Have Useless "Safety" Features gone too far?

[.:4:.]

I think the issue is when people start to believe that these assists will prevent accidents, as opposed to being a warning system. I wouldn't complain if I had a car with all the safety stuff in it, but I'm happy enough with abs, dsc and airbags. Driving a ute for work with constantly changing loads it behaves differently day to day. Dsc and abs give some piece of mind, especially in the wet. As for the other systems it doesn't have I just like to stay alert. I also have no intention of trying out the airbags. My dad bought his missus a q5 audi with all the mod cons, and she turned them all off because they were constantly going off. That's the car telling her to learn to drive. Dad has no issues with any of that stuff going off at "random".

[XByoot]

Originally Posted by prydey

the tin foil hats are for all your kind that think technology is going to create anarchy on the roads.

look around you. how's the lack of technology working out?
.

Where did I say that? Your reply makes you sound rather ill informed by resorting to comments about "my kind". Really,how would you know about me to make that judgement ? So, what is your experience with this future technology that's headed for the automotive industry? Just maybe I work in an industry that has dealt with this sort of situation?? Oh that's right I'm thinking it's creating anarchy
Mate,open your eyes and learn,that all I'm suggesting, you might be wiser for it. Watch the videos? I wish you luck.

[CyberWasp]

I am still blaming all the people who drive Automatic Cars.
That is the genesis of Automation when you trace it all back.
You gave the Car the right to select gears and it was always going to be downhill from there.
I will be safe in my Manual Car when the day comes and SkyNet decides all Humans are unsafe drivers and terminates them all into a wall or something.

[.:4:.]

Originally Posted by CyberWasp

I am still blaming all the people who drive Automatic Cars.
That is the genesis of Automation when you trace it all back.
You gave the Car the right to select gears and it was always going to be downhill from there.
I will be safe in my Manual Car when the day comes and SkyNet decides all Humans are unsafe drivers and terminates them all into a wall or something.
image

I drive a manual but not by choice. It makes it so much harder to text while driving...... just a joke.. I spend usually around 2 hours a day in stop start traffic to I rarely even find 3rd gear during the day.

[TheInterceptor]

Originally Posted by CyberWasp

I am still blaming all the people who drive Automatic Cars.
That is the genesis of Automation when you trace it all back.
You gave the Car the right to select gears and it was always going to be downhill from there.
I will be safe in my Manual Car when the day comes and SkyNet decides all Humans are unsafe drivers and terminates them all into a wall or something.
image

No, automatics are a great example of useful technological advancements. Makes light work of the huge traffic jams these days, makes towing easier, great for older or disabled people (bad knees etc) and some kinds of offroad aswell not to mention gives quicker times drag racing.

Comparable to windscreen wipers. Useful advancement. Unless you think wipers are distractive to drivers this is nothing but true.

Things like lane assist is just clutching at straws for crap to put in cars these days. Its a "look at my cars they have more tech therfore better and we market it as a saftey device which people lap up like crazy because its SAFE" load of crap.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by XByoot

comments about "my kind".

i was merely noting that you seem to be in the 'anti' camp.

resistance to change is not new.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by CyberWasp

I am still blaming all the people who drive Automatic Cars.
That is the genesis of Automation when you trace it all back.
You gave the Car the right to select gears and it was always going to be downhill from there.
I will be safe in my Manual Car when the day comes and SkyNet decides all Humans are unsafe drivers and terminates them all into a wall or something.
image

I like to think it would start by terminating right lane hoggers and work from there. Pity there isn't a safety feature in modern cars to remind folks to keep left.

[.:4:.]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

I like to think it would start by terminating right lane hoggers and work from there. Pity there isn't a safety feature in modern cars to remind folks to keep left.

There sort of is. The giant signs that say keep left unless overtaking. Problem is you need to be looking through the windscreen to see them not at whatever else is more distracting. Anyone know the reason the merge signs changed to change lane signs?

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by XByoot

Where did I say that? Your reply makes you sound rather ill informed by resorting to comments about "my kind". Really,how would you know about me to make that judgement ? So, what is your experience with this future technology that's headed for the automotive industry? Just maybe I work in an industry that has dealt with this sort of situation?? Oh that's right I'm thinking it's creating anarchy
Mate,open your eyes and learn,that all I'm suggesting, you might be wiser for it. Watch the videos? I wish you luck.

Well I would imagine in years to come accident statistics done by the relevant authorities will reflect the true picture if these safety devices are worthwhile or not, I've said enough on this topic & will now let the rest of you good people keep on debating.

Cheers.

[xr8cam]

My wifes company car is current model commordore sportswagon. Honestly, I'm not just saying this because its not a Ford, their are more distractions in that car than a circus and that's just getting it ready to drive. Now for the driver assists, I don't like them at all. I found I fight with the traction control & abs. They interrupt you when your anticipating a loss of control. I realise that's what there supposed to do, I just don't like it and that's why I love my Falcon. A V8, ABS, airbags & seatbelts. That'll do me.

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by CyberWasp

I am still blaming all the people who drive Automatic Cars.
That is the genesis of Automation when you trace it all back.
You gave the Car the right to select gears and it was always going to be downhill from there.
I will be safe in my Manual Car when the day comes and SkyNet decides all Humans are unsafe drivers and terminates them all into a wall or something.
image

Funny you should say that ....was thinking the exact same thing with a slight variation aliens would control the world and shut down anything computerised and Bogan like me would create havoc in our old Dunngers

I was thinking this in my truck , following some brain dead Muppet in an auto on the gas off the gas .....then I had another brilliant tech idea what about remote controlled ejector seats followed by lane assist into the drain

[commodorenutt]

I think a couple of front mounted rocket launchers would be more fun!

[Grunter]

If only he had a Lane Departure Warning System. Wouldn't have mounted that gutter!

[NX74205]

Originally Posted by XByoot

The example I use in aviation is unfortunately cold hard facts...it's happened.

I know, I'm an av-geek myself. AF447 happened partly because the blocked pitot tubes resulted in incorrect readings on the airspeed indicator, to which the pilot failed to respond correctly. Nevertheless, it was not the failure of technology that caused the accident; the accident was caused primarily by pilot error because the PIC at the time did not follow established procedure for an inconsistent airspeed reading.

Likewise, failure of technology in cars should not cause accidents, but rather driver error in failing to drive correctly irrespective of any failure of active safety tech. Lane departure aid was given as an example. In most cases, lane departure aid can be overridden by the driver either by indicating, or by forcibly moving the steering wheel. The force applied by the autonomous technology to turn the wheel is not great, it doesn't suddenly "yank" the car back into the lane, but does so gently.

If it is the intention of the driver to leave the lane they're on, they ought to indicate and check their blind spots before doing so in any event, but if they're a BMW driver and they forgot to top up their indicator fluid, they should still be able to change lanes by applying force to prevent the car from steering itself back.

[mike_nofx]

One piece of safety technology id like to see fitted to new cars is "emergency response vehicle detection" which notifies you of any emergency vehicles: Ambulances, Firetrucks and... police vehicles... so you are able to slow down and move to the left if necessary to 'avoid blocking their path'.

[TheGreenKugaaah]

Originally Posted by NX74205

but if they're a BMW driver and they forgot to top up their indicator fluid, they should still be able to change lanes by applying force to prevent the car from steering itself back.

From what I heard, BMW are still working on their autonomous tailgating tech. Plus auto high beam flashing and horn beeping, all rolled into one package.

[Sabantien]

I don't mind the idea of warnings that you've drifted out of the lane. If you're a great driver, it shouldn't bother you either, I mean, you won't drift out of your lane, right?

But it sounds like there's still some issues, like steering you back into the path of a vehicle that's on the wrong side of the road. This is where a warning is fine, but taking active control, not so much. Unless it can detect and avoid obstructions as well.

I'm not entirely convinced it'll make more people pay less attention to the road, because as we've all seen, plenty of people don't pay attention as it is. I don't think I will pay less attention when driving a car with these added safety features. Will you?

All that said, I don't think they should be included in safety ratings for cars. Surely they're more about the survivability in an accident.

[.:4:.]

Originally Posted by TheGreenKugaaah

From what I heard, BMW are still working on their autonomous tailgating tech. Plus auto high beam flashing and horn beeping, all rolled into one package.

Is that the privileged driver package? The one where you can start to move over un announced and everyone else moves out of the way? I was driving north on the warringah freeway last year and had some silly lady in a x6 bmw almost had my drivers mirror and front guard. She persisted to drift left almost into the wall at the military rd (falcon st maybe, neither a road I travel) untill the whole interior lit up orange and I could hear alarms go off. She hooked it hard right over 2 lanes disregarding any other car and carried on on her way. It was only 2pm. Hmmmmm. I guarentee if I ever did that I'd make the news.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

One piece of safety technology id like to see fitted to new cars is "emergency response vehicle detection" which notifies you of any emergency vehicles: Ambulances, Firetrucks and... police vehicles... so you are able to slow down and move to the left if necessary to 'avoid blocking their path'.

It's been my experience over the years that all the detection aids in the world still won't educate some people to get out of the way.

Good idea though.

[.:4:.]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

It's been my experience over the years that all the detection aids in the world still won't educate some people to get out of the way.

Good idea though.

Doesn't the ignorant pull into the free lane when everyone moves over?

[commodorenutt]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

One piece of safety technology id like to see fitted to new cars is "emergency response vehicle detection" which notifies you of any emergency vehicles: Ambulances, Firetrucks and... police vehicles... so you are able to slow down and move to the left if necessary to 'avoid blocking their path'.

Let's roll that out to include autonomous braking to stop the imbeciles from grid-locking intersections because they simply cannot wait for the next change of lights and are so self-centred they don't give a rats about the 100-200 cars their stupid action has prevented from getting through the intersection, causing more traffic chaos further back.

Sat through 3 green light cycles tonight at Norwest Blvd/Windsor Rd, trying to get to the M7, when all the clowns coming off Windsor rd and heading for the right lane into Glenwood kept piling onto the 2 straight-ahead lanes of Norwest Blvd, completely blocking it - at one point they were 3 wide! Out of 12 offenders, 11 of them were in late model badge-snob euros, and the odd one out was a tradie in a great-wall.

[.:4:.]

Originally Posted by commodorenutt

Let's roll that out to include autonomous braking to stop the imbeciles from grid-locking intersections because they simply cannot wait for the next change of lights and are so self-centred they don't give a rats about the 100-200 cars their stupid action has prevented from getting through the intersection, causing more traffic chaos further back.

Sat through 3 green light cycles tonight at Norwest Blvd/Windsor Rd, trying to get to the M7, when all the clowns coming off Windsor rd and heading for the right lane into Glenwood kept piling onto the 2 straight-ahead lanes of Norwest Blvd, completely blocking it - at one point they were 3 wide! Out of 12 offenders, 11 of them were in late model badge-snob euros, and the odd one out was a tradie in a great-wall.

The odd one out was the unfortunate one in a great wall.

[TheInterceptor]

Originally Posted by .:4:.

The odd one out was the unfortunate one in a great wall.

I guess it made a great wall.

[.:4:.]

Originally Posted by TheInterceptor

I guess it made a great wall.

From what I have heard the diesels being a Cummins don't crap out. 1st gear is way to long and the rest of them is crap, bar the asbestos brake pads. I'll stick to the ranger. I'm also a fan of merging early, not stuffing up traffic.

[TheInterceptor]

Originally Posted by .:4:.

From what I have heard the diesels being a Cummins don't crap out. 1st gear is way to long and the rest of them is crap, bar the asbestos brake pads. I'll stick to the ranger. I'm also a fan of merging early, not stuffing up traffic.

I was just making a joke however i wont argue as i have no experience with GW's

Merging early is the way to go i agree.
Merging at all is a very foreign concept in Perth here so im happy with any kind of merge without traffic dropping 20kph or entering highways well below posted limit. Also happy with driver courtesy, also a very foreign concept here, basically never get thank you waves in traffic.

So when you guys have cars blocking roads, it could be worse, you could be in Perth.

[XByoot]

Originally Posted by NX74205

I know, I'm an av-geek myself. AF447 happened partly because the blocked pitot tubes resulted in incorrect readings on the airspeed indicator, to which the pilot failed to respond correctly. Nevertheless, it was not the failure of technology that caused the accident; the accident was caused primarily by pilot error because the PIC at the time did not follow established procedure for an inconsistent airspeed reading.

Your are quite correct ,to a degreee. Respectfully I'd like to explain further. In general Airbus have 3 primary,3 secondary and 2 back up computers ( model depending) to resolve any flight control input to maintain the aircraft within its normal envelope of operation...Yep that's right,8 computers to all do basically the same job.There is a "normal law",there is "alternate law 1", "alternate law 2" and finally a "direct law".
So normal law is great,all protections work,pull back on the stick like old mate did and the plane won't let you stall it....idiot proof.Alternate laws 1 have less and 2 has even less protections ,depending on exact failures and is fairly non specific because it depends on what the computer sees and what has failed. Direct law is like a conventional plane..... pretty straight forward huh ?? You may be able to read what going on...if the computers can recognise it.
Fast forward to old mate up there... NEVER trained in stall recovery techniques and minimal experience. Airbus originally claimed you cannot stall an Airbus. Well one single pitot heat failure proved that wrong. The pilot (not the pic at the time) decided to pull up. Because of the design of the highly automated cockpit NO ONE knew what he had done because there is zero tactile feedback in a fly by wire Airbus.
So was the plane in normal law? Was it in alternate law 1 or 2? Maybe direct law? It matters,because it may or may not offer you the protections you expect. Suss that out while old mate is yanking back and pointing the thing at the moon. They were totally confused and overwhelmed,by loss of situational awareness,lack of system knowledge,lack of training,lack of experience , and most importantly a total lack of awareness of what the aircraft was doing,and this is a first tier airline.
The Captain returned to the cockpit and finally realised what was going on when old mate told them what he was doing,waaaaay to late. Airbus then introduced the "golden rules" to fly the planes by,basically when crap goes south fly it like a normal plane,ie disconnect the protections. They then TRAINED and EDUCATED pilots of the hazards of automation and introduced a stall recovery procedure. Prior to this they claimed it wasn't necessary because it won't happen. This was basically as close as you will get to an admission from them that it was a huge error in their philosophy.
So was technology at fault? It was deemed as a contributing factor , massive industry rethink and training programs introduced. Its great stuff,Airbus are great planes,just listen to engineers not the marketing hype to learn the facts. It takes a well trained person to integrate with it and use it correctly. There is a long list of similar issues with these systems. How about the 330 that decided to go on a roller coaster ride and pin people on the ceiling until it made an emergency landing at an Air Force base in WA? What was the outcome of that one? Errrr,what one is that is the usual response. A similar sensor failure wasn't recognised by the computers,they were getting dud info and thinking the plane was stalling,so it nosed down to recover,then the speed went crazy,so it nosed back up to recovers,then it thought it stalled so it nosed down again,over and over. One pilot never flew a fly by wire aircraft again and the other tried to return to work but I believe he "retired".
Now,introduce high levels of protections in cars,not the basic stuff,but next gen type logic driven computers...where is the standards? Are all manufacturers going to adapt a standard level of technology? Or will it be up to the driver to decipher what each and every type of car will or won't to and how it will react in an emergency?

[.:4:.]

Its worse in sydney. I like to merge at the same speed as the traffic you are merging into. Most others like to make an attempt at much lower speeds then decide to hit the anchors. In that case accidents don't just happen. People cause them. If I can do it in the slowest ute in the universe, why can't it be done in a normal non korean car?

[TheInterceptor]

Originally Posted by XByoot

Your are quite correct ,to a degreee. Respectfully I'd like to explain further. In general Airbus have 3 primary,3 secondary and 2 back up computers ( model depending) to resolve any flight control input to maintain the aircraft within its normal envelope of operation...Yep that's right,8 computers to all do basically the same job.There is a "normal law",there is "alternate law 1", "alternate law 2" and finally a "direct law".
So normal law is great,all protections work,pull back on the stick like old mate did and the plane won't let you stall it....idiot proof.Alternate laws 1 have less and 2 has even less protections ,depending on exact failures and is fairly non specific because it depends on what the computer sees and what has failed. Direct law is like a conventional plane..... pretty straight forward huh ?? You may be able to read what going on...if the computers can recognise it.
Fast forward to old mate up there... NEVER trained in stall recovery techniques and minimal experience. Airbus originally claimed you cannot stall an Airbus. Well one single pitot heat failure proved that wrong. The pilot (not the pic at the time) decided to pull up. Because of the design of the highly automated cockpit NO ONE knew what he had done because there is zero tactile feedback in a fly by wire Airbus.
So was the plane in normal law? Was it in alternate law 1 or 2? Maybe direct law? It matters,because it may or may not offer you the protections you expect. Suss that out while old mate is yanking back and pointing the thing at the moon. They were totally confused and overwhelmed,by loss of situational awareness,lack of system knowledge,lack of training,lack of experience , and most importantly a total lack of awareness of what the aircraft was doing,and this is a first tier airline.
The Captain returned to the cockpit and finally realised what was going on when old mate told them what he was doing,waaaaay to late. Airbus then introduced the "golden rules" to fly the planes by,basically when crap goes south fly it like a normal plane,ie disconnect the protections. They then TRAINED and EDUCATED pilots of the hazards of automation and introduced a stall recovery procedure. Prior to this they claimed it wasn't necessary because it won't happen. This was basically as close as you will get to an admission from them that it was a huge error in their philosophy.
So was technology at fault? It was deemed as a contributing factor , massive industry rethink and training programs introduced. Its great stuff,Airbus are great planes,just listen to engineers not the marketing hype to learn the facts. It takes a well trained person to integrate with it and use it correctly. There is a long list of similar issues with these systems. How about the 330 that decided to go on a roller coaster ride and pin people on the ceiling until it made an emergency landing at an Air Force base in WA? What was the outcome of that one? Errrr,what one is that is the usual response. A similar sensor failure wasn't recognised by the computers,they were getting dud info and thinking the plane was stalling,so it nosed down to recover,then the speed went crazy,so it nosed back up to recovers,then it thought it stalled so it nosed down again,over and over. One pilot never flew a fly by wire aircraft again and the other tried to return to work but I believe he "retired".
Now,introduce high levels of protections in cars,not the basic stuff,but next gen type logic driven computers...where is the standards? Are all manufacturers going to adapt a standard level of technology? Or will it be up to the driver to decipher what each and every type of car will or won't to and how it will react in an emergency?

So at the end of the day, a person makes a mistake and dies along with a lot of other people. Everyone else gets educated to prevent future incidents.

Meanwhile on the road. A person makes a mistake and dies with a few other people. Speed limits drop and more speed cameras are posted out (read: no attempt at a solution).
Car manufacturers install software to make inadequate drivers feel better and perhaps be less likley to kill others.

Originally Posted by .:4:.

Its worse in sydney. I like to merge at the same speed as the traffic you are merging into. Most others like to make an attempt at much lower speeds then decide to hit the anchors. In that case accidents don't just happen. People cause them. If I can do it in the slowest ute in the universe, why can't it be done in a normal non korean car?

Oh i hear you sir, im originally from Sydney and it wasnt anywhere as near as bad as here when i visited last september. But i guess its unavoidable when people arent taught jack or arent logical enough to work out what is dangerous and selfish and whats not.

[XByoot]

Originally Posted by TheInterceptor

So at the end of the day, a person makes a mistake and dies along with a lot of other people. Everyone else gets educated to prevent future incidents.

Meanwhile on the road. A person makes a mistake and dies with a few other people. Speed limits drop and more speed cameras are posted out (read: no attempt at a solution).
Car manufacturers install software to make inadequate drivers feel better and perhaps be less likley to kill others.
.

Yes,unfortunately that's how it works in the present times in aviation, at least lives lost have taught us lessons.
On the roads...well your "perhaps" is the best way to describe it. It may well help,all I'm attempting to do is raise awareness that there is a massively long road ahead in the auto industry and a massive learning curve to be tackled. The present stuff is really just the tip of the iceberg and seems to be driven more by marketing and have little standardisation between makes. The higher the level of automation and protection devices the more importand is standardisation so driver can understand the expected outcomes.Ive said it numerous times,I totally accept it's coming,I'm just saying learn and understand it,there will be many many issues along the way. Reducing speed limits and cameras are today's ways to be seen to actively reduce risk (and make money I'm sure). Don't hink it doesn't happen in aviation,very similar process,fines for non compliance and restricting procedures for the lowest common denominators as well as training . Have a great nite,gotta get back to work.

[TheInterceptor]

Originally Posted by XByoot

Yes,unfortunately that's how it works in the present times in aviation, at least lives lost have taught us lessons.
On the roads...well your "perhaps" is the best way to describe it. It may well help,all I'm attempting to do is raise awareness that there is a massively long road ahead in the auto industry and a massive learning curve to be tackled. The present stuff is really just the tip of the iceberg and seems to be driven more by marketing and have little standardisation between makes.Ive said it numerous times,I totally accept it's coming,I'm just saying learn and understand it,there will be many many issues along the way. Have a great nite,gotta get back to work.

Absolutley agreee. The push to fix any potential problem in aviation is immediate as you cant just pull a plane over and call a towtruck if something goes wrong.

I understand where youre coming from. In aviation there are two major players. Airbus and Boeing. On the roads, there are more auto makers than you can shake a stick at. Standardisation like in aircraft is not plausible however design rules are a basic version of this and do work to an extent.

But at the end of the day, if the pilot screws up, its still a crash. If the pilot wants to crash it, he will. Same goes for a car. Its impossible to remove operator error without removing the operator entirley. Things like lane depart assist seems something like a bandaid for a gunshot wound. You cant fix stupid people unless you try educate them. (or eliminate them from the gene pool).
Cheers you too