If you have "dual wheels" in the back... does it make you feel safer and more stable?

[Phoebe3]

Originally Posted by cruising7388

The consensus seems to be that a front tire blowout is more controllable than a rear one.

I've heard that, too, but it doesn't make sense to me. If the front tire on a truck blows, it's going to want to ride on that rim (the rear was so light the rims didn't hit pavement, I just drove on three tires). If one of the FRONT wheels is riding on the rim, it's going to want to turn the steering wheel and I'm not particularly strong and I certainly wasn't expecting a blowout so I can see it grabbing and turning either into the next lane or off the embankment before I can get control back.

With luck and safe practices, I hope never to test either theory. Once was enough.

[<<B-Guy>>]

Originally Posted by Roadtrek Adventuous RS1

Brian,


The notion of a large vehicle like yours with no spare tire amazes me....

Maybe you are ""lucky"?? I hope so..... I'd rather have the spare tire.....


Good luck.

Well, I would probably rather have the spare, but the PW FL van just appealed to my wife and I so much more than any of the RT models available that we went that way! It is always a compromise when you buy a "B" in terms of which one has more of the features you want. None have them all!

I do believe many vehicles are now being sold without a spare so it is not so unusual any more.

I suppose I am sort of counting on my past many years of RV'ing with never a
flat. As well, I will certainly be installing the TPMS equipment that I already own and have used for years so that I should be able to detect minor leaks quickly before they become a major problem.

I also change tires every 5-6 years, so hopefully a blow out wont be an issue and If I do pick up a nail can deal with it until I get to a tire shop either with the "Kit" that comes with the van, or with a couple of different tire plugging devices that I used to carry of my Goldwing bike and with which I have had good success.

I am hoping that limping at much reduced speed to a garage with three good rear wheels - even if I need to swap a front wheel for a back one - could be an option too in a pinch.

We'll see how it goes and deal with whatever we need to!

Brian.

[Roadtrek Adventuous RS1]

Originally Posted by Phoebe3

I've heard that, too, but it doesn't make sense to me. If the front tire on a truck blows, it's going to want to ride on that rim (the rear was so light the rims didn't hit pavement, I just drove on three tires). If one of the FRONT wheels is riding on the rim, it's going to want to turn the steering wheel and I'm not particularly strong and I certainly wasn't expecting a blowout so I can see it grabbing and turning either into the next lane or off the embankment before I can get control back.

With luck and safe practices, I hope never to test either theory. Once was enough.

Found this....it may help....

https://www.popularmechanics.com/car...wout-15851782/

When I did a search for front vs. rear tire blowout + risk a lot of articles came up...

I AGREE...no one wants to be in this predicament... which is WHY I change my tires every 5 to 6 years and have the TPMS......

[Knit]

My 2013 RS has aluminum wheels at the front and on the outside in the back. The spare is steel. It can be used in any position but requires different lug nuts that were provided with the vehicle.

When I was looking to buy in 2013 I ended up wanting the dualies to make sure I had enough carrying capacity to tow my boat when needed. I looked at some used ones at the time with single rear wheels and when loaded with occupants, fuel, etc., they were pretty close to being at capacity even without the boat. It weighs about 9600 lbs ready to travel.

I also added a TPMS when I had new Michelins installed at about 25k Miles. Had problems getting the stems on the inside rears installed so that it was easy to fill and check the pressure. Eventually went with some valve extensions, the kind that are not pressurized unless you are checking the pressure.

[hepcat]

Originally Posted by avanti

I repeat:
IMO, TMPS is an totally essential safety feature for any dually setup
....

This is obviously extremely dangerous. A TPMS will alert you to this situation instantly, probably saving your tire and maybe even your life.

My advice: If you have duallies, get a TPMS. This is not the place to indulge in ludditeism.

Look... Avanti... you and I have clashed a number of times about technology. My education is in information systems. My experience with computerized technology began with COBOL and punch cards, and I remain conversant in most of the technology available today. I am certainly NOT a luddite. I AM however, a realist, and as such not one to trust technology to the extent that many do as I recognize EVERY piece of technology has a MTBF rate.

Digital technology remains inherently unreliable and we've based our entire societal structure upon that inherently unreliable technology. It's certainly becoming more reliable, and of course I use it, but that still doesn't make it "reliable." Any automobile built in the past twenty years is completely computerized. However, if this technology were completely reliable, there'd be no need for replacement parts from auto makers, or computer repair shops. I personally own a significant amount of technology, and I also understand how it works. I also know that it fails often enough that I won't rely on it. We were talking in another thread a while back about cell phones and how some folks believe that they're a perfectly acceptable "safety solution." About a month ago a digital cable was cut in a town forty miles from my house. It was apparently a trunk line to the internet backbone, and it took down not only the internet, but landlines as well. There was NO communication in or out of our entire county (and three others) for about ten hours. Power sources are fallible. Sensors are fallible. Wireless systems are subject to EM interference. And cables get cut and cell towers burn in wildfires. Technology fails at regular intervals, and mostly at the worst possible time. If you use it, but don't rely on it for your safety, you'll likely be in a better position when it DOES fail.

TPMS is a nice luxury, and as I said, it allows me to be lazy about manually checking the pressures on my Jeep; but I have to disagree that it's "an essential safety feature" on any vehicle any more than not carrying a cell phone would inherently put me at some kind of risk. Sorry.

Sometimes it helps to keep a little perspective about what is really "dangerous." I retired after thirty years in law enforcement. I've been shot at. I've been injured in more places in fights over the years than I'd believe I had places. I've investigated hundreds of crashes and literally dozens of homicides and other unattended deaths. I've ridden out a rear flat on a BMW motorcycle at speed. I've survived a trailer sway event as a result of mechanical failure of the hitch. Remember that you are still many times more likely to be injured or killed in a fall in your home, or by a drunk driver than you are to be injured in a tire-related incident.

[MotoVan]

This is the area of my professional expertise. I work in Vehicle Dynamic for a major automaker, and I test various vehicles, including vans and trucks, every day.

Dual rear wheels do make the vehicle more stable. No questions about it. They do it is two ways. First, they increase the rear traction, which increases the indersteer and reduces the chance of a spin-out. Second, they allow the use of thicker rear anti-roll bars without increasing the oversteer. This decreases the roll angles, reducing the chance of a roll-over.

Dual rear wheels are great for handling, and of course the increased cargo carrying capacity. The downsides are cost, weight, checking 2 more tire pressures, increased rolling resistance, and a higher fuel consumption.

[Roadman987]

I live in Northern NH. The dual wheels on our 2015 ERA 70A spread out the weight with 4 tires vs 2, better traction in freezing conditions too. They have saved me a number of times, soft sand, wet soft ground. But that's the way I drive so they work for me.

Haven't seen too many people talking about the single vs. dual wheels in the back other than the increased cargo carrying weight capacity?

How many of you with the dual wheels feel more safe and secure on the road with the larger footprint of two extra tires??

Are you happy that you "chose" the duals over the single wheels?

I know I am very happy with that arrangement despite the fact that I have to purchase two extra tires when they have to be replaced...

I especially like the fact that the two tires seem more planted when turning corners … less likely for the rig to roll over..

Even with the increased sway bar... I still think those extra tires have value.

Your thoughts??[/QUOTE]

[booster]

Originally Posted by MotoVan

This is the area of my professional expertise. I work in Vehicle Dynamic for a major automaker, and I test various vehicles, including vans and trucks, every day.

Dual rear wheels do make the vehicle more stable. No questions about it. They do it is two ways. First, they increase the rear traction, which increases the indersteer and reduces the chance of a spin-out. Second, they allow the use of thicker rear anti-roll bars without increasing the oversteer. This decreases the roll angles, reducing the chance of a roll-over.

Dual rear wheels are great for handling, and of course the increased cargo carrying capacity. The downsides are cost, weight, checking 2 more tire pressures, increased rolling resistance, and a higher fuel consumption.

A question for you, as it is your area of expertise.


What nearly all of us with SRW vans have found out is that the wind and other instabilities can be mostly eliminated by doing things that reduce understeer, such as higher front tire pressure, higher rear spring and shock rates, big rear swaybars. It is most measurable in use by the amount of steering input needed to correct any movement of the van due to wind or other things. We have seen vans go from needing well over an inch of steering wheel correction to under 1/2", at which point the drive gets much easier for the driver.


You mentioned the dual rears increase rear traction and thus increase understeer, which is what I have always felt driving any dual rear wheel truck, lots of understeer and large corrections needed for wind push.


How does the dual rear wheels make the van more "stable" as you put it? Understeer, in my experience, nearly always makes a vehicle feel sluggish to the steering input. The only time increasing understeer has seemed desirable would be if the there was dangerous oversteer or if the steering input was so quick the vehicle felt "twitchy". I totally understand the spinout reduction, but with the rear weight we have, I would think that would be very unlikely anyway unless on ice. For most on here, wind push, trucks passing, and tire grooves in the road pushing on mismatched front and rear track widths seem to be the major issues.


Any input would be greatly appreciated, this is an ongoing discussion here that comes back up regularly with most all of the vans.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by hepcat

Look... Avanti... you and I have clashed a number of times about technology. My education is in information systems. My experience with computerized technology began with COBOL and punch cards, and I remain conversant in most of the technology available today. I am certainly NOT a luddite. I AM however, a realist, and as such not one to trust technology to the extent that many do as I recognize EVERY piece of technology has a MTBF rate.

If you understand these concepts as well as you say you do, I suggest you look up a few MTBFs for the various technologies you are comparing and do the math.

Without quantification, what you are saying is gibberish. You will find that the numbers will not support your arguments. Of course, even with the numbers, if you are going to compare home falls with tire failures, we aren't going to get anywhere. You may want to read up on the techniques of risk assessment before making that kind of claim.

[Roadtrek Adventuous RS1]

Originally Posted by hepcat

Look... Avanti... you and I have clashed a number of times about technology. My education is in information systems. My experience with computerized technology began with COBOL and punch cards, and I remain conversant in most of the technology available today. I am certainly NOT a luddite. I AM however, a realist, and as such not one to trust technology to the extent that many do as I recognize EVERY piece of technology has a MTBF rate.

Digital technology remains inherently unreliable and we've based our entire societal structure upon that inherently unreliable technology. It's certainly becoming more reliable, and of course I use it, but that still doesn't make it "reliable." Any automobile built in the past twenty years is completely computerized. However, if this technology were completely reliable, there'd be no need for replacement parts from auto makers, or computer repair shops. I personally own a significant amount of technology, and I also understand how it works. I also know that it fails often enough that I won't rely on it. We were talking in another thread a while back about cell phones and how some folks believe that they're a perfectly acceptable "safety solution." About a month ago a digital cable was cut in a town forty miles from my house. It was apparently a trunk line to the internet backbone, and it took down not only the internet, but landlines as well. There was NO communication in or out of our entire county (and three others) for about ten hours. Power sources are fallible. Sensors are fallible. Wireless systems are subject to EM interference. And cables get cut and cell towers burn in wildfires. Technology fails at regular intervals, and mostly at the worst possible time. If you use it, but don't rely on it for your safety, you'll likely be in a better position when it DOES fail.

TPMS is a nice luxury, and as I said, it allows me to be lazy about manually checking the pressures on my Jeep; but I have to disagree that it's "an essential safety feature" on any vehicle any more than not carrying a cell phone would inherently put me at some kind of risk. Sorry.

Sometimes it helps to keep a little perspective about what is really "dangerous." I retired after thirty years in law enforcement. I've been shot at. I've been injured in more places in fights over the years than I'd believe I had places. I've investigated hundreds of crashes and literally dozens of homicides and other unattended deaths. I've ridden out a rear flat on a BMW motorcycle at speed. I've survived a trailer sway event as a result of mechanical failure of the hitch. Remember that you are still many times more likely to be injured or killed in a fall in your home, or by a drunk driver than you are to be injured in a tire-related incident.

WOW, WOW, WOW.....

Yeah, everything is fallible ... including us.
I'd rather have the technology, cellphones, computers and all the other modern safety equipment...

I don't want to be riding in a "Calistoga Wagon" either.....in other words.... give me a newer and safer vehicle ....I don't like "old cars".....

Statistically, you're safer in a newer car than an old one...ABS, electronic stability control, air bags, the list goes on.....

It's ALL about exposure and I'd like avoid these situations ....it's not just one thing like TPMS...it's all of these combined... I have TPMS and I think it's a good idea just another tool.

I used to have a trailer before my RS...got rid of it because I don't want to have that either...the single vehicle is safer and easier........

If you don't want to have the extra bells and whistles that's fine.... Just keep driving...

It's probably more important on a taller and heavier vehicle like Avanti and I have.....
It appears that your rig is closer to the ground than ours are...

This should NOT be a "great debate".... just use the equipment you want......

I ALWAYS find it "interesting" that the people who are in "information technology" are the last people to get on board with new technology...??? I found this to be the case when I was working as well..... don't know why?????

Good luck in your travels.....

[avanti]

Originally Posted by Roadtrek Adventuous RS1

I ALWAYS find it "interesting" that the people who are in "information technology" are the last people to get on board with new technology...??? I found this to be the case when I was working as well..... don't know why?????

Yeah, this is a good point.

I spent the first third of my career at a major research university which was one of the pioneers of modern computing (I was an Internet user when there were a total of a few thousand of us). We had email and word processing before just about anybody else. The thing is, though, that over time there was a strong case of "technological lock-in". Eventually, large-scale commercial systems became much better than the early university prototypes, but we were among the last to adopt them, because everybody was used to these "sophisticated" systems and the commercial equivalents somehow seemed "crude" or "watered down". The final result was that we had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the world of commercially-delivered IT. It was kind of funny.

[GeorgeRa]

I like technologies for either safety or performance improvement. Technologies come and go, how many jewels you watch have, smart watch has a little of silicon but the meaning of quality by the number of jewels is gone, gone forever.

But, I am not necessary in the early adoption crowd, I wait some time if I can. I just switch to the full frame camera system, a little late.

Early adaption crowds bear young technologies prices. A rear-view mirror with built in camera is significantly more expensive than a dumb mirror, these costs are reflected in insurance costs. Recently I questioned my insurance agent about year to year higher costs even thou I have the perfect record, his answer was – technologies.

[Storysrvwego]

15jul
Roadtrek Adventurus - I agree with BBQ all that was said; " Single drives better, rides better, quieter, feels less bumps, have better traction in the winter, gives better fuel economy, easier to maintain, cheaper to replace, cheaper snow tires, less intrusion into the cabin (ie more room for your RV stuff)...".

Of course the duals increase load carrying capacity but I found they have a number of disadvantages which mostly are covered.in BBQ's statement above. There are two additional and significant issues to point out - (1) Duallies mean there us a larger, heavuer duty rear axle. Just the fact that there is a rear axle means the body on frame must sit higher. Now there are positive points for this design including more ground clearance and potentially more undercarriage storage. But (2) the dually equipped coaches have more roll you will feel when standing still or moving. Especially going around corners and cross winds. The axle and tires are well panted but the sprung chassis with higher coach on top are sway a bunch more. In some circumstances, a bit more scary although experience behind the wheel helps to anticipate and control before something bad happens.

The single wheels on the non-differential rear axle of the front wheel drive RAM Promiser is dramatically different in a good way. The chief downside of this design is the load carrying limitation versus the others. Bottom line is you have to pick the chassis and coach combination that best matches your travel requirements. And to some degree, the piggy bank.

Heavier duty body on frame with rear wheel drive and duellies is what I would have picked for off pavement use. Potentually a big pocketbook hit if we are talking about a MERCEDES sprinter. Since my wife well and I are Probably done with dusty vehicle camping, our no-towing pavement travels work with the Promaster. No towing means we fit in more places. If we want to go to town, a Class B duels or singles is quick to fold up and go. In town, backing up single rear tires with some turning involved is simpler. Especially if parallel parking has to be done. Lots of choices you can ponder before u buy.

Storysrvwego

Unfortunately because tge coach sits higher, t

[MotoVan]

Originally Posted by booster

A question for you, as it is your area of expertise.

What nearly all of us with SRW vans have found out is that the wind and other instabilities can be mostly eliminated by doing things that reduce understeer, such as higher front tire pressure, higher rear spring and shock rates, big rear swaybars. It is most measurable in use by the amount of steering input needed to correct any movement of the van due to wind or other things. We have seen vans go from needing well over an inch of steering wheel correction to under 1/2", at which point the drive gets much easier for the driver.

You mentioned the dual rears increase rear traction and thus increase understeer, which is what I have always felt driving any dual rear wheel truck, lots of understeer and large corrections needed for wind push.

This is a good observation and an excellent question. I will try to explain it without going too far into technical terminology. But I still have to use some.

Vehicles that have understeer (all on the road) have the front axle cornering stiffness lower than the rear. When the lateral acceleration increases, the front "washes out" more than the rear does, resulting in an understeer.

When the side wind pushes on the side of the van, the same things happens -- the front end washes out. You have to add a steering correction by steering into the wind.

Vehicles with a more neutral handling have a more similar front and rear axle cornering stiffnesses. Both the front and the rear end wash out by roughly the same (usually smaller) amount. The van does not get rotated away from the wind, requiring a steering correction, but instead gets pushed a little sideways, actually rotating *into* the wind all by itself. No steering correction is necessary.

Originally Posted by booster

How does the dual rear wheels make the van more "stable" as you put it? Understeer, in my experience, nearly always makes a vehicle feel sluggish to the steering input. The only time increasing understeer has seemed desirable would be if the there was dangerous oversteer or if the steering input was so quick the vehicle felt "twitchy". I totally understand the spinout reduction, but with the rear weight we have, I would think that would be very unlikely anyway unless on ice. For most on here, wind push, trucks passing, and tire grooves in the road pushing on mismatched front and rear track widths seem to be the major issues.

Any input would be greatly appreciated, this is an ongoing discussion here that comes back up regularly with most all of the vans.

Dual rear wheels increase the understeer. A stiffer rear bar decreases it. You can end up with roughly the same amount of understeer in the end. You can even decrease your understeer even more. But in any case, the cornering stiffnesses on both axles will increase. This is because a stiffer rear bar will take the weight transfer off of the front axle, and will result in an increased front axle cornering stiffness. The vehicle will not be as susceptible to side winds as before. Any steering corrections will be more effective.

[booster]

Originally Posted by MotoVan

This is a good observation and an excellent question. I will try to explain it without going too far into technical terminology. But I still have to use some.

Vehicles that have understeer (all on the road) have the front axle cornering stiffness lower than the rear. When the lateral acceleration increases, the front "washes out" more than the rear does, resulting in an understeer.

When the side wind pushes on the side of the van, the same things happens -- the front end washes out. You have to add a steering correction by steering into the wind.

Vehicles with a more neutral handling have a more similar front and rear axle cornering stiffnesses. Both the front and the rear end wash out by roughly the same (usually smaller) amount. The van does not get rotated away from the wind, requiring a steering correction, but instead gets pushed a little sideways, actually rotating *into* the wind all by itself. No steering correction is necessary.


Dual rear wheels increase the understeer. A stiffer rear bar increases it. You can end up with roughly the same amount of understeer in the end. You can even decrease your understeer even more. But in any case, the cornering stiffnesses on both axles will increase. This is because a stiffer rear bar will take the weight transfer off of the front axle, and will result in an increased front axle cornering stiffness. The vehicle will not be as susceptible to side winds as before. Any steering corrections will be more effective.

As you describe the first section is very much how we have seen our van "dial in". You can literally feel when you get to the point of the entire van moving over, rather than just the front. Add to that front push the fact that the same thing that is causing the push, rear rocking, is also causing some rear steer and the benefits of getting more neutral show up quickly. Straight on side hits of wind mostly just move us over a little which is easy to walk back. The only time we really need immediate correction, albeit small, would be from corning hits diagonally of wind.


Is this a typo?

Dual rear wheels increase the understeer. A stiffer rear bar increases it.

Shouldn't it be the bigger rear bar decreases understeer, thus counteracting the duals propensity to increase understeer? The description of the effects would indicate a reduction in understeer with the big bar.


I could use a quick opinion/guess on our van. I recently reduced the rear spring rate to get better ride by removing the huge, extremely high rate, overload leaf from the springpack and picking up that weight with lwer rate airbags. The ride has improved a lot. The question is if with the lower spring rate in the rear, which should increase understeer (which I don't want to do), should I go up a size on the rear swaybar. The bar I have in there is a dirt track style interchangeable bar, so I can easily swap it out for a bigger one. I would imagine that this should counteract the lower rear spring rate's effect on the understeer. Rear bar is currently a 1.375" and I can get stock bars in 1.437" and 1.500". The van still handles very well, but might have lost a small amount in very hard wind hits. I don't mind risking going to far with understeer reduction as I can just go back to the smaller size rear bar very easily.

[rsmitch2@gmail.com]

Dual wheels are great for stability with heavier rigs like sprinter 3500 and I am amazed at how well we corner however the downside may well be winter driving with less weight per square inch on the combined two wheels contact patch. I plan to carry cable chains if heading south from B.C. in winter. In the case of the Mercedes Sprinter vans the 3500 have you a 22'-9 body.
Just drove North to Yukon and back 6000 km of twisty roads which I have driven many times with cars, pick ups, trailers stuff and driving at 60-70 mph I was really surprised at the handling. Cheers Roger

[booster]

Originally Posted by rsmitch2@gmail.com

Dual wheels are great for stability with heavier rigs like sprinter 3500 and I am amazed at how well we corner however the downside may well be winter driving with less weight per square inch on the combined two wheels contact patch. I plan to carry cable chains if heading south from B.C. in winter. In the case of the Mercedes Sprinter vans the 3500 have you a 22'-9 body.
Just drove North to Yukon and back 6000 km of twisty roads which I have driven many times with cars, pick ups, trailers stuff and driving at 60-70 mph I was really surprised at the handling. Cheers Roger

Does your Sprinter has stability control and wind assist? If so, that could also be a large contributor towards good handling.

[Caserta]

I have a Sprinter based Class B with Dual tires. Due to the high centre of gravity, I was very happy to have the extra stability when on 2 separate occasions I was called upon to take evasive action to shift lanes when I was suddenly faced with an eminent collision. I had no problem justifying the extra expense and inconveniences after having avoided possible rollovers or worse.

[MotoVan]

Originally Posted by booster

Is this a typo?

Yes, sorry. A stiffer rear bar decreases understeer.

Originally Posted by booster

I could use a quick opinion/guess on our van. I recently reduced the rear spring rate to get better ride by removing the huge, extremely high rate, overload leaf from the springpack and picking up that weight with lwer rate airbags. The ride has improved a lot. The question is if with the lower spring rate in the rear, which should increase understeer (which I don't want to do), should I go up a size on the rear swaybar.

Yes, absolutely. When you went with softer rear springs you not only gained understeer, but you also lost the roll stiffness. The van will roll more in turns and from the sidewind. You must use a thicker rear bar to restore the balance and get the roll stiffness back.

[hepcat]

Originally Posted by avanti

Without quantification, what you are saying is gibberish. You will find that the numbers will not support your arguments. Of course, even with the numbers, if you are going to compare home falls with tire failures, we aren't going to get anywhere. You may want to read up on the techniques of risk assessment before making that kind of claim.

You claim I'm spouting gibberish without "quantification." A direct comparison for this particular issue would be the number of accidental deaths in the home annually (about 6,000) vs. the number of auto deaths attributed to loss of control due to tire failure. (a small enough number that it's not quantified in the 36,000 annual traffic fatalities in the U.S.)

Since this forum is about driving, a more salient comparison in this discussion in "risk assessment" is actually the number of motor vehicle fatalities from OTHER causes vs. fatalities from tire failure. Statistically, the discussion of prevention of fatalities from all other causes of traffic accidents pretty much eclipse discussion of this issue as the number is so small as to be statistically insignificant.

Then we could examine the leading cause of accidents, driver distraction, and the role OTHER technologies play in distracting drivers (radios, cell phones, even auto dash displays.) There is also another phenomenon at play: the risk compensation effect of technology.

Despite your claims to the contrary, technology is NOT the safety panacea you seem to believe it is. Is it useful? Of course. Would I prefer not to have it? Of course not. Does it make our lives more comfortable and our cars more mechanically reliable? Of course. Does it automatically improve safety by its very presence? No.

As anecdotal evidence that technology does NOT offer "safety," allow me to offer a story from my years as a law enforcement executive. Cops rely on communication. For the past nearly seventy years, that communication technology has been primarily radio. Law enforcement found that technology so important that not only did it equip patrol cars with it, each officer got a portable radio as well.

Going to a call that has the potential of turning violent always gets a radio call for more officers to assist while an officer is enroute, and the radio is properly used tactically to direct resources toward the problem. However, when you're AT an incident that turns violent, and you're being assaulted, that is NOT the time to use the radio to try to get "help" to keep you safe. THAT is the time to think tactically and take that action you need to take to ensure your own safety and the safety of others.

Technology is passive. The radio will not fight with or for you. There are times when YOUR action is necessary. Using technology to communicate your plight to others should NOT be your primary goal when engaged in a violent confrontation; taking appropriate action to end the confrontation should be the primary goal. There should be no other thought than taking the action necessary to manage the violent confrontation to a successful conclusion. Yet, the history of law enforcement is littered with stories of cops who died with a radio in their hand rather than their gun. They relied on technology to save them rather than saving themselves. And that's especially difficult to do when technology (dispatch, for example) is nagging you to pay attention to IT instead of the threat at hand.

THAT, my friend, is the danger of the over-reliance on technology for "safety." Technology can do many things, and it can give you information that YOU can hopefully use to MAKE you more safe; but you can't rely on technology to save you from a bad situation when YOU need to be in charge of taking care of your OWN safety. And yet we see that every day in society. People believe that if they get themselves into a bad situation, that technology (either the technology itself, or by using technology to summon another person) will save them.

Smoke alarms in the home are a wonderful technology solution, but unless YOU have an evacuation plan to put into place to save YOURSELF when they go off, they're only noise makers. Another perfect example of that are car alarms. How many people actually go and investigate when a car alarm sounds? Why not?

Humans are notoriously poor at personal "risk assessment." We read about some volume of violent crime, and do everything we can to secure our home, buying alarms and the best locks, but feel perfectly safe coming and going from the grocery and don't even stop to consider that the next person you meet at the local grocery store or laundromat, or even at church, may be the bad guy who IS the burglar, rapist, or robber against whom you've so painstakingly armored your home. We are afraid of whatever it is that makes the news, and blissfully ignorant of most of the actual risks we face.

I hear over and over and over both in forums like this and in every day life how technology is making us more "safe." It just isn't necessarily so.