Driver aids and complacency.

[TonyRPH]

Over the years we have seen all sorts of electronic aids being added to cars.

Such things as ABS, air bags, lane assist etc. etc.

I was just reading an article about the new 5 series, and that takes it a step further (too far IMHO).

review said:

The new Five is also so high-tech that it will not only park itself, but change lanes and overtake on the driver’s behalf. It’ll use radar-based cruise control to stay in its lane, detect a car ahead, and signal before pulling out and passing.

So here we have a vehicle which is capable of overtaking, presumably using a computer and (presumably!) requiring minimal driver interaction.

The amount of complacency we see on the roads due to other driver aids is already overwhelming - surely this is just going to make matters worse?

I can see the headline now: "driver found asleep at wheel on motorway as car weaves through traffic driving itself"

I think technology is great - but I also think that vehicle manufacturers are taking it a little too far.

[ShaunTheSheep]

• yawn*

Dizzys were awesome, who really needs to get to work on time when you could be out scrabbling with a timing light in the rain.

Cross plys were fine too, just numpties who couldn't drive had problems.


Oh no, wait...

[HumbleJim]

Quite agree. I have found my self driving carelessly relying on driver aids.

A couple of yrs ago whilst evaluating a new model in Germany, I was being driven by a pro rally driver. He was explaining all the features lane assist, adaptive cruise, auto braking, google maps adaptive headlamps, internet etc, when he said to me of course it can catch you out.

How so I said. Well............I was answering my emails one day @ 150kph....................

[TonyRPH]

ShaunTheSheep said:

*yawn*

Dizzys were awesome, who really needs to get to work on time when you could be out scrabbling with a timing light in the rain.

Cross plys were fine too, just numpties who couldn't drive had problems.


Oh no, wait...

All very well, but the change to all electronic ignition could hardly be considered a driver aid.

By 'driver aids' I'm specifically referring to technology that can take control of the vehicle.

[thatdude]

Well I'm not giving up my fuel injection and going back to carbs. Leave me that driver aid at least, makes winter cold starting such a doddle

[TonyRPH]

doogz said:

TonyRPH said:

All very well, but the change to all electronic ignition could hardly be considered a driver aid.

By 'driver aids' I'm specifically referring to technology that can take control of the vehicle.

What, like ABS? And traction control?

I knew I should have been more specific for the pedants out there.

Christ, this forum is getting st.

By "take control of the car" I was referring specifically to steering (as per the article I quoted from).

[Janesy B]

ShaunTheSheep said:

*yawn*

Dizzys were awesome, who really needs to get to work on time when you could be out scrabbling with a timing light in the rain.

Cross plys were fine too, just numpties who couldn't drive had problems.


Oh no, wait...

Electronic ignition and radial tyres aren't driver aids.

TonyRPH said:

I knew I should have been more specific for the pedants out there.

Christ, this forum is getting st.

By "take control of the car" I was referring specifically to steering (as per the article I quoted from).

You're not wrong.

[TLandCruiser]

There are probley people on this forums who have never driven a car without pas and abs etc Yeah it will breed incompetence because when someone can't use it for what ever reason they will be in st creek.

[rovermorris999]

It's certainly heading downhill on here, so many threads end up with Billy Big Balls shouting at Billy Even Bigger Balls.

[thatdude]

I think most people, with or without driver aids, don't know the limits of their vehicle or the limits of themselves, so rarely do we need to explore them.

So at some point, everyone is going to end up in st creek. Even big balls ballsy will balls up at some point

[TonyRPH]

doogz said:

I'm not being pedantic.

You're specifically talking about things that take control of the steering, to avoid a collision.

But things that take control of the brakes, or throttle, are ok?

I never said that, did I? This discussion was started primarily to discuss a system which will automatically perform an overtake (if the hype is to be believed).

doogz said:

What about stability control? Something that will actuate the throttle and brakes to aid in turning a corner when you'd otherwise end up out of control?

Where do limited slip differentials sit, in your opinion?

What do limited slip differentials specifically have to do with this discussion? You could ask 'what about 4 wheel drive?' etc. etc.

Yes, but none of those things **specifically** encourage the driver to be lazy - although ASC can give a false sense of security, encouraging a driver to drive faster through a bend than they possibly normally would.

But - to labour my point.

The BMW article referred specifically to change lanes and overtake on the driver’s behalf.

So, what we will see in the future are a bunch of robot drivers to lazy to drive their cars, and rely on this technology to a) take evasive action and b) (in the case of the BMW) perform an overtaking manoeuvre for them.

Which ultimately, will encourage some to become lazy and hence lead to complacency.

Phew, this is turning out to be harder work than I expected...

[Ozzie Osmond]

• Trains used to the driven by a driver - now they can be fully automatic and may not even have a driver.

• Planes used to be flown by a pilot - now they can be fully automatic through take-off, flight and landing.

• Ships used to need lighthouses etc - now they can navigate automatically.

• Cars .....

I guess it's called progress.

[TonyRPH]

Gaz. said:

Oh come on, you could see what Tony meant in his OP. Anything else is just arguing for the sake of it.

Thankyou.

Gaz. said:

Tony, that system on the 5 series might actually improve things if fitted to some HGV's. In the last 12 months their standards have fallen through the floor. But yes I agree with you, this is the antithesis of 'practice makes perfect' if you ask me.

(my bold) That's my point - off topic - but my son passed his test a short while back - and the car he learned to drive in had hill assist - luckily - he adapted just fine to the 11 year old A3 he bought upon passing, but one of his friends struggled with hill starts in an older car. Which begs the question; are we going to end up with a generation of drivers that can only drive with the assistance of electronic aids?

If so, then that's just wrong IMHO, because there is no skill in that, as driving is a skill.

[djfaulkner]

I think they are all getting lumped in together, they should spilt up for example...

Safety Aids
T/C, ABS etc....

Driver Aids
Cruise Control
Auto Changing lanes thingy
Auto parking
etc...

As much as the driver aids sound good and probably work really well, surely too many could be a bad thing.....

For example
Sat Nav's people put the destination in give the route a quick check and off they go, Great.
No real idea of what route they are going, if its best route for them, so when the roads are closed or have changed and the Sat Nav hasnt updated, they get stuck.

Technology is great, when it works!

[DJP]

TonyRPH said:

...By 'driver aids' I'm specifically referring to technology that can take control of the vehicle.

That would be the sensible interpretation.

[TonyRPH]

Ozzie Osmond said:

• Trains used to the driven by a driver - now they can be fully automatic and may not even have a driver.

Sure, but they are steered by the tracks, and can be stopped by a signal (if the driver is not paying attention).
This can't really be compared to driving on the roads.

Ozzie Osmond said:

• Planes used to be flown by a pilot - now they can be fully automatic through take-off, flight and landing.

And how many near misses (that we do get to hear of) has there been over the years? Probably far more than many of us would be comfortable with!

Ozzie Osmond said:

• Ships used to need lighthouses etc - now they can navigate automatically.

Until they run aground...

Ozzie Osmond said:

• Cars .....

I guess it's called progress.

I'm not opposed to progress, but how long will it be, before people are seen reading (some do this already!!), watching TV (this too!), and other activities that remove the focus of the driver from - driving...

An example has already been cited in this thread, that of the test driver responding to email whilst doing 150km/h.

I realise that we are gradually migrating toward autonomous motoring, but as an enthusiast, this is not the way I want to see things going.

[DJP]

doogz said:

...What, like ABS? And traction control?

I've had these on all my cars for the last 15 years and I think that they're counter productive.

Traction control? Used to be called your right foot – don't press it so much and you don't lose traction. Simples.

And if your ABS cuts in then it's because your anticipation has failed miserably.

Worse, you're unlikely to gain any benefit from ABS unless you've been trained to actively “Promote” it as per police etc driving courses (which I have, but most of the public haven't). So the average driver thinks they're safer, with their “Superbrakes” whilst not actually having a scooby about how they work.

Whilst I agree that things like cruise control and parking sensors can make life easier, some of these things are actively de-skilling the driver.

[HemiCommander]

djfaulkner said:

Technology is great, when it works!

Technology is great when you understand what it does, how it works and its limitations and then use it appropriately. Blindly relying on technology when you have no understanding of what it does and its limitations is a poor plan. I am a big fan of technology when it solves problems and makes life easier or better, I'm not a fan of technology for the sake of it where it just adds needless complication for no benefit.

For example, Satnavs = good, ABS = good, electric handbrakes = bad, electric seats = bad etc.

I genuinely don't see the point of traction control though, surely that can only aid complacency. When does it actually help anybody if they have any fine motor control of their right foot?

I used to think that parking sensors were for people who can't drive but since I've had my Jeep I am converted. It would be impossible to maneuver it without them due to the lack of visibility but with them it is a doddle.

Edited by HemiCommander on Monday 27th January 11:41

[tenohfive]

TonyRPH said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

• Planes used to be flown by a pilot - now they can be fully automatic through take-off, flight and landing.

And how many near misses (that we do get to hear of) has there been over the years? Probably far more than many of us would be comfortable with!

Actually the vast majority of near misses were due to human factors. Take the most recent Air France one that sprang to mind - the computers were correct, the pilots didn't believe them. Everyone on board died.
Have a read of this book (someone in the Boats, Planes & Trains forum mentioned it) - even for someone with no interest in aviation it raises a very good point: we can't be trusted. We are the weak link in the chain.

Google are testing cars that drive themselves because the studies suggest that (you guessed it) human error is the biggest factor in car crashes, and as someone who deals with a fair chunk of crashes I think they're right - 9 times out of 10 someone has fked up, rather than the car itself.

In this health and safety dominated climate I don't for one second believe that any car with the ability to drive itself at all would get approval to drive on our roads without various fallbacks. Now take into account the fact that a good percentage of motorway crashes (bear in mind that motorways are statistically the safest roads anyway) happen due to poor lane changes does it sound like such a bad idea?

When I first bought a car with cruise control people told me it would make me complacent. I told them it's just one less mechanical action to take, freeing up a tiny percentage of my concentration to focus on what's going on ahead and behind. I stand by that assertion however many years later. This new technology is only a couple of steps on from that.

Personally I don't want a self driving car - I like driving. I suspect you do too, or you wouldn't be on this forum. But for certain circumstances even I wouldn't mind having one less thing to concentrate quite so hard on. Even I - despite being a verified PH driving god - have had the odd 'oh s**t' moment when I've gone to move out and at the last second seen another car going for the same bit of motorway. And for the less able and less interested? If it makes them safer I just don't care.

[simo1863]

I know the big worry is that people will learn to rely on such systems but manufacturers seem intent on making sure they aren't.

I've a new Octavia at the moment with a lane assist and have notice it centralise the car a few times on the motorway but barely notice it apart from that. I decided to test it out by taking my hands off the wheel and watching it correct itself, it tells you off and lets you know it's about to be deactivated!