Will "Smart Vehicles" and their marketing cause more crashes

[rhagfo]

I will start this post with quotes from the 2017 F150 post.

spoon059 wrote:

rhagfo wrote:
We have already seen deaths due to people not turning off their engines when parking in the garage!

I think that has more to due with driver error/stupidity than an auto feature.

Its kinda like the "Runaway Toyota's" from a couple years back. Turns out that it was DRIVER ERROR. Drivers weren't properly securing floormats, which got underneath the accelerator and caused the accelerator to get stuck. Rather than put cars in neutral, they continued trying (unsuccessfully) to mash on the brakes. Didn't work.

mich800 wrote:

rhagfo wrote:



Yes, I do understand the concept and reason, I see a wrongful lawsuit in some car makers future because of this feature.
We have already seen deaths due to people not turning off their engines when parking in the garage!

Death from stop/start. Are you sure you are not confusing push button start. I have not heard of one death blamed on the stop/start function.

First of all let me say I am not anti technology, just one that asks "What If"!
I installed the Factory Curse Control on my 1968 Mustang GTCS in 1969 to control the lead in my right foot. Great option saved me far more than the $75 for the factory kit.
That said much of the marketing around much of the new technology seems to encourage bad driving habits! While not all marketing demonstrates these devices poorly, many do with drivers doing everything BUT driving while behind the wheel!

Used correctly most if not all will add to road safety, BUT for those that think these will allow them to focus their attention on things other than driving just scares me to death.
I travel a lot for my work, and rent many new cars with these features, some great some not so great.
One that I liked but was also annoying was a parking assistance that started beeping as you got closer to objects, well at the house we stay at here in Ireland while visiting the Granddaughter there is a tight gate and arch to the parking area. So every time through the beeper would go off, glad the car this time didn't have it!!

[bid_time]

fj12ryder wrote:
"...engineers are losing their jobs faster than people in a lot of other professions are. Even graduates of the best schools are getting laid off as companies downsize and outsource or offshore operations to other countries."

Guess they just need some more education.

I don't know where you got your quote from (I think you just made it up), but it is flat out false. You can down play education all you want, but without it, you will be downplayed and outsourced. Change with the times or not. It's up to you to flourish or wither.
Forbes - engineering jobs

[DanNJanice]

I have zero interest in a self driving car where the operator is expected to "remain vigilant". Driving can become boring as it is. Just imagine if you have to sit there, but not actually drive the vehicle.

When the vehicles are fully autonomous and I can nap, read, shave, whatever, then sign me up. I could see something being developed with dedicated thoroughfares in areas with high volumes of long distance driving. The automated vehicle (and only automated vehicles) would be allowed on these thoroughfares until the rider chose to take an exit.

IMO, like virtual reality, back in the 90s, this technology will take far longer to roll out than people expect.

[fj12ryder]

patriotgrunt wrote:
I'm certainly not a fan of self-driving technology and the impact it will have on the job market. What will we do once all the middle-class trucking jobs are replaced with computers? Same could be said for taxi-drivers which would effect larger urban job markets.

What you're saying is the same argument used against automation/robots and factory jobs. And the same old answer given is "Education". Of course one wonders how many amazing jobs are going to materialize out of thin air just because one has more education. I guess you could check with all those engineers: "...engineers are losing their jobs faster than people in a lot of other professions are. Even graduates of the best schools are getting laid off as companies downsize and outsource or offshore operations to other countries."

Guess they just need some more education.

[time2roll]

patriotgrunt wrote:
I'm certainly not a fan of self-driving technology and the impact it will have on the job market. What will we do once all the middle-class trucking jobs are replaced with computers? Same could be said for taxi-drivers which would effect larger urban job markets.

Most people seem to like a larger home. I think these idle hands could start building.

[John___Angela]

Driving down 111 yesterday heading for la quinta and there is a Mercedes E350 weaving all over the road and getting too close for comfort. Punched it to get buy it and saw a mid 50's lady putting on her makeup with both hands using her mirror probably steering with her knees.

Can't come fast enough. Easier to develop auto driving than fix stupid.

[patriotgrunt]

I'm certainly not a fan of self-driving technology and the impact it will have on the job market. What will we do once all the middle-class trucking jobs are replaced with computers? Same could be said for taxi-drivers which would effect larger urban job markets.

[4x4ord]

Volvo fully autonomous vehicle being tested by families.

[fj12ryder]

Yeah, but neither could the driver. 🙂

[rjstractor]

I hope you're right, since as was mentioned previously current technology can't always tell the difference between the sky and the side of a semi van trailer....

[4x4ord]

The Google car has been driving around for years "learning" how to classify images. This is where the artificial intelligence comes into play. I think it (the computer) is constantly rewriting its own softwhere so it can get better and better at classifying images. So I believe that by the time the first fully autonomous car hits the streets it will have no problem differentiating between a racoon and a child.

[rjstractor]

Paul Clancy wrote:
A computers speed to determine what the object is and make a choice is far faster than a humans. Morality of that choice is in the programming (in other words software written by a human)- not the car computer hardware. There are people who would ram an oncoming car to avoid hitting a deer. Also those who would get drunk and mow down a child. In these cases probably better for society to let the computer intervene. I'm alright with that.

You are right in that a computer can make the choice much faster, but a computer lacks the ability for abstract thought. Could a camera pick up the difference between a raccoon and a toddler from 100 feet away at night traveling 50 mph? I doubt it, but virtually any human could. Or, when the computer sees a ball rolling across the road does it instantly expect a child to come after it? I could also see computers vapor-locking when approached by an emergency vehicle from behind, entering a construction zone or many other common scenarios. Speaking as one who has operated emergency vehicles for most of my adult life I'll admit that humans don't often do well in these situations either, but once you get a driver's attention and ask them to move to the right over the PA they generally will. Interesting discussion, and I believe we will see these questions addressed, for better or worse, in the coming years.

[Paul_Clancy]

A computers speed to determine what the object is and make a choice is far faster than a humans. Morality of that choice is in the programming (in other words software written by a human)- not the car computer hardware. There are people who would ram an oncoming car to avoid hitting a deer. Also those who would get drunk and mow down a child. In these cases probably better for society to let the computer intervene. I'm alright with that.

[toedtoes]

4x4ord wrote:

What happens when the choice is between hitting either say a dog or a child. I might put my faith in a computer making the right choice more often than some people.

Then again, those people might have made the right choice.

[4x4ord]

toedtoes wrote:
I don't think self-driving cars will CAUSE more accidents. I think they won't PREVENT as many accidents as others think they will.

I think the lane departure feature is great and is a wonderful benefit now as most people won't be affected adversely by it on their commute (most people don't want to drive in two lanes at the same time).

I think other features like safe driving distances will get bypassed by people who think they know better. Too few people believe in safe driving distances, especially in rush hour traffic, and will find a way to bypass that feature. Heaven forbid they leave enough room for another car to move in to. It will be like the many people who belted their seat belts behind them instead of wearing them because they "got in the way".
On the flip side, there will be people who depend on the car's system so they can do other things. Yes, many people will pay less attention to the road and their surroundings because something else is doing it for them (that happens now with rear cameras and mirrors - people don't turn their heads to look for themselves and miss something important).

I also think that with more self-driving vehicles on the road, creating safer speeds, driving distances, and so on, that those folks who think their reflexes are better than anyone else (you know, the guy who drives 100 on his motorcycle down the freeway because he's such a great driver he's never been in an accident) - well those guys are going to think they can go even faster because they can anticipate the other vehicles better than before. And he's going to interact with non-self-driving vehicles at those higher speeds.

So again, self-driving vehicles aren't "bad", they're just not the instant solution to
the roads that some people think they are. And people who think they will do better than they really can WILL relax their own attention enough to let potential accidents happen. Those who stay a bit wary of the technology will pay more attention and will be able to adjust the response when needed (like when it's a kid who darted out in front of you and not a deer. Hitting the deer is preferable to swerving and hitting a tree; whereas swerving and hitting the tree is preferable to hitting a child).

What happens when the choice is between hitting either say a dog or a child. I might put my faith in a computer making the right choice more often than some people.

[toedtoes]

I don't think self-driving cars will CAUSE more accidents. I think they won't PREVENT as many accidents as others think they will.

I think the lane departure feature is great and is a wonderful benefit now as most people won't be affected adversely by it on their commute (most people don't want to drive in two lanes at the same time).

I think other features like safe driving distances will get bypassed by people who think they know better. Too few people believe in safe driving distances, especially in rush hour traffic, and will find a way to bypass that feature. Heaven forbid they leave enough room for another car to move in to. It will be like the many people who belted their seat belts behind them instead of wearing them because they "got in the way".

On the flip side, there will be people who depend on the car's system so they can do other things. Yes, many people will pay less attention to the road and their surroundings because something else is doing it for them (that happens now with rear cameras and mirrors - people don't turn their heads to look for themselves and miss something important).

I also think that with more self-driving vehicles on the road, creating safer speeds, driving distances, and so on, that those folks who think their reflexes are better than anyone else (you know, the guy who drives 100 on his motorcycle down the freeway because he's such a great driver he's never been in an accident) - well those guys are going to think they can go even faster because they can anticipate the other vehicles better than before. And he's going to interact with non-self-driving vehicles at those higher speeds.

So again, self-driving vehicles aren't "bad", they're just not the instant solution to the roads that some people think they are. And people who think they will do better than they really can WILL relax their own attention enough to let potential accidents happen. Those who stay a bit wary of the technology will pay more attention and will be able to adjust the response when needed (like when it's a kid who darted out in front of you and not a deer. Hitting the deer is preferable to swerving and hitting a tree; whereas swerving and hitting the tree is preferable to hitting a child).