Shockingly bad NCAP score for the Zoe

[Fast Bug]

Max_Torque said:

DonkeyApple said:

Lane assist tech is extremely intrusive and distracting in environments such as the centre of London and country lanes where you are often specifically putting the left hand side of your car very close to an inanimate object in order to simply progress safely and practically. Having your car attempt to fight that conscious act is an irritation.

(my bold)

Us engineers full understand the "irritation" of DAS.

But let me ask this, just how "irritating" would it be to have your child run over and killed by an inattentive driver?


And that's the point, yes DAS can cause irritation,but it also prevents and mitigates against serious injury and death, and in the real world, yes every day it irritates some drivers, but on that same day it prevents other incidents from even happening, incidents that carry far more emotional weight and stress.

Brake assist I don't mind, and I'll forgive it on the rare occasion that it triggers when someone is turning and will be out of your lane before you get there. I think I've had that happen maybe once in the 5 years or so I've had cars with it. The trade off was it saved me once when someone cut in front of me on a dual carriage way, it applies far more braking pressure than most people can and do. Unfortunately it didn't help the guy behind me who parked in my boot!

Lane assist is bks though, especially on the roads around me and through roadworks. It works perfectly in a perfect world with fresh road markings on a perfectly pot hole free stretch of road. Sadly we don't have that in the UK, so it firmly remains off in my car

[InitialDave]

Max_Torque said:

(my bold)

Us engineers full understand the "irritation" of DAS.

But let me ask this, just how "irritating" would it be to have your child run over and killed by an inattentive driver?


And that's the point, yes DAS can cause irritation,but it also prevents and mitigates against serious injury and death, and in the real world, yes every day it irritates some drivers, but on that same day it prevents other incidents from even happening, incidents that carry far more emotional weight and stress.

Normally, your posts are very good, but I think you're off target here.

These systems don't just need to do their job when required, they need to be hands-off when not needed. A false positive for something that detects an issue and warns you (such as blind spot detection) is fairly benign, but once it can interfere with control of the car, it needs to be very, very reliable, and not act when not needed.

I'm not convinced we're at that stage yet with all of it.

I've discussed it with a very good friend, who has a doctorate in artificial intelligence and is involved with self-driving and pathfinding stuff at a university, and I base my opinions on what he says about it, because I, too, am only an engineer.

[wyson]

DonkeyApple said:

Yet I imagine there were an abnormally high number of fatalities in the mirrors of XC90s.

From previous posts (assuming everything I do stems from some sort of stupidity) and this one, I’m pretty sure you are my manager. Semi gaslighting what I say in a jokey way, exactly his behaviour as well.

What is a donkeyapple anyway?

Edited by wyson on Sunday 12th December 17:45

[Welshbeef]

wyson said:

From previous posts (assuming everything I do stems from some sort of stupidity) and this one, I’m pretty sure you are my manager. Semi gaslighting what I say in a jokey way, exactly his behaviour as well.

What is a donkeyapple anyway?

Edited by wyson on Sunday 12th December 17:45

I just googled it… OMG it’s a pretty vile, check it on urban dictionary (it is about an activity that happens in the toilets at a gas station)

[wyson]

Welshbeef said:

I just googled it… OMG it’s a pretty vile, check it on urban dictionary (it is about an activity that happens in the toilets at a gas station)

[DonkeyApple]

Welshbeef said:

I just googled it… OMG it’s a pretty vile, check it on urban dictionary (it is about an activity that happens in the toilets at a gas station)

That's just in your world. Back before the credit crunch it was the same as a horse Apple apart from the apple had plopped out of a donkey. The original horse apple was banned for causing the global financial crisis.

However, I suggest you get straight onto your tabloid of choice with your best hysterical voice and finest compo face and get the news out there before all the children die.

[monthou]

Welshbeef said:

I just googled it… OMG it’s a pretty vile, check it on urban dictionary (it is about an activity that happens in the toilets at a gas station)

I just googled it and got photos of donkeys and apples. Maybe that says something about our respective search histories.

I'd assumed it had the same connations as horse apples.

[wyson]

monthou said:

I just googled it and got photos of donkeys and apples. Maybe that says something about our respective search histories.

I'd assumed it had the same connations as horse apples.

Begs the question, what a horse apple is?

EDIT: Ok googled it. At least that is natural and not something that happens in a service station toilet.

[DonkeyApple]

Lord knows what cookies others have on their PCs!!

[Debaser]

InitialDave said:

Max_Torque said:

(my bold)

Us engineers full understand the "irritation" of DAS.

But let me ask this, just how "irritating" would it be to have your child run over and killed by an inattentive driver?


And that's the point, yes DAS can cause irritation,but it also prevents and mitigates against serious injury and death, and in the real world, yes every day it irritates some drivers, but on that same day it prevents other incidents from even happening, incidents that carry far more emotional weight and stress.

Normally, your posts are very good, but I think you're off target here.

These systems don't just need to do their job when required, they need to be hands-off when not needed. A false positive for something that detects an issue and warns you (such as blind spot detection) is fairly benign, but once it can interfere with control of the car, it needs to be very, very reliable, and not act when not needed.

I'm not convinced we're at that stage yet with all of it.

I've discussed it with a very good friend, who has a doctorate in artificial intelligence and is involved with self-driving and pathfinding stuff at a university, and I base my opinions on what he says about it, because I, too, am only an engineer.

I'm only an engineer too, and I must be a terrible driver because driver assistance systems annoy the hell out of me. I've had far too many false alarms from poorly calibrated systems so I turn it all off at the start of every journey, and a priority for my next car is that all that crap stays off through an ignition cycle. My current car turns it all on every time I start.

[anonymous-user]

Debaser said:

InitialDave said:

Max_Torque said:

(my bold)

Us engineers full understand the "irritation" of DAS.

But let me ask this, just how "irritating" would it be to have your child run over and killed by an inattentive driver?


And that's the point, yes DAS can cause irritation,but it also prevents and mitigates against serious injury and death, and in the real world, yes every day it irritates some drivers, but on that same day it prevents other incidents from even happening, incidents that carry far more emotional weight and stress.

Normally, your posts are very good, but I think you're off target here.

These systems don't just need to do their job when required, they need to be hands-off when not needed. A false positive for something that detects an issue and warns you (such as blind spot detection) is fairly benign, but once it can interfere with control of the car, it needs to be very, very reliable, and not act when not needed.

I'm not convinced we're at that stage yet with all of it.

I've discussed it with a very good friend, who has a doctorate in artificial intelligence and is involved with self-driving and pathfinding stuff at a university, and I base my opinions on what he says about it, because I, too, am only an engineer.

I'm only an engineer too, and I must be a terrible driver because driver assistance systems annoy the hell out of me. I've had far too many false alarms from poorly calibrated systems so I turn it all off at the start of every journey, and a priority for my next car is that all that crap stays off through an ignition cycle. My current car turns it all on every time I start.

systems are legally required to reenable on a new key cycle, sorry!


Id be interesting to hear your thougths on how you'd feel if you hit and injured someone with the system turned off? Pretty soon, i suspect, the ability to turn these systems off will be removed, in the same way as no car has an "ABS OFF" switch any more......

[Debaser]

Max_Torque said:

systems are legally required to reenable on a new key cycle, sorry!


Id be interesting to hear your thougths on how you'd feel if you hit and injured someone with the system turned off? Pretty soon, i suspect, the ability to turn these systems off will be removed, in the same way as no car has an "ABS OFF" switch any more......

I know it’s coming, I suspect my next car will need to be second hand to avoid it.

I don’t think the systems help with safety, and they are definitely very annoying, so I turn them off. If someone needs these systems to be safe they shouldn’t be on the road. Maybe with several years of development so the number of false alarms is reduced to zero, they might be useful. Unfortunately today they are way too immature to be anything other than annoying.


If I were to injure someone with them turned off I’d feel exactly the same as if I injured someone with the systems turned on.

[anonymous-user]

Debaser said:

I don’t think the systems help with safety,

The data is quite clear, DAS is a significant improvement in safety it reduces collsions, injury and death by a measurable margin. You can google the studies that show this

Debaser said:

and they are definitely very annoying,

Sometimes yes i agree they can be very annoying, frankly however i pretty much never trigger them so they don't really annoy me

Debaser said:

If I were to injure someone with them turned off I’d feel exactly the same as if I injured someone with the systems turned on.

You may find that their laywers don't feel the same way. It's only a matter of time before a civil case (if not a criminal one) is bought against "negligence" for turning such things off. My contacts in the DAS dept tell me there are already cases in the USA of this nature.....

[Debaser]

Max_Torque said:

Debaser said:

I don’t think the systems help with safety,

The data is quite clear, DAS is a significant improvement in safety it reduces collsions, injury and death by a measurable margin. You can google the studies that show this

Debaser said:

and they are definitely very annoying,

Sometimes yes i agree they can be very annoying, frankly however i pretty much never trigger them so they don't really annoy me

Debaser said:

If I were to injure someone with them turned off I’d feel exactly the same as if I injured someone with the systems turned on.

You may find that their laywers don't feel the same way. It's only a matter of time before a civil case (if not a criminal one) is bought against "negligence" for turning such things off. My contacts in the DAS dept tell me there are already cases in the USA of this nature.....

Fortunately I have eyes and a functioning brain, meaning I’m able to keep my car in lane without a clumsy and poorly calibrated assistance system. I look out of the windscreen when I drive, that stops me from driving into things and negates the need for a clumsy, annoying and poorly calibrated forward alert system.

The data may show an improvement in safety, but that doesn’t mean I have to drive around with these ridiculously badly developed systems turned on; as a result they definitely aren’t helping to make me any safer. Sorry, there’s no studies to show that.