I couldn't believe my ears, driving aids not invasive enough.

volvoclearinghouse said:

In reply to imgon :

I'm actually not all for multitasking, in any instance.  It's been shown that regardless of what people think/ say, effective multi-tasking is not really a thing.  Turns out our brain is really good at doing one thing at a time.  

Where I live, using any sort of a phone/tablet/whatever is illegal while driving.  It's a primary offense.  Yet every single day not only do I see it happening, but I see it happening in such a way that it is obviously hampering the driver's ability to operate their motor vehicle.  Thus creating a dangerous situation for everybody.

Owning a brand new car now, I don't completely hate the 'e-nannies', insofar as they help the car do things better.  Look at it this way: when cars went from 4 wheel drum brakes to 4 wheel disc brakes, and tires improved, and suspension design got better, cars all stopped and steered way, way better than they used to.  ABS and traction control basically do the same thing- they help the car handle and stop better.  

But when the nannies tak control away from the driver, or allow the driver to be less involved in the driving experience- that's wherein the danger lies.

Figuring out a way to prevent electronic distraction behind the wheel and chemically-impaired driving would likely cut the number of accidents in half.  there's your biggest bang for the buck, right there.  

I should have explained my idea of multi tasking better. I will eat a snack or even fast food, listen to music, even have a light conversation on the phone. All of these things distract me a little but I try to keep my focus on driving. Too many people seem to believe the "driving aids" are some sort of auto pilot that will keep them from being harmed instead of something that will assist them if something goes sideways during their travels. I ride a motorcycle and it is imperative that I pay attention or I will die, in the grand scheme of things cars are the same but with a bit more protection/forgiveness. If the general population had that attitude we would all be better off. I think most of the nannies have some merit when used to assist you and your car drive more safely. It seems around here that once you have a steering wheel in front of you the rest of the world disappears and the road is all yours,. So many people I see are truly surprised when they realize there are other cars around them. I am frequently flipped off by people merging onto the highway when I don't get out of their way because there is an 18 wheeler in the left lane and I can't move over. Apparently yeild means get the berk out of my way. So technology is good, we need to  train people to be better drivers. Probably not going to happen here in Murica.

I don't want aids of any sort. Thanks. 

fasted58 said:

In reply to Woody :

lemme guess, Tacoma?

Bingo.

I would possibly accept autonomous cars if it meant abolishing such rigid (and often ridiculous) speed limits. If computers can become better at driving than people then I see no need for a speed "limit". Perhaps have a floating limit that adjusts for conditions. I do think it would be really cool to just be able to put it on autopilot and sleep or relax while on a trip.

That said I would never want to be restricted from the use of analog cars.

Joe Gearin said:

We had a new Lexus around the office recently that had the "lane centering" technology.  The car would constantly tug at the wheel to be sure you were in the center of the lane.  It was creepy, weird, and totally unnatural feeling.  I hated it.....until I took the ten minutes to navigate through the infotainment system to figure out how to turn the E36 M3 off.    

I would be surprised if they didn't have a less aggressive setting? They have it graded in the cx-5.

I think they definitely need tweaked. The Mazda lane departure system feels 10000% better than the Subaru system, but the subaru adaptive cruise is 1000% better than the mazda system (well 2017 MY to 2017 MY). Just like ABS and variable weight steering, this tech is all coming of age - It'll be hard to live without soon enough I believe - contrary to what a bunch of curmudgeons on the internet say ;)

Joe Gearin said:

I hope you like traveling at exactly the speed limit---- as autonomous cars won't speed.  

Backing up for a moment...

Autonomous cars will be able to ride at 90 mph 3" off the bumper of the car in front of them without increased risk.  Why would we need speed limits?

I envision the opposite... Speed limits will continue to rise with public pressure as safety stats get better and better.  This will make it increasingly obvious how unsafe manually driven cars are, which will increase the pressures from insurance companies, etc to get them off the road.

Will they ever figure out that the biggest bang for the buck is to train the person who is supposed to be in charge of driving the car.

I'm sure they know, but they can make a lot more money developing pre-autonomy 'safety aids' whereas a car manufacturer ostensibly has no power and no incentive to get involved with actual driver training.  When the autonomy stuff is ready (because really all these safety aids are just having people pay for the privilege to beta test their autonomous tech) and the use of cars basically turns from individual car ownership to a fleet of ride shares with a smaller total number of vehicles, the OEMs will be able to sell a much smaller number of much more standardized vehicles for a higher amount of money. And  since a lot of that money will pay for software development and offsetting liability costs, those costs will amortize as the software zeros in on perfect and eventually cars will be like 60+% profit because you'll just be building the box that your high-dollar (but paid for!) software will load into. That's the scenario I see that I think the industry is working towards. 

So some day 95% autonomous cars on the road and us driving around screwing with them trying to berkeley with their programming. 

Really it will be great for most people to just get in a car and play on their phone and better for the rest of us because they will not be driving.

 and better for the rest of us because they will not be driving.

Yeah but neither will we. The part where autonomous and human-operated (i used to think driving my own car WAS being autonomous, silly meatsack!) vehicles get to share the road will just be a short transitional period wherein any incidents between the two will be blamed on the human because the human won't be able to afford to take on the massive OEM with their proprietary billion dollar software that you would need to hire an army of programmers to reverse engineer to be able to prove that the car did something it shouldn't have done because of a glitch or flaw in, by extension, every single vehicle carrying that software. It will be david vs goliath except without the part where a deific entity 'delivers goliath into david's hand'. In other words, the human will lose.  

But that situation will only exist briefly until self-operating a vehicle is made so expensive that it's effectively 'illegal unless you are rich' , just as so many other things already are. 

Everyone in a driverless car.  Funny.  Almost without exception, when everyone thinks something is an inevitable forgone conclusion it doesn’t happen.  We were to be buzzing around in flying cars by 1960.  The concepts for such were proven workable in the 1930’s.  Cars were built that flew.  Well a handful anyway.  

Vigo said:

Will they ever figure out that the biggest bang for the buck is to train the person who is supposed to be in charge of driving the car.

I'm sure they know, but they can make a lot more money developing pre-autonomy 'safety aids' whereas a car manufacturer ostensibly has no power and no incentive to get involved with actual driver training.  When the autonomy stuff is ready (because really all these safety aids are just having people pay for the privilege to beta test their autonomous tech) and the use of cars basically turns from individual car ownership to a fleet of ride shares with a smaller total number of vehicles, the OEMs will be able to sell a much smaller number of much more standardized vehicles for a higher amount of money. And  since a lot of that money will pay for software development and offsetting liability costs, those costs will amortize as the software zeros in on perfect and eventually cars will be like 60+% profit because you'll just be building the box that your high-dollar (but paid for!) software will load into. That's the scenario I see that I think the industry is working towards. 

next gen civic new for 2030 model year with a low MSRP base model of 49,000

uhhh how much for a bus pass in the future? 

this is getting out hand. 

Driverless cars are happening, they're better than us at it for 99.99% of the situations. Adoption will happen based on rising insurance costs for human driven cars - now I'm not sure the timetable, but it's happening. Google has proven that they're better then human drivers even this early in the technology's lifecycle. Crazy the number of incident free miles compared to a human driver (uber and friends not withstanding). They don't check their phones, they have redundancies for their redundancies, they see in 360*, they don't forget to check their blind spots,  and - most importantly - they learn from their mistakes nearly immediately. 

Just checkout the CDC's chart for top 3 causes of death by age group. As a group, we're really, really bad at driving. 

In reply to accordionfolder :

I couldn't disagree more.  I find "driver aids" distracting, and intrusive.  I'd rather not have lane-change warnings, adaptive cruise, or lane centering tech.  These "aids" take away from the enjoyment of the machine for me---- especially if they can't be disabled.   It's not hard for me to live without these nannies, and I can't ever see a day where I'd miss them.

It's refreshing for me to get out of a new car, and back into my 20+ year old BMW, or my even older TR6......and just DRIVE!   But I know....I know......I'm being a reckless danger to others.....

In reply to Joe Gearin :

I doubt I'll change anyone's mind on anything - I most certainly enjoy driving, just stating my opinion as I see it. I'm glad you enjoy your vehicles. I wouldn't want anyone I loved commuting in anything resembling pre-2013 tech. Just look at the survivability statistics. Now matter how good a driver you are, there's always some idiot on a phone in an SUV ready to waylay you. 

They can have my motorcycle when they pry it from my cold, dead hands. 

In reply to Appleseed :

If you drive your motorcycle like some folks do, that shouldn't be too far in the future.  Good luck, Stay safe.  

In reply to Appleseed :

Well, statistically, they're more likely to at least.

"According to the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), you are 37 times more likely to die in a motorcycle accident than a car accident"

 

Joe Gearin said:

In reply to accordionfolder :

I couldn't disagree more.  I find "driver aids" distracting, and intrusive.

Last note, statistically this has been proven untrue as a general statement. Though - your opinion is just that, your opinion. 

http://www.autoconnectedcar.com/2016/02/subaru-eyesight-adas-stats-show-fewer-collisions-injuries-deaths/

"The survey revealed that vehicles equipped with the EyeSight driver assist system had 80% fewer front-to-rear crashes (crashes into the vehicles in front) and 50% fewer accidents involving pedestrians, when measured in terms of accidents per 10,000 vehicles."

In reply to accordionfolder :

I can see your point, and if I had kids my mindset might be different.   I've been driving for over 30 years, and in that time I've traveled hundreds of thousands of miles.  I've never been involved in a wreck that a newer car would have "saved" me from, or made any difference whatsoever.   I refuse to live life in fear, and I even ride a motorcycle without a helmet on occasion. (gasp!)  It's not smart, but neither is riding a bike to begin with, or racing a car for that matter.   Life is full of risk, I'm going to have a good time while I'm here.   When my ticket is called, it's called.   I could die from a heart attack laying in bed, (which I nearly did)  or die racing a schoolbus in a figure-8 race. (which I've also done)  I'll take my chances and see how long I can avoid the grim reaper.   As long as I'm not putting anyone else in danger, live and let live.  

In reply to Joe Gearin :

Understood, I'm just laying my .02 on the table with everyone else.

I have said for decades, the more we try to idiot proof things, the better idiots we make. 

A 401 CJ said:

Everyone in a driverless car.  Funny.  Almost without exception, when everyone thinks something is an inevitable forgone conclusion it doesn’t happen.  We were to be buzzing around in flying cars by 1960.  The concepts for such were proven workable in the 1930’s.  Cars were built that flew.  Well a handful anyway.  

How's that horse drawn buggy working for you?

bobzilla said:

I have said for decades, the more we try to idiot proof things, the better idiots we make. 

That's the sad reality of things. Then you talk about a basic skills test before allowing reproduction and people look at you like your insane, when all you want to do is eliminate the idiot gene from the pool. 

Two thoughts on this topic. First of all, drove a Toyota rental "appliance" last year with all the lane change crap and warnings. Hated it, kept tugging at the steering wheel if it did not like my line and the beeping was a pain in the rear. Not a fan, Mazda will hopefully never put any of this crap in the MX5 or I'll never consider a newer one.

Second, Car and Driver just did an article on the technology where they tested multiple cars and had an inflatable "car" they used for the various tests. Most of the cars failed 50% of the time and the conclusion was that while the technology might help prevent some accidents, it is certainly not what is shown on TV where the cars steer, brake and save you from your distracted driving while you are texting your friends and not paying attention to the road.

Final thought, we are the 1% of the population that still want a clutch pedal, that don't want electronic assists, that want to drive our cars and enjoy doing so. We are not the normal population and the number of cars that we will be interested in driving will continue to diminish as the industry keeps moving towards SUV's, Crossovers and similar. I know that automated cars are coming, but I personally am not interested and wonder what will become of my prehistoric cars from the 60's and 70's in my garage in the age of automated cars.

I personally hate nannies when driving.  They are calibrated for textbook driving, not how people drive in MS, or PA, or CA. Whenever I drive mom's new GMC Acadia, it vibrates the left or right seat bolster for lane departure or a vehicle in your blind spot.  It scares the crap out of you.  It also does it when parallel parking to warn you there is an obstruction by your back tire.

My former boss had a Nissan Murano with that automatic cruise control that slowed down when traffic ahead of you was slowing down, but it left like 10 car lengths.  Then you went around a turn and it "lost" the car ahead of you and sped up through the turn, then rediscovered the car ahead after the turn and hit the brakes.  That kind of driving is more dangerous to traffic flow than if I had just done it myself.

I like some things as preventative.  Emergency obstacle braking when a kid runs out in front of you?  Great.  Steering wheels that yank you back into your lane when you're trying to make a legit lane change?  berkeleying dangerous.

Preventative stuff can save lives and its great, but when a car starts making choices for you, it's a little too Asimov for me.