Seat 'lane assist' ad -are driving standards now THAT bad..?

[Ari]

va1o said:

But its like saying that car's shouldn't have airbags because only an idiot would crash. The systems are there to protect you in the event of the unexpected. It isn't here to take over the driving and should not be treated as a replacement for paying due care and attention

Lane control is 'there to protect you in the event of the unexpected'?

"Oh no's, I'm driving along keeping in lane and suddenly there is 'something unexpected' requiring me to keep in lane. Thank god for Lane Control, there's no way I could have simply carried on staying in lane by myself"

[Ari]

Devil2575 said:

Excellent, except funadamentally incorrect.

We are not breeding out intelligence. On the contrary we are becoming more intelligent as standards of education improve.

Lane assist, ABS and all the other safety features out there do not act in such a way as to replace an intelligent function that the driver is performing. Driving itself is not a task that requires an especially high level of intelligence.

They are not there for that, I agree, but can you really not see that this is how they will be used? People are easily enough distracted as it is. Automate important jobs they should be doing (like steering) and it WILL get worse.

I'm actually all for the properly automated 'car of the future' that is in the Volvo film. That would be a marvellous thing and a massive boost to road safety.

But we are clearly far from there, yet people have cars that will steer and brake for them.

I think you're being staggeringly optimistic if you think that people will remain alert to what they are doing when they perceive that they no longer need to be.

[Devil2575]

Ari said:

Devil2575 said:

Excellent, except funadamentally incorrect.

We are not breeding out intelligence. On the contrary we are becoming more intelligent as standards of education improve.

Lane assist, ABS and all the other safety features out there do not act in such a way as to replace an intelligent function that the driver is performing. Driving itself is not a task that requires an especially high level of intelligence.

They are not there for that, I agree, but can you really not see that this is how they will be used? People are easily enough distracted as it is. Automate important jobs they should be doing (like steering) and it WILL get worse.

I'm actually all for the properly automated 'car of the future' that is in the Volvo film. That would be a marvellous thing and a massive boost to road safety.

But we are clearly far from there, yet people have cars that will steer and brake for them.

I think you're being staggeringly optimistic if you think that people will remain alert to what they are doing when they perceive that they no longer need to be.

I think the problem is that people currently don't stay alert, hence the development of lane assist systems. Driving along long straight roads even without any such safety features fitted to a car is monotonous and uninvolving. Lane assist doesn't mean that people don't need to stay alert, it simply helps deal with the fact that they currently don't.

[Ari]

Devil2575 said:

I think the problem is that people currently don't stay alert, hence the development of lane assist systems. Driving along long straight roads even without any such safety features fitted to a car is monotonous and uninvolving. Lane assist doesn't mean that people don't need to stay alert, it simply helps deal with the fact that they currently don't.

I totally agree with that and do understand the theory. And used this way it's probably a good thing (although I have to say that in nearly 30(!) years of driving I've never wandered out of lane and not noticed I was doing it).

But I come back to the same thing. Give people a car that 'steers itself' and they'll no longer feel the need to concentrate on what's in front of them. The car's steering - wonder if anyone's replied to that Facebook post with the photo of my dinner on?

[luckystrike]

Ari said:

I've never wandered out of lane and not noticed I was doing it

How would you know if you hadn't noticed?

[Devil2575]

luckystrike said:

Ari said:

I've never wandered out of lane and not noticed I was doing it

How would you know if you hadn't noticed?

Indeed

I've had a couple of moments where I wandered out of lane due to drowsiness. Thankfully nothing bad resulted but it could have. I guess I'm not a driving god like some people on here are.

[chrispj]

Skoda VRs Review said:

Sadly that includes the loathsome lane-keeping assistance that tweaks the steering by a degree here and there, much like an annoying wheel grabbing track day instructor. At first acquaintance on the motorway it feels like the car is tramlining through truck grooves before you realise what's going on and sigh with relief that you can turn it off.

It's only real use? Well, the 15 seconds of 'hands free' driving it'll grant you before disengaging is enough to reach into the glovebox, grab your bag of Seabrooks, open them and place the bag in your lap for some cruising altitude sustenance. Not that we'd ever advocate such a foolhardy act of course.

Liking this section of the Skoda VRs review. Looks like VW have foiled my doomsday scenario of a legion of MLMs cruising the length of the M6 on LGS and ACC...

Still don't want it.

[stavers]

Devil2575 said:

Driving itself is not a task that requires an especially high level of intelligence.

Sorry but that right there is what is wrong with driving standards on our roads. The act of getting a car to move and follow a road, with no other road users, does not require a high level of intelligence. Driving, on the other, which includes all the anticipation of dangers and hazards (both actual and potential) on the road does require a reasonable degree of intelligence.

The fundamental problem is that we assume that everyone can be given a driving license. We don't assume that with a pilots license yet they are broadly the same function - moving from one place to another.

[mph1977]

AW111 said:

<snip>. change lanes without indicating too often and your insurance premiums go up.
.

If anyone should be handing back their licence it;s you , what does the highway code tell us about signalling ?

[petrolsniffer]

Mr2Mike said:

I'd much rather they were caught and suffered heavy penalties.

I'd love it if they were but its just not going to happen...

I can't remember the last time I saw a marked traffic police car let alone the local undercover ones I know of.

So yes I'd rather this existed maybe they'll rear end a truck instead of taking out some poor soul changing a tyre on the hard shoulder.

[Devil2575]

stavers said:

Devil2575 said:

Driving itself is not a task that requires an especially high level of intelligence.

Sorry but that right there is what is wrong with driving standards on our roads. The act of getting a car to move and follow a road, with no other road users, does not require a high level of intelligence. Driving, on the other, which includes all the anticipation of dangers and hazards (both actual and potential) on the road does require a reasonable degree of intelligence.

The fundamental problem is that we assume that everyone can be given a driving license. We don't assume that with a pilots license yet they are broadly the same function - moving from one place to another.

Well for a start you're taking my comment out of context.

That comment was in response to the opinion that things like lane assist were all part of a situation that was resulting in a general reduction of intelligence of the population.

Secondly, yes driving does require the ability to recognise and anticipate hazards and react accordingly. However these are not things that are what I would describe as requiring a high level of intelligence. A high level of intelligence is required to study Quantum mechanics, understand how a microchip works or become a surgeon. I've also known very intellugent people who were a menace on the roads(one guy at work who had a PhD in Chemistry was advised that he needed further training as his driving was bordering on dangerous after a half day defensive driving course offered through work)

Whether someone has the ability to safely control a car or not is not a question of intelligence.

As for the fundamental problem...What problem would that be?

The problem of our falling KSI rate? The problem of our relatively safe roads?

[Ari]

Devil2575 said:

Indeed

I've had a couple of moments where I wandered out of lane due to drowsiness. Thankfully nothing bad resulted but it could have. I guess I'm not a driving god like some people on here are.

You're coming at this the wrong way. You're suggesting that people driving whilst too tired should be given assistance. You might as well argue that people that drive far too fast should be allowed to use blue lights and sirens as that would also be safer.

Technology already exists to warn drowsy drivers that they are tired and should stop. Coming up with technology to help them continue is counter productive.

Oh, and the patronising 'but I'm not a driving god' platitudes don't help your argument.

[foggy]

so called said:

Hi Foggy, a quick question on your point of the system "activating at the last possible moment"...
'Most' drivers are taking into account road conditions constantly and making decisions on safe braking distances without even knowing it.
Braking performance is very much dependent on the road surface condition ( friction coefficient ).
What input for road condition and so optimum braking performance are these automated systems being given ?

Well, believe it or not, for the UK the majority of crashes happen in daylight in good driving conditions on dry roads at low speeds. Crashes on wet surfaces are the next most common and incidents on surfaces where the friction is compromised by ice and snow are comparatively rare here.

Low speed auto-brake systems that are effective in typical low speed front-to-rear shunts, at say up to 15mph in traffic jams and at roundabouts and junctions, generally ramp up to a maximum deceleration of around 7m/s2 which would utilise the full friction available on a typical well worn (polished) wet road surface say at traffic lights. On a good dry road surface it means the auto-brake system has 20 or 30% friction in reserve should the driver attempt to steer or react in some other way, however the vast majority of drivers drive straight to the scene of the crash. Cleverer systems tend to apply a higher spike of deceleration initially as a means of reducing speed and also assessing the surface friction (i.e. is wheel slip detected). Using this knowledge and then continually assessing it up to the crash point the auto-brake system can modify it's strategy to modulate the deceleration to not only make the most of avoiding or mitigating the crash but also to stop relatively close to the collision partner so as to leave the maximum braking distance for any following traffic.

Higher speed systems avoiding crashes up to 30mph or so differential speed use a staged braking approach that will ramp up from 3m/s2 initially (in an attempt to reduce the vehicle speed and buy the driver some time in the hope that they can react appropriately) to around 7m/s2 if they do not react. The detection of a crash threat also changes the parameters of the brake assist function in most vehicles such that if the driver does brake their demand is amplified appropriately again to make the most of the bad situation.

Another source of information that may alter the auto-brake system strategy is data from the vehicle temperature sensor, I don't know whether any systems use this info or not.

[foggy]

Reading through the various posts it seems that people are not quite getting the difference between Lane Keep Assist (LKA), which is a safety system that momentarily acts to steer the vehicle back if it is heading out of the lane, and Lane Guidance System (LGS) that, when switched on, continually provides minor subtle steering inputs to keep the vehicle centred as best as possible between the lane markings.

I'll think of the sceptical in the morning when I cruise through the inevitable traffic on the A34 around Oxford, Traffic Jam Assist doing the steery, brakey, speed, positioning and distance control stuff whilst I keep an eye on the surroundings and hand gently resting on the steering wheel. Then on the M40 LGS and ACC can take some of the mental strain for me whilst I monitor the proceedings, keeping me fresh for my appointment. Then I can do it all again afterwards. Granted if it was an interesting and lightly trafficked half hour drive to enjoy across the countryside I'd reconsider my transport options...

These systems aren't all about letting you drive on further and further when you know you really should be taking a break to rest and refresh. They support the driver by attending to some of the monotonous aspects of driving along a relatively well regulated stretch of road where vehicles are travelling in a consistent fashion, great for regular busy traffic motorway travel. Go drive a few thousand miles with the systems so rather than consider them as techie gimmick for 5 minutes where you watch and feel their activity, just relax with them and almost forget about their background activity so you can both get on and be at your best.

[AW111]

mph1977 said:

AW111 said:

<snip>. change lanes without indicating too often and your insurance premiums go up.
.

If anyone should be handing back their licence it;s you , what does the highway code tell us about signalling ?

So why are you changing lanes on the motorway if there's no traffic?

[Devil2575]

Ari said:

Devil2575 said:

Indeed

I've had a couple of moments where I wandered out of lane due to drowsiness. Thankfully nothing bad resulted but it could have. I guess I'm not a driving god like some people on here are.

You're coming at this the wrong way. You're suggesting that people driving whilst too tired should be given assistance. You might as well argue that people that drive far too fast should be allowed to use blue lights and sirens as that would also be safer.

Technology already exists to warn drowsy drivers that they are tired and should stop. Coming up with technology to help them continue is counter productive.

Oh, and the patronising 'but I'm not a driving god' platitudes don't help your argument.

I'm suggesting that everyone will drive when they are too tired at some point probably unintentionally. I didn't get into my car after 3 hours sleep or try to stay up for 24 hours, I simply went through a mid afternoon low point I started to drift off. Thankfully I caught myself and pulled into a service station for a 15 minute nap.

This isn't technology to help them continue on their way, this is technology to prevent an accident when the inevitable happens and give them the warning so they can pull over safely.

I don't care if you think my comment about not being a driving god helps my argument one little bit. Maybe if there was a little bit more humility on PH and less people who genuinely considered themselves to be immune to mistakes there would be less silly topics like this one started in the first place.

[Devil2575]

foggy said:

Reading through the various posts it seems that people are not quite getting the difference between Lane Keep Assist (LKA), which is a safety system that momentarily acts to steer the vehicle back if it is heading out of the lane, and Lane Guidance System (LGS) that, when switched on, continually provides minor subtle steering inputs to keep the vehicle centred as best as possible between the lane markings.

I'll think of the sceptical in the morning when I cruise through the inevitable traffic on the A34 around Oxford, Traffic Jam Assist doing the steery, brakey, speed, positioning and distance control stuff whilst I keep an eye on the surroundings and hand gently resting on the steering wheel. Then on the M40 LGS and ACC can take some of the mental strain for me whilst I monitor the proceedings, keeping me fresh for my appointment. Then I can do it all again afterwards. Granted if it was an interesting and lightly trafficked half hour drive to enjoy across the countryside I'd reconsider my transport options...

These systems aren't all about letting you drive on further and further when you know you really should be taking a break to rest and refresh. They support the driver by attending to some of the monotonous aspects of driving along a relatively well regulated stretch of road where vehicles are travelling in a consistent fashion, great for regular busy traffic motorway travel. Go drive a few thousand miles with the systems so rather than consider them as techie gimmick for 5 minutes where you watch and feel their activity, just relax with them and almost forget about their background activity so you can both get on and be at your best.

A good post.

[Ari]

Devil2575 said:

I'm suggesting that everyone will drive when they are too tired at some point probably unintentionally. I didn't get into my car after 3 hours sleep or try to stay up for 24 hours, I simply went through a mid afternoon low point I started to drift off. Thankfully I caught myself and pulled into a service station for a 15 minute nap.

This isn't technology to help them continue on their way, this is technology to prevent an accident when the inevitable happens and give them the warning so they can pull over safely.

I don't care if you think my comment about not being a driving god helps my argument one little bit. Maybe if there was a little bit more humility on PH and less people who genuinely considered themselves to be immune to mistakes there would be less silly topics like this one started in the first place.

So far better to allow the sleeping driver to continue undisturbed at 70mph and fingers crossed on his behalf that there's no stationary traffic ahead than to alert him to the fact he's nodding off/wake him if he does so?

What genuinely bizarre justification.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/s...

[Ari]

foggy said:

These systems aren't all about letting you drive on further and further when you know you really should be taking a break to rest and refresh. They support the driver by attending to some of the monotonous aspects of driving along a relatively well regulated stretch of road where vehicles are travelling in a consistent fashion, great for regular busy traffic motorway travel. Go drive a few thousand miles with the systems so rather than consider them as techie gimmick for 5 minutes where you watch and feel their activity, just relax with them and almost forget about their background activity so you can both get on and be at your best.

Which is great, really it is.

And I'll just have a very quick peek at my emails. Ooh there's one from my most important customer, I'll quickly tap out a reply. I wonder what's on Facebook? Ohh great, a new funny cat video...

Obviously YOU won't do this. Prepared to bet your life no one else will..?

[chrispj]

foggy said:

These systems aren't all about letting you drive on further and further when you know you really should be taking a break to rest and refresh.

The developers aren't students of human nature, are they? It really should be taken as a fundamental principle that if something can be used for a purpose other than the maker intended then it will be...