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

[Ari]

Watching telly the other night and an advert for a Seat Leon came on.

Now of all the features they could choose to promote, the size of the interior, the handling, the warranty, the fanny magnet properties, whatever, they focussed the entire ad on one thing, the fact that the car will warn you and (it seems) actually steer the car for you, should you wander out of lane.

Now I'm not anti technology. I think ESP, where the car helps correct a slide by braking individual wheels (something the driver cannot do no matter how talented) is amazing. I think parking sensors are rather useful, I like sat nav, and convenience features like auto wipers are excellent because it saves me switching them on and off.

However, call me old fashioned but I tend to notice when I'm wandering out of lane, mainly due to the fact that I'M LOOKING WHERE I'M fkING GOING!!

Seriously, how staggeringly careless do you have to be to wander out of lane and not notice? And worse, need the bloody car to correct for you if you do!

If someone has even the slightest need for this level of assistance then surely they are not competent to be on the road?

And yet this is deemed such a massive selling point, such an in demand feature, that car companies are basing entire advertising campaigns around it (there was a huge banner in the VW dealership today promoting it on a Golf too, FFS).

So, has anyone ever accidentally wandered out of lane without noticing? I'm not talking about changing lanes and - oh st there's a car passing me. Just literally meandering out of the lane they're in and not noticed?

This is the ad BTW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_PvcTzwMuI

[Ari]

Sump said:

It's a very nice feature to have.

Good god, really? Why's that, to save you bothering to look up from Facebook on your phone?

[Ari]

Blue Oval84 said:

I predict that this thread is going to be overwhelmed with PH'ers who have never, ever-
a) Made a mistake or-
b) Got drowsy at the wheel

Certainly never claimed to never make a mistake, but the day I can't easily cope with something as straightforward as keeping my car in a motorway lane unassisted is the day I give up driving.

As to getting drowsy behind the wheel, are you suggesting that this is a positive thing because it allows someone so sleepy that they can't maintain a single lane to keep going 'safely'?

FFS - Google self driving cars really cannot come quickly enough.

[Ari]

Blue Oval84 said:

I'm not suggesting that people should say "hey, I'll drive whilst exhausted because the car will keep me right".

I'm saying that having the system may well be the difference between life and death if someone makes a mistake and does nod off, which does happen, because cars are driven by humans. If the system kicks in I would hope they would take it as a sign that it's clearly time to pull in and have a break.

As I say, I've found myself on the rumble strip before and this would have prevented that, but big congratulations to anyone on this thread who claims to have never made a mistake

That's a fair comment, but do you think that's how it will be used?

Put it this way. It's being seen as a huge selling benefit (as mentioned, Seat have devoted an entire TV ad to it). So all those people thinking 'that'd be a great thing to have', is it because they perceive there to be a good chance of falling asleep at the wheel (bearing in mind the majority think bad things won't happen to them, hence having to make it law for people to wear seatbelts). Or is it something else?

I'd say it's something else, that being the ability to let the car 'drive' for them so they don't have to pay as much attention to the tiresome task of watching what they're doing.

And at 70+mph driving far too close to the car in front (as the average idiot does) that strikes me as a recipe for disaster.

[Ari]

ensignia said:

Lane Assist is a useful feature to have, it'll probably help lane discipline and keep people more alert. How exactly is this a bad thing? I'm sure no one's completely reliant on this, it's just a nice feature to have as a safety net. After all, not everyone is a driving god like all the players on here.

I'm curious. The is a device that warns you if you start to cross into another lane without noticing. So no need to keep a good lookout of what you are doing, the car will let you know if you need to look up from Facebook.

So how does that make you MORE alert?

And do you really think that people who are able to drive between two dotted white lines are 'driving gods'? Presumably this is something you struggle with if you hold those that can do it in such high esteem?

[Ari]

Devil2575 said:

This

The same people also seem to justify their reasoning with lots of imaginary st that appears to be made up for the sole purpose of supporting their position.

I swear I'd read less unfounded assertion on a forum for creationism.

Which 'imaginary st' did you have in mind exactly?

[Ari]

Good point!

[Ari]

foggy said:

The most recent development is Lane Guidance Support (LGS) which interprets the lane markings and provides minor steering inputs via the EPAS to keep the car centred as well as possible between the markings. Depending on the manufacturer and vehicle configuration LGS can function from a standstill up to 200km/h. Again the torque applied is of the order of a few Nm and the driver can easily overcome the LGS effect. The majority of systems require confirmation that the driver still maintains contact with the steering wheel, sensed by some element of resistance to the EPAS applied input or by contact affecting an electronic property (capacitive IIRC), otherwise they time out and advise the drive they are no longer providing support.

To the naysayers and tinfoil hatters amongst us you can be pretty sure that virtually every way you can think of of 'beating the system' has been accounted for, engineered out and tested in multiple software and hardware in the loop tests, track tests and road trip expeditions by the tier one supplier supplying the components, and the process repeated again by the vehicle manufacturer, before it finds it's way into your hands.

Having driven thousands of miles with various generations and iterations of all the systems over the years, for an every day chug around car that I was doing even half decent mileage in I'd always take a well engineered Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) system in combination with an LGS with LKA/LDW every time. For everyday driving ACC looks after speed and headway (I use it everywhere from 20s and 30s to NSL here and abroad) and I've found because LGS interprets the vehicle position relative to the lane markings and tweaks the heading as necessary it makes main road and motorway driving a less tiring experience. Hell there are even production cars out there that offer 'semi-autonomous low speed following' i.e automated steering and speed control in low speed traffic up to 30km/h - absolutely brilliant in stop-start traffic! Team said daily chug around with a fun car for proper driving on interesting drives and track days and you're sorted!

Granted the benefits all these systems offer can be used inappropriately.

That last sentence is exactly my issue. As ever, used sensibly by intelligent people I'm sure they're really useful features. But the fact is, people will use it to drive for them whilst they play with their phones or prop a tablet on the dash and watch a movie.

I have a couple of questions that spring immediately to mind (and there are no doubt plenty of other similar scenarios).

You say LGS can operate at any speed from 0 - 200kph and that you use it in 20mph and 30mph sectors, so clearly it works in urban environments. What happens if its driving along steering for you, keeping you in lane, and the Active Cruise Control is looking for obstructions, and there is a car parked agains the kerb requiring you to steer across the white lines slightly to pass. Does it just anchor up behind the parked car?

What if you're cruising along an A road, ACC controlling the speed, LGS doing the steering, set at 60mph, and you reach a T junction?

What if a child is running across the pavement and (were you paying attention) you could see he's about to run straight into the path of your car. Can the ACC see him and ease off in advance, or is it purely reactive (ALERT, there's an obstruction directly in front - apply brakes BANG too late!)

Another question about ACC. As I understand it if the car in front brakes, you brake to maintain distance. What happens if you have it set at 80mph on the motorway, feet off the pedals, car steering merrily away, engrossed in your latest Facebook post when you come up behind stationary queuing traffic? Can it stop in time?

I keep coming back to the same thing, used properly maybe it has some merit. And you've tried it so you are better placed than me to be of that opinion. But, as you say yourself, these systems can be used inappropriately. We're talking about the Great British Public. They're not paying enough attention now - make them believe that the car will brake and steer for them and deal with any emergency and you're effectively licencing driverless cars.

If you look at the technology and engineering that goes into Google driverless cars, it's pretty clear we are a long way from that, yet these systems WILL be expected to deal with situations in the absence of any input from behind the wheel 'cos it drives itself mate, innit'.

[Ari]

ensignia said:

This place is full of bitter old luddites who'll find reason to complain about any new technology. It's getting extremely tiresome; I'm sure the days of having a manual choke and seats with no headrests were better.

Lane Assist is a useful feature to have, it'll probably help lane discipline and keep people more alert. How exactly is this a bad thing? I'm sure no one's completely reliant on this, it's just a nice feature to have as a safety net. After all, not everyone is a driving god like all the players on here.

Are you really sure? Based on what, the Great British Public's current exemplary driving standards?

[Ari]

Sump said:

Ari said:

That last sentence is exactly my issue. As ever, used sensibly by intelligent people I'm sure they're really useful features. But the fact is, people will use it to drive for them whilst they play with their phones or prop a tablet on the dash and watch a movie.

I have a couple of questions that spring immediately to mind (and there are no doubt plenty of other similar scenarios).

You say LGS can operate at any speed from 0 - 200kph and that you use it in 20mph and 30mph sectors, so clearly it works in urban environments. What happens if its driving along steering for you, keeping you in lane, and the Active Cruise Control is looking for obstructions, and there is a car parked agains the kerb requiring you to steer across the white lines slightly to pass. Does it just anchor up behind the parked car?

What if you're cruising along an A road, ACC controlling the speed, LGS doing the steering, set at 60mph, and you reach a T junction?

What if a child is running across the pavement and (were you paying attention) you could see he's about to run straight into the path of your car. Can the ACC see him and ease off in advance, or is it purely reactive (ALERT, there's an obstruction directly in front - apply brakes BANG too late!)

Another question about ACC. As I understand it if the car in front brakes, you brake to maintain distance. What happens if you have it set at 80mph on the motorway, feet off the pedals, car steering merrily away, engrossed in your latest Facebook post when you come up behind stationary queuing traffic? Can it stop in time?

I keep coming back to the same thing, used properly maybe it has some merit. And you've tried it so you are better placed than me to be of that opinion. But, as you say yourself, these systems can be used inappropriately. We're talking about the Great British Public. They're not paying enough attention now - make them believe that the car will brake and steer for them and deal with any emergency and you're effectively licencing driverless cars.

If you look at the technology and engineering that goes into Google driverless cars, it's pretty clear we are a long way from that, yet these systems WILL be expected to deal with situations in the absence of any input from behind the wheel 'cos it drives itself mate, innit'.

You need to drive a car with these features to understand how they work. Manufacturers aren't morons and they do think of these things. It can't be used inappropriately as it has saefty features built in, like it turns off after 5 seconds when it realises you haven't got your hands on the wheel, or it starts beeping at you when it realises you haven't looked at the road in some seconds.

Would you please relax and go try it out.

Or, y'know, I could ask someone who obviously has a lot of experience and knowledge of these things on a motoring forum. It's called discussion.

[Ari]

ensignia said:

To claim that people will completely rely on it and look at their phones more as a result is quite frankly ridiculous.

I had a long coach trip in America a couple of years ago. I was sat on the offside of the coach so could watch cars passing us at 60mph. This is how at least one in fifty cars is driven.



Now give these people something that will keep their car in lane when they're doing this...

Oh course people will use it to look at their phones more! People are obsessed with text messaging, Facebook, emails, the Internet, etc etc. The car steers itself innit! No problem bruv.

To suggest that people will steadfastly leave their phones alone as they bowl along the motorway, car steering away, is naive in the extreme!

[Ari]

Douche said:

The most effective safety feature you could fit to a car is a great big rusty metal spike, mounted in the centre of the steering wheel.

Whilst I understand your thinking, it would make roads safer for about a week. Then people would revert to type because it will never happen to them.

It's why, despite many campaigns etc, they actually had to make it law before the majority of people would put a seatbelt on. It wasn't because people didn't think that seatbelts made any difference, it was because they didn't crash yesterday, so they won't today.

[Ari]

ensignia said:

Manufacturers devote millions of pounds and man hours to perfect the technology and cover virtually every scenario. It's all very clever when you think about it...

so called said:

Mentioned this before on here but one more time.
Driving a rental in heavy snow last January in the US, the lane assist kept sounding the alarm as it couldn't deal with the lane 'white line' being the full width of the freeway.
The noise drove me crazy and being an Avis rental, who take the hand book out of the car, I couldn't figure out how to turn it off.

Worse was the proximity sensor that kept thinking I was suddenly closing on a car in front and would hit the brakes on the ice and snow covered road.
It nearly put me in a ditch 3 times just because it couldn't tell the different between a truck and a blinkin snow flake.

[Ari]

Sump said:

Ari said:

ensignia said:

To claim that people will completely rely on it and look at their phones more as a result is quite frankly ridiculous.

I had a long coach trip in America a couple of years ago. I was sat on the offside of the coach so could watch cars passing us at 60mph. This is how at least one in fifty cars is driven.



Now give these people something that will keep their car in lane when they're doing this...

Oh course people will use it to look at their phones more! People are obsessed with text messaging, Facebook, emails, the Internet, etc etc. The car steers itself innit! No problem bruv.

To suggest that people will steadfastly leave their phones alone as they bowl along the motorway, car steering away, is naive in the extreme!

If they're going to do it regardless wouldn't you rather they have the lane keep assist?

Wouldn't you rather the other forty nine didn't think 'ooh, a car that drives itself' - and joined in?

What actually needs to happen is that using a phone whilst driving needs to be treated as seriously as drink driving. Drunks might make terrible drivers, but at least they're generally looking out the frigging window!

A few high profile 12 month bans and maybe people that can't resist that 'email received' bleep might actually leave the bloody thing alone and carry on with the important bit - controlling a tonne of metal at 31 metres every second!

[Ari]

Devil2575 said:

This is a prime example of annecdotal evidence though isn't it.

At least 1 in 50? I asume you have data to support this or is it just a number you made up to support your argument?

I was sat on a bus for about five hours, most of which was on two or three lane roads watching a steady stream of cars pass us.

About one in fifty (indeed I'd go as far as to say at least one in fifty, it really was a shocking proportion) of the drivers that drove past us had their phone in their hand in the manner of the photograph (which I took of one of them).

I'm sorry, I'm not sure how I can make that any easier for you to comprehend...

[Ari]

sixspeed said:

.. except its not, because a friend of mine was just telling me how much he missed his old Audi company car last weekend because the lane assist and radar cruise made it so easy for him to use his phone on his commute. To quote...

"Facebook, news feed, *bzzzzz*, look up- oh whoops, back to phone *bzzzzzz*, whoops - steer right, back to phone, *bzzzzz*, whoops - steer left..." etc.

He admitted it was bad, but it made it so easy.

This is exactly my concern. People do look at their phones whilst driving. Now we're giving them technology to make it even easier.

[Ari]

luckystrike said:

chrispj said:

You can keep saying that if it makes you feel superior but you are talking rubbish.

Yes, in many places drivers do absolutely bonkers stuff of a completely different order of magnitude to what you see in the UK but that has no relevance to whether British drivers are a bit rubbish and prone to pulling out their mobile phones at the first opportunity and are likely to use this lane assist to do more of it.

Saying someone can't be angry or dissatisfied with something because someone else has it worse is as perverse as saying someone isn't allowed to be happy because someone has it better.

Absolutely this! Might as well not bother with seatbelts or decent tyres if we're going to work on the basis of 'there are worse places ergo it isn't a problem'.

[Ari]

chrispj said:

Ari said:

I'm sorry, I'm not sure how I can make that any easier for you to comprehend...

If it's not from a government/industry backed study, devil2575 doesn't want to know...

I suspect you're right.

[Ari]

foggy said:

Lots and lots of intereting stuff and a great video

Give it time, not too much mind... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7Up8m6p8DU

That's brilliant, thank you.

So clearly, (and as the man from Volvo in the video says himself) we don't have self driving cars yet.

However equally clearly, give many users a car that accelerates, brakes and steers for them and they will quickly believe that they do.

[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"