trespasses for a few more small steps for a less beloved sort of mankind.
Ericpeters dot com is for sale. Let’s say Bevin buys it, cherry picks the best 50% of the site in a German, Chinese, & Spanish version only. (why is he being brought into this, what nerve this medium encourages)
If Bevin has “enough pull” this may be easy to do. The UCC and business world is warped & skewed. Perhaps he properly registers and markets the ideas of “clover”, “gnome-sayin”, “TPTB”, and so on. Should he manage to build a revenue stream of $50,000 a year, is it only “at your expense”
Doesn’t this entail much of “American ingenuity”, truth be told? Tesla was able to read and reproduce the work of European scientists written in other languages, that might have accounted for much of his “genius” But really who cares, he brought us the power we still use today.
I shudder to think of who will enforce your “rights” to abort all cyber-likenesses and imitations. At a minimum, I want Bevin to be able to be ericpeters.to and for you to have little if any way to stop him. Crushing anyone in major com org top level domains should be sufficient, I am hoping.
I see real value in being able to imitate someone living or dead without restriction. It seems a type of barbaric Islam to prohibit the potential world of obama.to where every day unspeakable slander of the man rages on and not a fuck is given what he thinks about it. Though I lack even the standing of two cents here, I see the universe taking great diminishing leaps the farther you proceed down this path.
The more I write, the more it becomes clear: The Internet Is Already Dead. RIP internet.
Good article Eric,
My wife and I bought a ’12 subaru outback a year ago. Nice car, but you are right about the pillars. They suck. A week after getting the car she got groceries and put a 30-pack of beer on passenger seat. She tells me the fucking seat belt “alarm” was going off the whole drive home. Luckily I found an easy way to disable the “reminder”. My personal favorite is the key alarm in my ’05 tundra. You know, the super annoying beep beep if you open the door with the key in the ignition. ARRGGGHHHH. What the fuck? Am I too stupid to realize the keys are in? Really sucks if you want to hang out and listen to the stereo while camping, drinking a beer on the tailgate, etc. Also you mentioned in an earlier article about the electric parking brake. No big complaints here yet as it has not frozen but you made the great point of not having a mechanical backup in the event of hydraulic failure. One good thing on new cars is cupholders everywhere! I like to have a cold one or two on the way home from work so it makes drinking and driving more convenient.
Oh yipee, I get to give CA $78 for my annual permission sticker for my ’90 Ducati Paso. Oh wait, I have to buy a $150 annual insurance first even though I only ride six months out of the year. I live in Alpine County which has some of the best twisty turny roads around. Very few clovers (we have less people per square mile than Alaska). Oh you are gonna love this one. Last year I got a letter from the state tax board (Im a general contractor) stating that because of my close proximity to NV, I must report all bussiness purchases to them and pay CA taxes. Threw that one in the fire. Last fall, got a bill from CalFire for $130 because we live in a rural area. People around here are PISSED. Luckily there ia lawyer group fighting this. Then before the end of last year, I got a letter again from tax fucks stating from now on, I must mark up building materials (lumber) up 1%, pass it on to the customer, report the the tax fucks and pay. So I now am a tax collecter, Fuck that. I refuse. Man even here in the isolated little town of Markleeville you cant escape the control freaks. At least theres no traffic signals in the county. This morning I had to slow from 60 to stop at a red light on a NV road to let one car through with no other traffic around, gotta love it.
I ride, too – and so feel your pain as regards the grotesquery of being forced to insure year round when the bikes sit in the garage for several months each year during the off season. I resent mandatory insurance on principle, of course. But it’s especially outrageous to have to carry a policy for every vehicle you’ve got (as opposed to one, covering the rider/driver). How many of my six bikes can I ride at any given time? Then there’s the annual hit for “registration” – each vehicle. I’ve got nine (car, trucks, bikes). The filthy bastards screw me out of a large wad every year just for the privilege of being allowed to pretend I “own” “my” vehicles….
Good on you for throwing those dunning letters in the fire!
In have several small acreages just South of you over the bump near the entrance to Yosemite, near Pine Mountain Resort. CalFire tried to charge me the fee for structures that didn’t exist. The burden of proof was on me and quite expensive to get rectified(?).
I still get a bill every year that includes the unpaid back years, I return it with copies of the adjustment supporting paper work/letters. I suspect that the bureaucracy will eventual press this and I will have to sue… and so it goes
The worst part is, there are no cal fire stations near me nor in the Tahoe basin. I wrote them a scathing letter explaining there were three fire houses within six miles, a fire hydrant across the street and a creek across the street. I then rubbed the check all over my ball sack and put it in the envelope. If they cant manage their finances thats their problem… oh wait, it’s our problem.
‘JJB’…> As I recall, CalFire has a near one billion dollar budget, and seems to have issues handling those monies, and has even hidden some of those funds as the money collected is not dedicated and goes into the general fund. Just another way to tax us without directly supporting the intended services for which the monies are collected. Sleight of hand, so to speak.
I have never been able to find information on the total monies collected. It certainly exceeds the annual CalFire budget, probably into the billions.
The fuel filler neck on the SN95 mustang is on the side but the tank is behind the rear axle. Same with the crown vic. The reason the filler neck was relocated is because when it is in the center of the rear of the car in a rear end collision it could break off even if the tank was undamaged. Of course when it is on the side a side impact could do the same thing, but cars are designed around the tests. Probably a rarer hit, but if my ’73 had had the filler neck on the drivers side behind the rear wheel it would have been ripped out when the car was sideswiped.
BTW: Race cars have fuel fillers located for ease of pit-crews. I think a rear fill up would slow them down.
Reg, BTW: “Race cars have fuel fillers located for ease of pit-crews”
I think you need to go over the Tech build sheets for whatever race/speed sanctioning body is applicable.
Regarding NASCAR, if that is your reference, side fueling gets in the way of pit crews attending tire changes, so its location has to do with safety in motion and in the pits, not convenience. There are again new rules for 2013 NASCAR fueling…for safety reasons
No location is perfectly safe, as stated, the rear location is in an area most likely to suffer damage.
Regards … Tre
“The reason the filler neck was relocated is because when it is in the center of the rear of the car in a rear end collision it could break off even if the tank was undamaged.”
Yup – but in the real-world, I wonder how many times this theoretical problem became a real one? GM churned out probably several million 1970-1981 F-cars (Camaro and Firebird) and I don’t recall this being an issue. And I’m someone who’s pretty hip to second generation GM F cars. If there had ever been a problem with fuel necks breaking off, I am confident I’d have read/heard about during the 30-plus years I’ve been obsessed with (and owned) these cars!
It’s irritating to me that hypothetical (and often unlikely) outcomes dictate car design to the extent they do.
I’ve ranted about this before, of course.
It’s not how many times it happens, it’s how people feel about it emotionally. I think these tests were developed in light of the Ford Pinto in the mainstream media. Which of course was a myth created by the media. In the real world the pinto was about average for it’s class and date of manufacture.
To add to the emotional issue, it’s usually fords that are singled out for rear center fuel fillers. GM cars never get a mention for them, but it’s fundamentally the same design. On the other hand the media went after GM’s trucks. (dateline NBC, model rocket igniters)
Fuel system tests are as far as I know are evaluated by a straight on rear end collision. To my knowledge there is no required test where the 1/4 panel is impacted behind the rear wheel. Thus problems are solved by moving the fuel filler to where it won’t be hit in the crash tests.
As a one who was a mechanic at a Ford dealership in the late 70’s, the problem with the pinto was in the design of the connection of the filler neck to the gas tank. On GM cars, the neck was permanently attached th the tank. On the pinto the filler neck was a discrete component attached to the quarter panel and inserted into the tank through a rubber sealing bushing. There was no clamp or other means of retention of the filler neck, just a fuel-tight sliding fit. (for what it is worth, mustang II had a similar arrangement).
In a rear end collision, the quarter panel would tend to buckle outward, pulling the filler neck out of the tank leaving a large hole for fuel to leak out of. If the tank was nearly full and the spilled gas ignited, then a nasty fire could be the result.
The recall repair was to install a new filler neck with longer length of tube protruding inside the tank.
That is how the side filler tube works on my ’97 mustang. Tube with a seal. Just removing a few screws and it can be removed from the car.
‘Phantom Pass.’ I always leave my passenger seat buckled, just in case the ‘Big noise’ is about to happen. That situation where the shtf big time and that belted belt, is there for me to grab and pull myself down low and hang on for dear life. Can’t do it in a race car, because of the harness, but that option is still available in a passenger car.
Most people drive a sleep, Mr. intervention, keeps them in the gene pool and consuming. #$%^@$%#&!!
‘Ray Charles’ safety bars.
Yes, they are thick, some exceedingly so, but I will have to take a pass on that one, since my Dad was killed when scrapped out of a new TR-3 when the windshield collapsed when on its top. They had the car less then 24 hours so the seat belts and roll bar were not installed, yet. Yes, cars came without seat belts, back in the dark ages.
Yes, very annoying, and hard on the units.
‘Girlie-man brake rotors’
Some rotors can be quite expensive, but most are quite reasonable, especially when compared to shop turned rotor expense.
These days, Miata rotors run $16.00 and up. Another reason to grab and old one and its anvil like reliability and its cheap parts(rarely needed), while enjoying its exquisite sportyness, and getting more fun miles per gallon, then just about anything, as an additional reward for your uncommon good sense for treating yourself to one of the automotive worlds true masterpieces.
‘Side-fill gas caps’
Neither are explosions from the all to common, rear ending. No race car has a rear fill, for a damn good reason.
Clover ..out! COL!
I honestly wasn’t exaggerating about a sandwich triggering the passenger side SRS buzzer!
On the pillars: Accident avoidance is – to my mind- the most important “safety” feature of all. And these vision-obstructing pillars make it considerably more likely you’ll be involved in an accident. Some of the new cars I’ve driven recently are so afflicted it is almost impossible to see what’s coming at you from the side (as when attempting to make a left-hand turn at a “T” intersection). It’s bad enough in my rural area – where taking a leap of faith is less dangerous simply because traffic’s light to nonexistent. But in the chaotic environment of suburbia or a busy city downtown?
As they say in the Mafia… forget about it!
Here’s what turns on the ‘passenger side airbag off’ lamp on for my ’12 mustang: A pair of gloves, a couple car magazines, and my hat.
oh I forgot… the Italian beef sammich didn’t do it as I recall. I’ll pay more attention next time. (The lamp is in a pod on the headliner so I tend not to notice it in daylight)
Shame on you. You misspelled “Forget about it!”
The correct spelling is “Fuhgeddaboudit!”
fuhgeddaboudit 93 up, 23 down
Looking for the official spelling? Forget about it.
Consensus is definitely for “fuhgeddaboudit.” But at least 53 different spellings can be found on the web. As of December 2004, here are the top ten…
spelling — (google hits) — (nytimes.com hits)
fuhgeddaboudit (82200) (20)
fuggedaboudit (6760) (14)
fuggedaboutit (6040) (4)
fuhgeddaboutit (5770) (35)
fuggetaboutit (3760) (0)
fuhgetaboutit (3430) (2)
fuhgedaboudit (2530) (8)
fahgetaboutit (2470) (0)
fugedaboudit (2240) (0)
fugetaboutit (2010) (0)
From the Urban Dictionary
Thank you, sir!
Good article Eric and I can attest to my loathing of traction control and stability control on modern vehicles. It’s one of the things I find myself turning off every time I jump into my car and the roads are slippery because honestly I find it to be more dangerous than me reacting to a skid myself.
The roof pillar issue you mention is very noticeable. I recently replaced my 1995 Prizm (corrola) with a 2010 Corolla and the visibility reduction is staggering. I had a damn near panoramic view in the old car and don’t in the new one.
The gas tank question I agree safety is on of the big concerns these days but lets not forget weight distribution for handling as another reason gas tanks are no longer located near the back. The sad thing is that with modern technology self sealing fuel tanks are inexpensive and easy to manufacture but in most cases can’t get clover DOT “approved”.
I’ve had several cars lately that I’d describe as dangerous due to the severely limited visibility to the side (and in some cases) rear. If I’m saying that – and you guys know me – you’ll understand the seriousness of the situation.
Just curious as I was visiting the Lew Rockwell site and saw that Ron Paul was going to challenge for the domain names ronpaul.com and ronpaul.org. Now I want you all to know that I have the ultimate respect for Ron Paul. Also, I’m pragmatic on intellectual property. Though I sympathize with Aaron Swartz being an engineer I find nothing all that alarming about people protecting intellectual property. Mostly I would recommend people say in silicon to blow the protection fuse when they want to keep their intellectual development from being copied, this requires no patents and no copyrights. However, I’ve also worked in San Jose and most all silicon companies patent their works not because they plan on charging royalties but mostly for the prestige and first market impression along with counter threats when another company might want to extract royalties from them. Again I have a hard time discounting rights to development and ideas and I know this would alienate me among the hard core anarchist but again I state I believe in intellectual property mostly from a pragmatic technical implementation and not a government restriction orfice. By the way I also develop software for GPL and so I see no reason why both can’t coexist, that which is free domain and that which is protected private property.
This is what suprises me that Ron Paul would call for domain names created in his name. Wouldn’t calling for domain names in your name imply a copyright violation or abuse thereof? I just figured that Ron Paul would be more along Aaron Swartz view of intellectual property and not a intellectual property pragmatist like me. Or am I missing something here that would be non hypocritical if indeed he doesn’t believe in copyrights but wants his trademark name to himself?
Anway thoughts are appreciated.
I don’t know the details of this specific situation, so I’ll address hypotheticals.
If, let’s say, a guy who happens to be named Ron Paul but who isn’t the Ron Paul claims “ronpaul.com” first, then it seems to me he’s entitled to do so. Especially if he’s not deliberately conflating his not-famous self with the famous Paul – as to make money. (For example, there is another Eric Peters – at least. One of them is a fairly well-known former pro soccer player. But we have no conflict because he’s not using “Eric Peters” the way I use “Eric Peters.”)
The famous Ron Paul could offer to buy the rights, but – as I see it – has no rightful claim to force the other Ron Paul to surrender the domain name on the basis of his being more famous or some such (or any such).
On the other hand, if Joe Smith expropriates Ron Paul’s name – the Ron Paul’s or any other Ron Paul’s – then it seems to me the real Ron Paul(s) have every right to demand their name not be used for commercial or other purposes by someone it doesn’t belong to.
Mostly, this is a common courtesy issue. But we also have a property right to our own names, I think.
It seems to me, when you say X should be administered in compliance with Y, you throw open the gates of hell and destruction. It’s a case of “there outta be a law”
I have some “right” to my name on the internet, just because I breathe air, because I fell out of some dingbat’s womb, and that dingbat had “my name” recorded in some “public building” by “designated thugs” wearing “official costumes.”
Straight off the pages of Atlas Shrugged, here we see creators being forced to prostrate themselves before the “experts” of UN’s WIPO, ICANN… to be compelled to “go to law.” and to submit and debase themselves before omnipotent third party looters and moochers.
Sadly, I fear even awakened LRCers are blind to the implications of eviscerating the property rights of a bizarre possibly defamatory little site that is a hybrid of second-hander and first-hander attributes.
Asking $250k for ronpaul.com, the 114,890 ranked website in the world, is rather high. But if you want Tim Martin’s trivial little fan site, then obtain it honorably in the free market. That’s how free men do things.
Not being morons, most netizens understand the numeric IP address, its corresponding mmemonic addresses, and the theme of the site are three different things.
The majoritarian Clovers will happily lay waste to all of “cyberspace” making it a compliant 1:1 matchup to “meatspace.” making it subject to real-world laws and police enforcers, and making it devoid of anonymity, impropriety, and anything even remotely beyond the reach of TPTB. Cyber-Cloverism should be fought to the death.
[Though I disagree, here is a rundown]
Galloping Libertarian – Top Facebook Commenter:
In the complaint. Tim Martin is seeking undue enrichment, clearly, from the use of Ron Paul’s name. It really is that simple.
When you register a domain, in accordance with ICANN policies, you warrant that you’re not infringing on the rights of a third party and also agree to arbitration if a third party submits a claim. This arbitration process is outlined in what’s called the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy, or UDRP, and includes certain criteria such as trademark infringement and “bad faith”, both of which RP seems to be focusing on in his UDRP complaint. The WIPO, a UN agency, is one of several organizations authorized by ICANN to offer this arbitration service for a fee.
Ron Paul is the owner of RON PAUL U.S. trademark. Ron Paul has acquired rights in the mark by virtue of it’s use within the United States, including a large volume of sales of Dr. Paul’s books. The RON PAUL mark has achieved a secondary meaning associated with Ron Paul sufficient to establish common law trademark rights. RON PAUL has long been associated with Dr. Paul’s books, articles, public appearances, and political commentary.”
On the 7th page of Ron Paul’s complaint. The fun part begins on the 7th page:
Obvious future result is obvious…
If you are claiming to have bought the domain only to keep the “enemy” from buying it, and then turn around and try to squeeze $250,000.00 (down from $840,000) from Ron Paul for it you get what you deserve…
– – –
The DailyPaul site’s Global Rank 11,608. There are many other more popular Ron Paul oriented sites than the one discussed here.
I wouldn’t put it quite that way (“there ought to be law”).
I do, however, see it as a violation of property rights to use my name (for purposes of discussion) to make money off my name (celebrity, renown, etc.) or to disparage my name (that is my, reputation, etc.)
Thus, I would object if some random person (not Eric Peters) launched a web site called EricPeterscars – for all the obvious reasons. To try to piggyback on me. To exploit the work I’ve done. To “second hand” my reputation.
On the other hand, I’ve got no issue with Eric Peters the soccer player having a web site (and so on) with his name – just as I doubt he has any with me. Though we share a name, we’re clearly not the same person.
Again, this strikes me as an issue best dealt with via simple common courtesy.
The famous Ron Paul should not object if a man also named Ron Paul has a web site where he posts pictures of his family, or discusses topics of interest to him. So long as it’s clear he’s a different RP.
But I think Ron Paul (the famous one) would have every right to object if the not-famous Paul attempted to use the famous name to promote himself by association, to conflate himself with the famous RP, to make money off the famous RP’s name and reputation.. which are (rightly) his.
“On the 7th page of Ron Paul’s complaint. The fun part begins on the 7th page:”
That is interesting that you were able to dig that up and share.
” Sadly, I fear even awakened LRCers are blind to the implications of eviscerating the property rights of a bizarre possibly defamatory little site that is a hybrid of second-hander and first-hander attributes.
Yeah you know I’m a consistent fellow. I look for consistency in everyone I admire, so I’m not as concerned whether Ron Paul is an anarchist or limited government guy (me myself I’m more of the latter) as long as he is consistent. I look to others to see if they are hypocritical. Though I also don’t see something as hypocritical if a man changes his mind with more logic and information later. Again I’m in no way anti IP since if John Locke’s definition of ownership entails who has added most value to property from raw form, then I see no greater form of property than that what is created from the mind.
Though, I don’t believe that one has the right to use force of government to enforce it. Seems to me that by contract you could require anyone using your product to understand they have no rights to copy or distribute before selling it to them. In this agreement the lifting of code would be protected by contract versus government copyright/patent. An Eula contract between buyers and sellers is binding and I don’t think Murray Rothbard would disagree?
There are many much better ways to make money off ideas and still protect them. That being said I’d never agree that plagurism of written works is a right of humanity. Nor would I say the Chinese have the right to do the last 3% manufacturing and steal from someone that developed at 97% an idea in research and development where the development costed millions. Not only would this be unethical it would be contrary to rewarding good behavior with bad, and thus cause future losses.
So I might not be on board with everyone who says there is no such thing as rights to authorship, or programs, or IC’s but I do understand where anarchist are coming from. Copyrights seem way to long protecting dead artists. Patents certainly can use the dead arm of society to dredge people who simply want to bring into production something someone else just sits on in raw idea form. Big companies use patents to screw small businesses who often times develop the idea and have it stolen by big boys and then have the government force the small business to pay big fees to the useless big boys. All of them relying on government as an enforcer is bad news.
And I agree that trademarks can be especially bad to freedom. If a person were to sell in my name merchanidise that was clearly marketed for a crowd that liked me, would that be morally wrong much less legally? I don’t think so. Nor do I think I’d be entitled to ask for the domains later even if they sold me widgets looking like me. And would RonPaul.com be the same as Ron Paul when obviously .com is a added diference than the original birth name given? Obviously Ron Paul has legal rights to RonPaul trademark but for anarchist this would be a total sin. I also agree that anyone that buys IP domain names parks them and then tries to extort money from the principal users and likely future owners as scum. You know I’m an Evan’s free soil on land property, which says use it or lose it. Same should be with websites domain names that try to own by first precedence then extort non market prices later from principals that need that name, if they don’t use it than they have no rights to keep it either.
Then to add to that I think we all agree it would not be right to sell a replica mechandise with the same identifying emblems and name as the real manufacturer. That would be fraud of course to the customer as well who would think he was getting the real Mccoy. So its obvious that trademarks have some kind of merit.
My take on it is that Ron Paul does believe in trademarks, copyrights, and possibly patents? I don’t find this out of his character. Nor do I really believe in a total communist anarchist view that all intellectual property is that of the Borgs so I side with Ron Paul, though I find the answer to all this very complex and disturbing to freedom.
“I do, however, see it as a violation of property rights to use my name (for purposes of discussion) to make money off my name (celebrity, renown, etc.) or to disparage my name (that is my, reputation, etc.)
Thus, I would object if some random person (not Eric Peters) launched a web site called EricPeterscars – for all the obvious reasons. To try to piggyback on me. To exploit the work I’ve done. To “second hand” my reputation. ”
This is the most healthiest pragmatic view that I share as well. I agree with the reputation part. I agree with someone that has plagurized your site and tries to siphon off your customer’s by fraud. I agree with the slander part. But what if I like Eric Peters (and I do) so much that I want to sell bobbing head Eric peter widgets in your image. And I go out and buy a site Ericpeters.com and sell statue idols of you. Would that be considered unethical and immoral at least and illegal as in trademark at maximum? I don’t know where Eric Peters autos has rights to claim future business models such as widgets that you might want to enter in competition in the future? And once one enters into this whole trademark thing you see how Hollywood starts to freak out on cubes 3-D printed based on a movie they trademarked. Eeeeek I hate complex questions of who owns what especially if government of any kind feel entitled to get invovled, but like always I feel you and I see things pretty much the same on RonPaul.com and I agree with every word you said.
Yeah, I’d have an issue with someone using my likeness or otherwise milking my work – which means, me – to make money for them!
It’s just not cool.
Now, if you asked me – and I agreed – if we’d come to some mutually agreeable understanding (such as in return for using my likeness to make the bobble heads, I get “x” percentage of every sale made) then, fine. That’s cool.
To be clear: I have no ethical or other objection to some other person who happens to be named Eric Peters selling bobble heads of himself, under that name. It’s his name, too!
The issue, as I see it, is whether it’s right for one person to hijack the identity of someone else and use it for purposes of financial gain.
I don’t think it is, because as I see it, you’re aggressing against someone. Taking something not yours. A violation of the NAP.
“Yeah, I’d have an issue with someone using my likeness or otherwise milking my work – which means, me – to make money for them!”
Well I do disagree a bit on this respectfully. I’m not an artist but I see that someone that wants to make a clay sculpture or drawing of me has everyright to do so and sell it with no fee or royalty or even my permission. Wouldn’t this be freedom of expression?
I understand what you are saying in principle that by assuming the name RonPaul.com they are attempting to steal Ron’s identity which is different than just selling sculptures of him. Suppose however that on the very first line of the website they state that they are not affiliated with Ron Paul and that the money they generate is not going to Ron Paul or his family. So I’m basically seperating fraud, forgery, identity theft from that of using a domain name RonPaul.com to sell Ron Paul merchandise. To me I see nothing special about a url name after all anyone could still use “Ron Paul” for meta keywords and get high search utility rank without having url “Ron Paul”. Should there be some meta-ethical reason why a url composed of the same letters should be treated seperately from say those same words used in the keyword and/or body of the website?
Everyone would have a right to sell Ron Paul merchandise as this is freedom of expression but also freedom of speech in my opinion. To carry it to the furthest I could easily go out generate T-shirts saying “Ron Paul the coolest guy in U.S.” And if my buddies liked them I could sell the extras to them, if that offended Ron Paul because I made a profit and didn’t share the proceeds then I’d be bit disappointed.
I just don’t see why anyone would have to pay someone just because they used another’s name or image on their merchandise.
Though I do agree it gets murky when the site pretends to be Ron Paul’s own private interest.
“The issue, as I see it, is whether it’s right for one person to hijack the identity of someone else and use it for purposes of financial gain.
I don’t think it is, because as I see it, you’re aggressing against someone.”
I totally agree on hijacking the identity of a person. And I do think you are correct as I visited RonPaul.com and by its default it does seem to act like its affiliated with Ron Paul as a personal interest of his. This might be the most powerful point that can be made for Ron Paul so I concede to that point. Again if they made it clear they were not affiliated with Ron Paul himself but an independent interest selling merchanidse in his image I don’t think that would be stealing his identity it would simply be marketing a product.
As far as your statement “using my likeness or otherwise milking my work”. I suppose I have a personal interest in this as I often design for the aftermarket of many big name companies. I use the company name for keywords. I feel no reason why milking their name with add on products makes me a bad ethically or morally when I’m completing a market or even competing with them in very narrow niches. They may not like it but tough, I’m still adding value to their customers and I don’t feel I owe them a penny either. However, I do want to make clear that I meet your condition of not pretending to be the original manufacturer as well.
“Wouldn’t this be freedom of expression? ”
If they’re not doing so to make money – then I have no problem with it.
Otherwise, I do.
If someone uses another person’s identity to enrich himself, it’s a form of parasitism, as I see it. Think about it: Parasites live off of unwilling hosts – they violate the NAP.
It’s just not cool.
A famous person worked like a coolie to get where he is; he’s famous because of what he did. Now some guy comes along and hijacks the guy’s identity – everything that makes people know who he is – and uses it to make money.
That some guy did nothing – and whatever he’s selling would never sell absent the taken-without-consent likeness/name (i.e., identity) … the property of the famous person. That which is his.
Not someone else’s to just take and make a living off of.
“That some guy did nothing – and whatever he’s selling would never sell absent the taken-without-consent likeness/name (i.e., identity) … the property of the famous person. That which is his. ”
I must say that we agree to disagree on this one. But that is ok because I do see your logic and it is consistent. No fears as I won’t be trying to milk you name (smile), but I do think that will be very profitable for somebody one day. So its good you take your personal stance on that now.
I do have one last argument against your view though. Suppose that I’m opposed to Ron Paul (I am not), and I create a website IhateRonPaul.com. On this webpage I sell merchandise such as coffee mugs with a non flattering cartoon caricature of him or maybe a X through his name. Again this uses his name but not in a good way and obviously not in a manner anyone could assume I was trying to steal his identity. If I was a political dissenter and using his name would I have to support him financially to sell my merchandise? Wouldn’t this be a real strike on freedom if so?
I know the above may seem absurdity but when one really thinks about it, one could still make money off Ron Paul’s fame. In both cases the url and keywords would have Ron Pauls name in it, except in the latter I would designate a few extra words Ihate+ . Just because I like Ron’s views makes this sound even more asburd, suppose I did that with Cheney or Bush which is more legitimate, should I support them? I do believe that if we call parasitism using another person’s name and fame to make money then we may lose what exactly freedom of expression and free market is about. Again I just want to make note that I agree with you if they are selling a product and pretending to be that person instead of just selling a product about that person.
Last point is that I think that all media including newspapers, TV, and internet news are using people’s fame whenever they cover an article about that person. Whether flattering or not a lot of Ron Paul people listen to news media and point to links of Youtube videos of anything about Ron Paul even when he’s not present in said article or video (not giving his implicit permission to use his name). Since news media uses Ron Paul’s name to make a profit isn’t that parasitism? Not in my context it is just simply free market, people are making a profit using another fame of course but they are also distributing their free expression as well. Obviously, the
latter being a message is much more easily disseminated when their is a profit incentive for those participating.
Well anyway sorry to beat a dead horse between us on this issue. I do appreciate your insights and difference in opinion.
I think I’d be ok – ethically – with the idea of someone selling “anti” products (and so on). That strikes me as different because it’s a stance in opposition. Maybe I’m splitting hairs; anyone else care to chime in?
Just speaking for myself: It sets off my ethical compass to imagine someone using another person’s achievement (which is what we’re talking about here, ultimately) to make a buck for himself. It’s just not something I’d do.
The situation is a little more interesting. Another Ron Paul indeed owned the site, and eventually sold it at auction after being unable to reach an agreement with “our” Ron Paul.
Did that property owner not have the right to sell it to the general public to maximize the value, or was he limited to only selling it to other people named Ron Paul?
Suppose you decide to blow off the internet, and decide to sell your blog to finance your new passion. Should the fact that another Eric Peters might come along and eventually want the domain affect the price you’re otherwise able to command in an open market?
Very good questions. I’d think other people not just name Ron Paul or Eric Peters could bid for the names as long as they weren’t in the direct line of business that conflicted with another already there.
I see no reason why someone named Ron Paul should have to own the name.
no instead of know…
On the top of my “hate” list, is being a specie of moocher, and then entertaining illusions of “having my say” about the rights of others. Only when I manage to “make money” or enable others “make money” by virtue of ideas I set in motion, can I claim to be bringing some type o lasting value to the world.
But damn, somewhere I’d like to see a gauntlet be thrown down. Where only the primary aspects of things are hashed out, and the secondary things are left to be quibbled over by the rank and file hoi polloi.
The internet is a type of bizarro world. There are fuzzy demarcation lines between producers, creators, moochers, and looters. Is there no Heinlein among us, who can fabricate and propagate a prototype for a new way of creating and sustaining intellectual property on the internet?
Somewhere, someone foots the bill for the servers and hosting fees. Someone records video, records sound, records digital text. Maybe “the real” Ron Paul is given a super-user right to insert advertising and explanations into any cyber-property of unauthorized others those who profit from his name, reputation, and body of work.
Though it’s only a small fraction of the vast internet domain. I am deeply invested in the preservation of the “Galt’s Gulch” regions of cyberspace. Tablet & Smart Phone majority users agree to a limited hygenic & safe Internet 3.0 space for their devices, they are qutie welcome to their online suburbs, shopping centers, and moderately gritty and smutty Hard R rated cyberworld.
But GTFO of USENET, IRC, TOR, raw code, bulletinboard, cyber-free-for-all, & darknet type places. We’ll agree to play nice in your dumbed down Reddit accessible post free net e-pocalypse, you agree to neuter your own sacred cows and leave us long haired country boys alone.
Human names, brand names, product names, domain names, these are all mental constructs, they do not add value in and of themselves. They are tertiary.
There must be limits to Ron Paul’s right to his name online. Limits that stop short of confiscation of others property, of use of threats of violence, of compelling submission to arbitrary authorities.
A larger issue than right or wrong, is the issue of authoritarianism or freedom.
The only limit I’d impose in re using a name is when the name is being used for purposes of financial gain, based on the fame/renown/earned status of the other party. Or to harass the person.
I see this as a function/implication of self-ownership.
Sure, our names are arbitrary constructs. But they are how we identify ourselves – our intellectual/creative output, our reputations – and so on. It seems to me we each have a right to ownership of these things.
If some guy who happens to be named Ron Paul creates a “RonPaul” web site and sells merchandise not based on himself (the not-famous RP) but very clearly on the famous RP, that’s uncool. At the very least, the guy’s an asshole.
But when does such a thing rise to the level of an actionable violation of property rights?
That’s the toughie!
Perhaps a deepseated barking mad percept is so deeply lodged I can’t let it go.
Suffice it to say I am an outlier willing to risk a lot of tangible status and things that work for even the prospect of living in a more prosperous and free world.
Few, if any here, may share this sentiment.
If I manufacture knockoff Gucci purses, and 10,000 women are the happier for it, haven’t I “created value?” Hopefully, over time, I will branch out and make things less derivative.
“The Chinese” are more in the right here, the Americans are more in the wrong in my eyes.
Mere plagarism and copying sucks. Make but one improvement or change, it ceases to occur. IP is a horrible newly contrived phenomenon that makes nearly everyone poorer, IMHO.
I apply the NAP.
People who take other people’s names in order to profit by using their names without the consent of the person (and indeed, against the person’s will) are committing an act of aggression – are they not?
Speaking for myself:
I freely give away my work – allowing, for example web sites who I see as being in common cause to re-publish my stuff at no cost. But this is with my specific consent. I resent it when someone who runs a web site – a for-profit web site – just takes something I worked to produce and uses it, without even extending me the courtesy of asking first.
It’s just not cool – and as I see it, it’s a manifestation of the very things we’re fighting: People who live by force and fraud; the takers and parasites.
Regarding impersonation being aggression, yes it certainly is.
It becomes clear to me just how big an issue consensus is. We must move forward without it, and without wanting it, but it is so hard to do in practice.
Even if you are un-libertarian in many respects, which Ron Paul appears to be, the more important aspect remanin your value-creation, your demonstrated integrity, and your all around bon-homme’d-ness.
Principles need to live and breathe. Ayn Rand is a perfect example, except for all the many areas where she fell short.
I was thinking we could rule the world peacefully, if we trump the UN’s offer with our sweeter offer – unilateral copyright disarmament and free worldwide access to our ideas, creations, and trade secrets, but not for the scumbag PTB or anyone connect to those bastards.
Hey, check this out!
It’s my first!
“The only limit I’d impose in re using a name is when the name is being used for purposes of financial gain, based on the fame/renown/earned status of the other party. Or to harass the person. ”
My admittedly muddy thinking process goes at it a little differently.
I think I’d only have standing to take action against someone misrepresenting himself as me in order to take possession of my property.
You know what I mean? Like if Neal Shitheel went to my bank with fake ID claiming to be Ed Shithead, and cashed a check for most of the $102.84 I had in my account, I could get righteously pissed off.
I would then be justifed in stomping a mudhole in his ass and walking it dry. Symbolically, of course. It would be more like hiring a good lawyer, some weaselly little turd who knows how to bribe another member of his clique to legalistically beat Neal about the head and shoulders.
Of course, I don’t have any fame or renown or earned status that Neal could use, but anyway….
” Or am I missing something here that would be non hypocritical if indeed he doesn’t believe in copyrights but wants his trademark name to himself”
I don’t think his name is his by copyright, so it isn’t a trademark.
Anyway, that’s about it for me. Discussions of purity of thought and deed to hew to some imagined ideal of libertarianism get tedious pretty quickly. Such discussions remind me of Ayn Rand’s demented followers kicking each other out of the nest for thought crimes.
You sound like you’ve visited an objectivist forum before, LOL. The relevant Randian frame would be – you can deal with other men through money or through guns, make your choice, there is no other.
I think I allowed something very simple to metastasize into something needlessly complicated.
I know Ron Paul to be a man who deals through money. He is a value creator, who brings things into being.
I know Eric Peters to be a man who deals through money. He is a value creator, bringing new written works into existence. He also creates vehicles out of parts. He raises chickens.
For such men, taking action against parasitical imitators or knock-off artists through law is a widely accepted practice. The burden is on we copy-wrongists to peacefully remove the sanction of the dialectical IP-bat born of a Vampire-state.
It’s not Ron Paul or Eric’s burden in any way.
Rethinking IP – S. Kinsella – Mises Academy
“You sound like you’ve visited an objectivist forum before, LOL.”
Maybe by proxy, you know. Nah, really that came from reading some Murray Rothbard articles which I found hilarious.
Back in my FR days, there was an objectivist posting there whose screen name was OWK ( one who knows) He was the most tediously pedantic poster on there. For awhile I used to think that an objectivist would have to be an insufferable egghead by definition. Of course, since then I’ve met other objectivists who weren’t as arrogant as old OWK.
Rothbard wrote some pretty funny stuff about the ‘Randians’. Murray had a great way of putting things into a comical context.
What I find interesting is that the PTB set a system where it is impossible not to play by their rules by some extent. That is unless one wants to be impoverished and/or live in a prison cell. However, if one uses the system as it is set up, then somehow they are hypocrite.
For instance, the favorite of statists, the roads. It’s a government monopoly. Libertarians are just supposed to stay home because government has monopolized roads or they are hypocrites. Government set the rules for things like trademarks and such. If one doesn’t follow government procedure one is simply SOL. It’s not set up as a libertarian system so trying to go about things in a pure libertarian fashion just isn’t going to work.
I’m not going to sit in a prison cell because the income tax is illegal, but just because I am forced to pay it not to end up there it doesn’t mean I can’t advocate against it.
“I’m not going to sit in a prison cell because the income tax is illegal”
Why would you end up in a prison cell? Would you not take steps to defend and protect youself and your wealth regardless what the gov’t says?
Get rid of all your “stuff” and what can the IRS take from you. Get rid of your bank account ( you should have done this already anyway ), get a prepaid cell phone, payoff any banks that want money from you and work for cash. Rent a room in a house w/ no lease.
Good luck finding you or suing you for what you don’t have!
It’s our materialism that makes us vulnerable. Hell if I didn’t have a family to support I’d work for room and board.
As attractive as the freedom of poverty and homelessness is, the poverty and the homelessness is a big a negative.
Of course that doesn’t mean one doesn’t end up in a prison cell.
Thanks for demonstrating what happens from both ends. Someone argues libertarianism and from one side he has the statist calling him a hypocrite for reducing himself to poverty and on the other end some libertarian purtian doing the same.
I could dump everything and go around fixing cars for cash and live out of a shopping cart and eat road kill. (don’t want to eat the government regulated food ya know!) but it just doesn’t seem that attractive just to be a pure libertarian to avoid all the state’s monopolies and threats.
arg… for not reducing himself to poverty
I’ve never fought with a car as much as I do my Yaris. I seriously thought there was a phantom asshole sitting shotgun for a long time. Now I keep the passenger seat belt buckled at ALL times or the car yells at me. Never have I fought with a car as much as this one and its traction control. I want to go forward and it wants to stop. Fucking aggravates the shit out of me. I can be traveling up my driveway with more than enough momentum to make it to the top, then a small slip of one wheel and the traction system halts my travel. I’m forced to do another hole shot with 1.5 times the amount of momentum needed to compensate, which is ridiculous. There is no off button!
dom I hear you!
I bought my dad’s old Isuzu Rodeo as a bug-out and general commuting car. Fantastic for what it is; a small soovie that gets the job done and will never break.
But: The. Worst. ABS. Ever.
Waaaay before the tires are going to lock, the ABS intervenes–and reduces the braking force by about 50%. It’s as though the hydraulics have failed. Horrendously sensitive; under even mild braking a small bump in the road sends it into spastic paroxysms of fitful braking.
I’m going to disconnect the ABS fuse; I may not be Schumacher, but Mein Gott I can threshold-brake better than this system.
Very surprising to me too; I’ve been spoiled by German ABS that brakes so hard you feel like you’ve hit something.
I was thinking to run two wires into where the fuse goes and put my own toggle switch with a fusible link and call it a day
Interesting. I can disable the traction system in my Chrysler 200 (at least there is a button that says so)
I can disable it on my 4Runner too!
“Interesting. I can disable the traction system in my Chrysler 200 (at least there is a button that says so)”
That’s the thing. “Off” doesn’t always mean off. In many (probably most) new/late model cars, when you push the button, the system partially disables. But it is still on – and will still intervene.
Some systems – Toyotas – will even turn back on (all the way) after the vehicle speed reaches 30 MPH or so. The only way to turn it off and keep it off is to stop the car, and hold the button long enough that the first and second “TCS” lights illuminate.
The ’12 mustang has ‘on’, ‘less aggressive’, and ‘off’. ‘off’ requires some ritual upon starting the car I think. However thus far it hasn’t been intrusive in any setting. Because it’s not been intrusive I leave it on, only experimenting briefly with the other modes. I don’t care if it only comes on if I get in over my head. If it starts being annoying it will get turned off.