Next car?

[KEW]

Airbags saved my life no question. But seatbelts and airbags aren't the same as driver aids. There are instances where these things help from unexpected events that might have resulted in an accident. That's NOT why they're being implemented. Judgement? Too many people just don't take it seriously. Instead of teaching people to drive, we compensate with electronics, which are also not 100% infallible (less than humans of course). YES, we are directly on a path to self driving cars. I live smack dab in the heart of self driving car technology.

No consequences? That's like saying I will keep drinking until my liver fails because I was still alive until it did, or I'll keep hitting myself in the head with a hammer because it didn't kill me the first time. That's not logic either, nor does it address the issue. The accident was preventable and should not have happened and yes I would have preferred that it didn't happen.

I'd rather live in a world where people didn't need assists. She didn't hit it because she had kids in the car or spilled coffee in her lap. She hit it because she was on the phone and late for an appointment. So the assist saves my car, but eventually she will do something that the car doesn't prevent and there will be a more serious accident and people will get injured or worse because she didn't learn anything from from that near miss.

Are you sure the person who hit your car learned something from it? I might think the person who is so enmeshed with their phone-social-life might straighten up for a few weeks, but eventually "get bored" and gravitate back to her old ways. Perhaps if we got rid of insurance so she had to pay for the accident out of her own pocket it would be a more effective lesson!

There seem to be two common themes to your responses:
One is the idea that people should never cause accidents in the first place.
But we know that people have never been consistently capable in this context.

The other is that by using driver-aids to prevent a minor accident now, we are leading to a more disastrous accident later. I think this is the real disconnect between our attitudes! You may be right, but why don't you think the aid system would prevent the bigger event!

I think it is safe to say that as long as the net number of accidents/fatalities per mile driven decreases, these devices are here to stay.

 

[Irvrobinson]

These are all interesting questions and issues. I've wondered with emergency braking technology, will it prevent your car from hitting something ahead, but in doing so cause a vehicle behind you to hit you, because it can't stop as quickly? Hmmm... is it better to be hit from the rear than strike something?

Some of my friends work on autonomous vehicle technology. One question we have discussed... if self-driving technology was twice as good as human drivers, as measured by causing half the deaths and injuries as human drivers, wouldn't society benefit greatly from its use even though it would be far from perfect? In 2017 there were about 40,000 deaths caused by vehicle collisions. If just 1% of the cars on the road were self-driving using the flawed technology perhaps hundreds of lives per year would be saved, along with a larger number of avoided injuries. We are expecting perfection from software, yet we accept ineptitude and stupidity from humans. A real quandary.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Idiocracy.

Jokes asides, actually it's even worse than that:

 

[slipperybidness]

Totally agree. I like sensors and warnings, like the lane change assist and cameras, but stop talking, texting, eating, drinking, fiddling with the audio system, or fiddling with some body part, pay attention and drive the damned car!

My old 1985 300ZX didn't even have cup holders!

The intent is clear: When you are in this car, you DRIVE IT!

 

[Montucky]

Nobody is 100% perfect. Sorry though, the vast majority of those "aids" were all implemented because people are stupid. Lane assist? really? You need your car to tell you to pay attention enough to keep your car in your lane, as in basic driving 101? Yes, they help and they help with other drivers make mistakes or there are unexpected things like deer, potholes, etc... but at the end of the day, you are in that car and need to own the responsibility of being behind the wheel.

A girl I work with was just rear ended badly last week. The other driver admitted she fell asleep. Yes, driver aids could have prevented that collision, but it would not have SOLVED THE PROBLEM. Bad drivers will continue to be bad drivers. Nowhere did I say stupid people should die because they're not capable of driving a car properly, but all those driver aids do not make them better drivers. It will just save their bacon and then they will still be doing the same thing.

Your points are perfectly exemplified by the many idiots who have been wrecking Teslas while using the so-called "auto-pilot." Sure, it's a sweet feature and one I'd likely use if I had it, BUT people are abusing it by totally tuning out and not paying attention, falling asleep, whatever. People are treating these features as license to pay zero attention.

These aids are certainly helpful and have saved many lives I'm sure, BUT I think it's a double-edged sword as people become more reliant and complacent. It's bad enough that people are so oblivious to the world around them as they are focused on their phones 24/7, but while operating a vehicle? That's inexcusable, but we're seeing it more and more. It's only going to get worse as these features become more prevalent, and eventually mandated. Personally I am not liking the trend. But then again, I prefer a good old fashioned manual transmissions and a lack of most of the newer nanny devices. Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of seat belts, airbags, ABS, stability/traction control, but none of those devices allow you to pay less attention to the road. "Autopilot" clearly does, and every manufacturer out there is racing to implement it.

 

[slipperybidness]

Nobody is 100% perfect. Sorry though, the vast majority of those "aids" were all implemented because people are stupid. Lane assist? really? You need your car to tell you to pay attention enough to keep your car in your lane, as in basic driving 101? Yes, they help and they help with other drivers make mistakes or there are unexpected things like deer, potholes, etc... but at the end of the day, you are in that car and need to own the responsibility of being behind the wheel.

A girl I work with was just rear ended badly last week. The other driver admitted she fell asleep. Yes, driver aids could have prevented that collision, but it would not have SOLVED THE PROBLEM. Bad drivers will continue to be bad drivers. Nowhere did I say stupid people should die because they're not capable of driving a car properly, but all those driver aids do not make them better drivers. It will just save their bacon and then they will still be doing the same thing.

My car was hit by a distracted driver in a parking lot.

My take on it, all these driver aids are simply paving the way and collecting a large data set for the full-automation that IS coming in the future.

 

[panteragstk]

These are all interesting questions and issues. I've wondered with emergency braking technology, will it prevent your car from hitting something ahead, but in doing so cause a vehicle behind you to hit you, because it can't stop as quickly? Hmmm... is it better to be hit from the rear than strike something?

Some of my friends work on autonomous vehicle technology. One question we have discussed... if self-driving technology was twice as good as human drivers, as measured by causing half the deaths and injuries as human drivers, wouldn't society benefit greatly from its use even though it would be far from perfect? In 2017 there were about 40,000 deaths caused by vehicle collisions. If just 1% of the cars on the road were self-driving using the flawed technology perhaps hundreds of lives per year would be saved, along with a larger number of avoided injuries. We are expecting perfection from software, yet we accept ineptitude and stupidity from humans. A real quandary.

The saying goes "if you build something as idiot proof, they'll just build a better idiot" and cars are a big part of that. I'm personally very much in favor of getting tested to keep your license every 10 years or so. Too old? No more license. Too stupid? No more license. However, some people will just drive anyway. Until we integrate some sort of authentication mechanism that verifies the validity of your license. Then people will complain about a privacy violation.

There is no perfect solution, but there's no reason not to work toward one. Autonomous cars are a good solution, but those are far from perfect as you said.

I'm also of the mind that you should have to get a license to have children, but that's another discussion...

 

[ParadigmDawg]

Oh crap. I inadvertently had my car modded and now it's faster than my AMG.
My buddy did the same exact mods on the same exact car and took it to the dragstrip. 12.50 in the quarter mile and 4.1 second 0-60.

Now this car is really fun.

Got the M40 about where I want it. Ran it at the track and pulled 4.15 sec 0-60 mph, 60ft time was 1.77 sec with some tire spin, 1/8 mile was 7.95@87.03 mph and 1/4 mile was 12.48@101.42.

It still has more in it but I that's as aggressive as I am going to tune it. I have it were I can adjust tuning maps via bluetooth from my phone so I leave it it stock mode or up one map for daily driving. If a punk in a burner wants to play I can go up to map 3 on my normal octane of 93 and it still runs similar times up to the 1/8 mile and then falls to 12.77 by the 1/4. It requires 96 octane to go to my map 5 which is the top map I have set for it and what I ran my best numbers on.

Pretty impressed for a SUV with an inline 6 motor.

 

[slipperybidness]

These are all interesting questions and issues. I've wondered with emergency braking technology, will it prevent your car from hitting something ahead, but in doing so cause a vehicle behind you to hit you, because it can't stop as quickly? Hmmm... is it better to be hit from the rear than strike something?

Some of my friends work on autonomous vehicle technology. One question we have discussed... if self-driving technology was twice as good as human drivers, as measured by causing half the deaths and injuries as human drivers, wouldn't society benefit greatly from its use even though it would be far from perfect? In 2017 there were about 40,000 deaths caused by vehicle collisions. If just 1% of the cars on the road were self-driving using the flawed technology perhaps hundreds of lives per year would be saved, along with a larger number of avoided injuries. We are expecting perfection from software, yet we accept ineptitude and stupidity from humans. A real quandary.

We are already getting into AI ethics with these techs!

For example: A crash is inevitable, but there is a choice to crash into a vehicle or avoid the vehicle but crash into a motorcycle or a pedestrian. What choice does the AI make? Does the AI protect the person in the vehicle above all others? Does the AI try to minimize the damage that any individual will sustain? How are these decisions made?

This is the world that we live in now.

 

[Montucky]

In regard to auto nanny features, if you gotta have it, then I think that Cadillac just hit the nail on the head in regard to HOW to implement best so far. It has sensors that make sure you're actually paying attention to the road. They also don't advertise it as "autopilot" but rather more of an enhanced cruise control. To me that's a good middle ground.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/06/butt-kicking-super-cruise-coming-to-all-my2020-cadillacs-more-gms-later/

...it comes with a proper driver-monitoring system. That's important, because Super Cruise is not a fully autonomous system; it's not even at level 3 of the increasingly unhelpful SAE levels of self-driving. So the human behind the wheel is always responsible for situational awareness. To this end, Super Cruise only works if it sees you're paying attention to the road ahead. An infrared camera on the steering column tracks your head position and gaze. Look away from the road for more than a few seconds and the warnings start. Ignore the audio, visual, and haptic feedback for 15 seconds, and Super Cruise disengages.

 

[Sheep]

Your points are perfectly exemplified by the many idiots who have been wrecking Teslas while using the so-called "auto-pilot." Sure, it's a sweet feature and one I'd likely use if I had it, BUT people are abusing it by totally tuning out and not paying attention, falling asleep, whatever. People are treating these features as license to pay zero attention.

These aids are certainly helpful and have saved many lives I'm sure, BUT I think it's a double-edged sword as people become more reliant and complacent. It's bad enough that people are so oblivious to the world around them as they are focused on their phones 24/7, but while operating a vehicle? That's inexcusable, but we're seeing it more and more. It's only going to get worse as these features become more prevalent, and eventually mandated. Personally I am not liking the trend. But then again, I prefer a good old fashioned manual transmissions and a lack of most of the newer nanny devices. Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of seat belts, airbags, ABS, stability/traction control, but none of those devices allow you to pay less attention to the road. "Autopilot" clearly does, and every manufacturer out there is racing to implement it.

Don't confuse driving aids with automation. You cannot drive completely hands free with the systems i'm describing. They have sensors that know if you leave your hands off the wheel, and on my prime, it doesn't assist in steering, just alerts you that you've drifted over the line. That is why I like them, you can't watch a movie on autopilot on your ipad and drive with these (well you could, but it's a lot more work).I'm not for automation until everything is automated, and the system and road networks are built around it. They've got a ways to go with those systems as it's been pointed out, but it will be the future. I've done the whole transit to work work thing, and being able to take a load off is nice. Combine that with the pin point destination of your choosing instead of a mass transit head and you've got a really nice way to travel day to day.

SheepStar

 

[KEW]

We are already getting into AI ethics with these techs!

For example: A crash is inevitable, but there is a choice to crash into a vehicle or avoid the vehicle but crash into a motorcycle or a pedestrian. What choice does the AI make? Does the AI protect the person in the vehicle above all others? Does the AI try to minimize the damage that any individual will sustain? How are these decisions made?

This is the world that we live in now.

Great question, and I don't know the answer. But it does highlight the importance of time!
The huge benefit of the automated "machine" system is it is maintaining a constant vigil - attention is continuously focused in all of the areas considered important while people cannot maintain such attention on a continuing basis (if nothing else, we can only check one of those areas at a time). As J. Garcia mentioned, kids in the backseat, spilled coffee, as well as simply looking for a gas station, all distract us from the attention we would ideally devote to the road. I only check my blind spots when I am planning to go that way, but the "machine system" is always checking them so it can warn us if someone else is in the blind spot and about to hit us.
But to my point, these extra seconds (or fractions of a second) can make a big difference in reducing how often you are confronted with the "which accident is better" dilemma!

Also, I have to wonder how good we are at making those decisions. Obviously, if it is laid out as a word problem and we have time, we are good at it, but say you just changed the radio station and lookup to find you are about to rear end a car, you are liable to reflexively whip to the right before you have time to process the bicycle in the corner of your eye - any little bit of extra reaction time afforded by such a system is crucial, and that is one undeniable advantage of these systems (no matter how they are implemented)!!!
I don't know how these systems will work, I just have faith that they would not be implemented unless they help the bottom line (number of fatalities/major injuries per man-mile). I would speculate that in the situation I laid out above, the first thing an automated system would do is brake which is going to get your attention focused on the road and I would think the system would be designed to allow you to win a fight over control of the steering wheel.
But this is the problem and the reason we have so many opposing views. We are all speculating how it will work and I bet the designers of the systems have not yet worked out all of the details of how it should work...that will be determined, in part, by the results of the current proving trials.

 

[slipperybidness]

Great question, and I don't know the answer. But it does highlight the importance of time!
The huge benefit of the automated "machine" system is it is maintaining a constant vigil - attention is continuously focused in all of the areas considered important while people cannot maintain such attention on a continuing basis (if nothing else, we can only check one of those areas at a time). As J. Garcia mentioned, kids in the backseat, spilled coffee, as well as simply looking for a gas station, all distract us from the attention we would ideally devote to the road. I only check my blind spots when I am planning to go that way, but the "machine system" is always checking them so it can warn us if someone else is in the blind spot and about to hit us.
But to my point, these extra seconds (or fractions of a second) can make a big difference in reducing how often you are confronted with the "which accident is better" dilemma!

Also, I have to wonder how good we are at making those decisions. Obviously, if it is laid out as a word problem and we have time, we are good at it, but say you just changed the radio station and lookup to find you are about to rear end a car, you are liable to reflexively whip to the right before you have time to process the bicycle in the corner of your eye - any little bit of extra reaction time afforded by such a system is crucial, and that is one undeniable advantage of these systems (no matter how they are implemented)!!!
I don't know how these systems will work, I just have faith that they would not be implemented unless they help the bottom line (number of fatalities/major injuries per man-mile). I would speculate that in the situation I laid out above, the first thing an automated system would do is brake which is going to get your attention focused on the road and I would think the system would be designed to allow you to win a fight over control of the steering wheel.
But this is the problem and the reason we have so many opposing views. We are all speculating how it will work and I bet the designers of the systems have not yet worked out all of the details of how it should work...that will be determined, in part, by the results of the current proving trials.

Yeah, what I'm getting at is that we are quickly approaching a time where technological advances in the auto industry are now asking philosophical questions!

What about further in the future when your car does not even have a steering wheel?

 

[KEW]

Yeah, what I'm getting at is that we are quickly approaching a time where technological advances in the auto industry are now asking philosophical questions!

What about further in the future when your car does not even have a steering wheel?

Oh, that's easy! By then we will all have chips implanted and the car will quickly identify and crash into the person of lower ranking on the TKSESI (the Trump-Koch Socio-Economic Stature Index)!

 

[Mikado463]

My old 1985 300ZX didn't even have cup holders!

The intent is clear: When you are in this car, you DRIVE IT!

My baby has none of that stuff ........

 

[ParadigmDawg]

I had every option on my Mercedes but chose a smaller driving package on the Bimmer as I didn't think I would miss a few of the convenience driver assistance items like active lane assist and adaptive cruise. Turns out I did like the active lane assist as it made it way easier to do conference calls, while eating and driving with my knee....

I did get all the safety additions....because....ummmm....because I do conference calls and drive with my knee...

Crap...now that I think about it, adaptive cruise probably kept me from slamming into the back of people when I wasn't watching because I was eating, on a conference call and returning emails....

 

[Sheep]

I had every option on my Mercedes but chose a smaller driving package on the Bimmer as I didn't think I would miss a few of the convenience driver assistance items like active lane assist and adaptive cruise. Turns out I did like the active lane assist as it made it way easier to do conference calls, while eating and driving with my knee....

I did get all the safety additions....because....ummmm....because I do conference calls and drive with my knee...

Crap...now that I think about it, adaptive cruise probably kept me from slamming into the back of people when I wasn't watching because I was eating, on a conference call and returning emails....

Idiot proof car, meet, the better idiot.

SheepStar

 

[KEW]

It's good that you modded your car! You know what they say, you can never have too much power when your doing email, conference calls, eating, and driving with your knee!

 

[Irvrobinson]

Got the M40 about where I want it. Ran it at the track and pulled 4.15 sec 0-60 mph, 60ft time was 1.77 sec with some tire spin, 1/8 mile was 7.95@87.03 mph and 1/4 mile was 12.48@101.42.

Your 1/4 mile trap speed is a lot lower than I would expect. Car and Driver clocked 107mph. Is 101 a typo?

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

That is all I am trying to say.. Is CVTs cant' take the abuse of the cars they are putting them in today. Again Buy what you want .. Don't care

CVTs belong in snowmobiles and old man ATVs!