# Ha!  This will never sell to drivers in Boston!



## billski (Oct 13, 2011)

"High-end vehicles such as those produced by Mercedes, BMW, and Lexus come equipped with *adaptive cruise control systems that use radar to maintain a safe distance between cars.* Even if the car ahead comes to a complete stop, the system is capable of sensing that and applying the brakes to avoid a collision. The challenge has been making this type of radar system cheap enough to add to cars with sticker prices tens of thousands of dollars lower. Next year, Robert Bosch, the world’s leading automotive components supplier, will introduce an automotive radar system that fills the bill."

"Today's systems can dramatically reduce your risk of rear-ending someone else's car, and when most cars have such radars,* they will also be much less likely to rear-end you*."

What fun would that be?  How the hell else am I gonna get drivers out of _my _way?


Source: http://spectrum.ieee.org


----------



## Glenn (Oct 13, 2011)

I thought the radar system was already out. I beleive Audi was using them; they look like fog lights, but they're radar pods. 

Regardless, time to pull the trigger Bill. It'll be nice to park your car after opening the garage door via wifi. :lol:


----------



## ALLSKIING (Oct 13, 2011)

No thanks...I prefer to drive my car not have the car drive itself. Also, what happens when people get so used to this and stop paying attention completely... then the thing malfunctions?I really do hate all these assisted driving features cars have these days and its only going to get worse.


----------



## ctenidae (Oct 13, 2011)

Top Gear commented on that system- Jeremy said you could program teh distance you follow, from a nice safe distance several car lengths back all the way up to "Full Audi" tailgaiting.

They don't like Audis or Audi drivers.

If I used cruise control, I'd probably think the adaptive version was grand.


----------



## bvibert (Oct 13, 2011)

ALLSKIING said:


> No thanks...I prefer to drive my car not have the car drive itself. Also, what happens when people get so used to this and stop paying attention completely... then the thing malfunctions?I really do hate all these assisted driving features cars have these days and its only going to get worse.



Totally agree!


----------



## Glenn (Oct 13, 2011)

I can see this being helpful in light traffic. Here's what seems to happen to me more often than not....someone in the right lane wants to pass the car in front of them. I'm in the left lane; CC set at 74ish. The car pulls out in front of me and proceeds to pass the other car at 1.5mph faster than the other car is driving. It's annoying as hell.


----------



## ctenidae (Oct 13, 2011)

Glenn said:


> I can see this being helpful in light traffic. Here's what seems to happen to me more often than not....someone in the right lane wants to pass the car in front of them. I'm in the left lane; CC set at 74ish. The car pulls out in front of me and proceeds to pass the other car at 1.5mph faster than the other car is driving. It's annoying as hell.



That's just bad driving on the other guy's part. No nanny system in your car will help that. Unless by "nanny" you mean "bazooka."


----------



## speden (Oct 13, 2011)

billski said:


> ... * they will also be much less likely to rear-end you*.



That's a nice feature, but I think cooler stuff is on the horizon.  Some of the automakers are looking to have cars communicate with each other, to warn you about things you can't see.  Each car can report its position and speed, and computers are much better at calculating when a collision is about to happen than humans.  So when the car thief or whatever is barreling through the red light, your car could tell you or just stop you before you get t-boned by the clown.  Or two cars ahead of you an accident may happen, and the cars in front of you will relay to your car, "You need to stop now or else you're going to be part of the pileup that's about to happen!"


----------



## Glenn (Oct 14, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> That's just bad driving on the other guy's part. No nanny system in your car will help that. Unless by "nanny" you mean "bazooka."



That's what bugs me. I'm not out to break any speed records...I just want an efficient trip. People just don't get it. It's annoying.


----------



## SkiDork (Oct 14, 2011)

I actually think that parallel parking assist looks cool.


----------



## ctenidae (Oct 14, 2011)

SkiDork said:


> I actually think that parallel parking assist looks cool.



Yeah, but that will eliminate a source fo great enjoyment in Boston, watching the 'burbans fail miserably to get their 15 foot land yacht into a 25 foot parallel space. A good Bostonian can get a 10 foot car into a 9 foot space. Cars have bumpers for a reason, you know!


----------



## rocojerry (Oct 14, 2011)

How bout a giant air-bazooka to keep the car behind you further off your a$$ instead?

May go along well with the yosemite sam mudflaps!


----------



## bvibert (Oct 14, 2011)

speden said:


> That's a nice feature, but I think cooler stuff is on the horizon.  Some of the automakers are looking to have cars communicate with each other, to warn you about things you can't see.  Each car can report its position and speed, and computers are much better at calculating when a collision is about to happen than humans.  So when the car thief or whatever is barreling through the red light, your car could tell you or just stop you before you get t-boned by the clown.  Or two cars ahead of you an accident may happen, and the cars in front of you will relay to your car, "You need to stop now or else you're going to be part of the pileup that's about to happen!"



That sounds like an absolutely horrible idea to me.  I don't ever want a car that automatically applies the brakes for any reason.


----------



## speden (Oct 15, 2011)

bvibert said:


> That sounds like an absolutely horrible idea to me.  I don't ever want a car that automatically applies the brakes for any reason.



You probably don't like anti-lock brakes then.  If your car has them and you've ever felt them kick in when you pressed the brake, that means the computer just did it better than you could. Stability control automatically applies the brakes independently to the wheels to keep people from skidding off the road or into oncoming traffic.  That kind of fine control of braking isn't humanly possible with a single brake pedal.

Most people overrate their ability to avoid an accident.  It's simple physics and biology that many accidents are unavoidable without computer assistance.  That's why so many people die and get injured in car wrecks year after year.  Car accidents are the leading cause of death among teenagers.  Improved braking features will save their lives.  In the future you might be telling your grandchildren a car wreck story, and they'll say, "That's silly grandpa, why didn't the cars stop?"

There was a story in the news just yesterday about a teenage girl who was huffing compressed air and then ran over two pedestrians.  You'll never stop people from behaving irresponsibly, but you can make cars that don't kill people.


----------



## darent (Oct 15, 2011)

SkiDork said:


> I actually think that parallel parking assist looks cool.



If you can't parallel park, you shouldn't be driving, that's my story and I'm sticken with !!it


----------



## darent (Oct 15, 2011)

speden said:


> You probably don't like anti-lock brakes then.  If your car has them and you've ever felt them kick in when you pressed the brake, that means the computer just did it better than you could. Stability control automatically applies the brakes independently to the wheels to keep people from skidding off the road or into oncoming traffic.  That kind of fine control of braking isn't humanly possible with a single brake pedal.
> 
> Most people overrate their ability to avoid an accident.  It's simple physics and biology that many accidents are unavoidable without computer assistance.  That's why so many people die and get injured in car wrecks year after year.  Car accidents are the leading cause of death among teenagers.  Improved braking features will save their lives.  In the future you might be telling your grandchildren a car wreck story, and they'll say, "That's silly grandpa, why didn't the cars stop?"
> 
> There was a story in the news just yesterday about a teenage girl who was huffing compressed air and then ran over two pedestrians.  You'll never stop people from behaving irresponsibly, but you can make cars that don't kill people.


I'm fine with anti lock brakes, to a point, it won't allow you to do certain winter driving saftey maneuvers efficiently because you can't lock up your brakes. as far as stability control, wait till you get stuck in snow on a flat surface, you better hope you can switch it off.  spend  the time to learn how to really drive . go past your highschool drivers ed coarse and invest in some driving skills and you won't need your car to drive you.


----------



## Geoff (Oct 16, 2011)

darent said:


> I'm fine with anti lock brakes, to a point, it won't allow you to do certain winter driving saftey maneuvers efficiently because you can't lock up your brakes. as far as stability control, wait till you get stuck in snow on a flat surface, you better hope you can switch it off.  spend  the time to learn how to really drive . go past your highschool drivers ed coarse and invest in some driving skills and you won't need your car to drive you.



Yep.   I hate ABS when I'm snow driving.    In deeper snow, you really do want the brakes to lock up to stop the car.

My VW GTI is pretty funny when the ESP is enabled in the winter.   Driving up a snow-covered hill, it will just coast to a stop... and that's with good snow tires.

My high school/college car was a 1972 Maverick.   Nobody had snow tires back then and I couldn't have afforded them.   I was a Vermont every weekender in my youth and I went to UVM.   By the time I was 18 or 19, I was a pretty competent snow driver.   You don't need to "invest in some driving skills" to learn how to snow drive.  You just need to drive in the snow a lot with a crappy snow car.   It's way easier to master than a crosswind landing or docking a boat with current and windage.


----------



## bvibert (Oct 17, 2011)

speden said:


> In the future you might be telling your grandchildren a car wreck story, and they'll say, "That's silly grandpa, why didn't the cars stop?"



I seriously hope not.  What's next, cars that steer themselves?  No thanks.  Might as well ride the bus.

How much is all this fancy technology going to cost and weigh?  What happens when the computer that everyone becomes accustomed to stops working properly?  Will the car just stop in the middle of the road?  Will the zombie drivers be able to figure out how to operate the vehicle without HAL there to help?

I'm all for technology, but I'm not at all a fan of the pussification of the driving experience (or life in general).

Have you ever watched Demolition Man?  That's where we're heading with your stream of thought.  I guess I'll be hanging out in the sewers with Dennis Leary...


----------



## ctenidae (Oct 17, 2011)

bvibert said:


> I guess I'll be hanging out in the sewers with Dennis Leary...



I'll bring the beer.


----------



## SkiDork (Oct 17, 2011)

darent said:


> If you can't parallel park, you shouldn't be driving, that's my story and I'm sticken with !!it



I can parallel park.

I can also drive.  But if I could afford a limo to take me everywhere I'd certainly do that.


----------



## bvibert (Oct 17, 2011)

SkiDork said:


> if I could afford a limo to take me everywhere I'd certainly do that.



No way.  If I had the money I'd have a limo drive my wife everywhere while I showed up in my overpowered sports car.  That way she wouldn't complain about how fast I was driving. :beer:


----------



## SkiDork (Oct 17, 2011)

bvibert said:


> No way.  If I had the money I'd have a limo drive my wife everywhere while I showed up in my overpowered sports car.  That way she wouldn't complain about how fast I was driving. :beer:



you got a point there Norton...


----------



## speden (Oct 17, 2011)

bvibert said:


> I seriously hope not.  What's next, cars that steer themselves?  No thanks.  Might as well ride the bus.
> 
> How much is all this fancy technology going to cost and weigh?  What happens when the computer that everyone becomes accustomed to stops working properly?  Will the car just stop in the middle of the road?  Will the zombie drivers be able to figure out how to operate the vehicle without HAL there to help?
> 
> ...



Emergency braking would be like an extension of air bags.  Air bags go off _after_ a crash is detected by the car.  But if the car can see that a crash is imminent, it could first warn you, and if you do not react, then it could brake to _prevent_ the crash.

This isn't that different than aircraft all having transponder signals so other pilots can see where everyone is.  If two airlines are on a collision course, the computer will tell one plane to climb and the other to dive to avoid the crash.  There is some debate in aviation that automation is making pilots lose their flying skills, and yet the accident rate among aircraft keeps going down as automation increases.  Basically the odds of an unassisted human making a fatal error are a lot higher than the odds of both the computer failing and then the pilot also failing.

Safety features in cars are not causing a pussification of driving.  You think Porsche/Audi/BMW are going to design cars that aren't fun to drive?  Give them some credit.  These features are going to be very unobtrusive and will only jump in if the driver screws up or is about to be screwed by someone else.  Other things like smart cruise control are just convenience features.  There's nothing manly about alternating between the brake and gas pedal in a traffic jam.  If someone wants the computer to take care of that boring chore, then why not.

I did see demolition man many years ago, but as best I can remember it took things to a silly level.  Didn't they outlaw sex in that movie?  Somehow I don't think people would stand for that.   So I think you're being a little paranoid there.


----------



## ctenidae (Oct 17, 2011)

speden said:


> Safety features in cars are not causing a pussification of driving.  You think Porsche/Audi/BMW are going to design cars that aren't fun to drive?  Give them some credit.  These features are going to be very unobtrusive and will only jump in if the driver screws up or is about to be screwed by someone else.  Other things like smart cruise control are just convenience features.  There's nothing manly about alternating between the brake and gas pedal in a traffic jam.  If someone wants the computer to take care of that boring chore, then why not.



I disagree- my MB's nanny comes on far too often. I often turn it off.

As for driving in traffic- there is a certain enjoyment (albeit small compared to the annoyance of the jam in teh first place) in being able to drive at just the right speed to not need the brakes. It takes a lot of technique (technique which, if employed by drivers who actually drive their cars would eliminate the jam in the first place) and forethought (another hting that would reduce or elimiante jams) to accomplish. It may take me an hour to get home, but I can rest easy knowing that my brake lights aren't going to burn out.


----------



## bvibert (Oct 17, 2011)

speden said:


> Safety features in cars are not causing a pussification of driving.  You think Porsche/Audi/BMW are going to design cars that aren't fun to drive?



I think the shit that gets mandated in the name of safety weighs down cars and over complicates them, making them less fun to drive.  It's not a matter of what Porsche, Audi, BMW, etc.. want to, or can, make, it's a matter of what they're forced to make to adhere to the mandated BS.


----------



## Glenn (Oct 17, 2011)

Safety adds weight too. 

An interesting topic came up on a podcast I listen to: "Would people drive safer if cars were more dangerous?"


----------



## speden (Oct 17, 2011)

bvibert said:


> I think the shit that gets mandated in the name of safety weighs down cars and over complicates them, making them less fun to drive.  It's not a matter of what Porsche, Audi, BMW, etc.. want to, or can, make, it's a matter of what they're forced to make to adhere to the mandated BS.



Cars are getting lighter due to mandated fuel economy standards.  There are plenty of fun to drive cars.  If you're a speed freak, you should be on a motorcycle anyway, as there are plenty of them that will flatten your eyeballs.

What safety features would you like to see removed?  Air bags, side impact reinforcements, anti-lock brakes, seat belts?  All of those things are proven to save lives and reduce injuries.  You shouldn't let your hatred for the government cloud your judgement so much.  You should judge each safety feature on its own merits.


----------



## ctenidae (Oct 17, 2011)

Unfortunately, the most dangerous element in a car is the driver. Better drivers equal safer cars.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Oct 17, 2011)

speden said:


> If you're a speed freak, you should be on a motorcycle anyway, as there are plenty of them that will flatten your eyeballs.


Thats a pretty stupid statement..


----------



## ALLSKIING (Oct 17, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Unfortunately, the most dangerous element in a car is the driver. Better drivers equal safer cars.


Post of the day!


----------



## bvibert (Oct 17, 2011)

speden said:


> Cars are getting lighter due to mandated fuel economy standards.  There are plenty of fun to drive cars.  If you're a speed freak, you should be on a motorcycle anyway, as there are plenty of them that will flatten your eyeballs.
> 
> What safety features would you like to see removed?  Air bags, side impact reinforcements, anti-lock brakes, seat belts?  All of those things are proven to save lives and reduce injuries.  You shouldn't let your hatred for the government cloud your judgement so much.  You should judge each safety feature on its own merits.



I don't have a hated for government.  I don't like other people forcing their need to feel all safe and cozy in every aspect of their lives onto me.

I always wear a seat belt, and I don't mind ABS in most cases, but those are my choices.  Side impact reinforcements?  Extra weight in my opinion.  Air bags?  Not convinced the pluses outweigh the minuses.

I'm not saying that there aren't fun cars to drive now, what I'm saying is that the trend is leading away from fun cars to 'safe' cars.

It's not just the driving experience that I'm concerned about, it's also the cost, both up front and in maintenance down the road.  I don't mind paying for something that I actually want, but I have a problem when prices are inflated to include unnecessary nonsense.


----------



## bvibert (Oct 17, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Unfortunately, the most dangerous element in a car is the driver. Better drivers equal safer cars.



I absolutely agree with you...  But in his scenario he's taking the driver out of the equation...


----------



## bvibert (Oct 17, 2011)

ALLSKIING said:


> Thats a pretty stupid statement..



All motorcycles should have airbags and side impact protection...


----------



## ctenidae (Oct 17, 2011)

bvibert said:


> I absolutely agree with you...  But in his scenario he's taking the driver out of the equation...



Just imagine how efficient a car that's not weighed down with addiitonal passive safety equipment could be. Especially if it were unencumbered with a slow reacting, unthoughtful operator. I bet training drivers better is a whole lot cheaper than building heavier cars.

As someone else said, if you want to take the drivers out, take the bus.

/or get a limo. I'd go for a bazooka.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Oct 17, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Just imagine how efficient a car that's not weighed down with addiitonal passive safety equipment could be. Especially if it were unencumbered with a slow reacting, unthoughtful operator. I bet training drivers better is a whole lot cheaper than building heavier cars.
> 
> As someone else said, if you want to take the drivers out, take the bus.
> 
> /or get a limo. I'd go for a bazooka.


Thats just it....Half the drivers on the road should have never passed there drivers test. The system is garbage.


----------



## bvibert (Oct 17, 2011)

ALLSKIING said:


> Thats just it....Half the drivers on the road should have never passed there drivers test. The system is garbage.



Agreed.  More and stricter training is needed which would be much better than dumbing down cars more than they already are.


----------



## speden (Oct 17, 2011)

ALLSKIING said:


> Thats a pretty stupid statement..



Why do you say that?  Most bikes can leave a car in the dust.  When I used to ride, cars often seemed like non-moving objects.


----------



## ctenidae (Oct 17, 2011)

speden said:


> Why do you say that?  Most bikes can leave a car in the dust.  When I used to ride, cars often seemed like non-moving objects.



Why is "Knowing how to drive and wishing others did, too" always equated with being a speed freak? Speed is secondary- without control, all speed does is get you killed. It is possible to drive quickly, utilizing a decent portion of your vehicle's capabilities, while being perfectly safe and within earshot of the speed limits. I have a 90 degre kink in the road out of my neighborhood. Posted sped limit is 25, but it's tough to go more than 20 aroudn the turn. Pushing it is enjoyable, legal, and if you know what you're doing, safe.

Though, Darwin would argue that people who just want to go fast should drive donorcycles. Can't say I entirely disagree.


----------



## speden (Oct 17, 2011)

bvibert said:


> I absolutely agree with you...  But in his scenario he's taking the driver out of the equation...



If you agree that the driver is the most dangerous element, then it doesn't make sense that would wouldn't want to stop the driver from doing something dangerous, like flying into a pileup.

In the scenario I laid out, the driver is about to collide with something.  Imagine you're the passenger and see a car about to t-bone you from the side if you don't stop.  You yell at the driver, "Look out! Stop now!"  But the driver does nothing and sits there like a statue.  You are probably going to die if you don't get the car stopped.  If you had a brake pedal in the passenger seat, would you press it to save your life, or would you be worried about offending the driver and taking away his fun of driving?

Well the computer is the passenger, and computers are so much faster than humans that we look like statues to them.  They can see when a crash is imminent and that the driver isn't doing anything about it.  Why wouldn't you want the computer to apply the brake and prevent the accident?  Because you think the computer is too heavy and costs too much money and that the government may one day mandate it so therefore it must be bad?  Stuff like this is usually pioneered on high end luxury cars, so if you don't want it, don't buy it.  It wouldn't be mandated unless it was proven to save lives and the cost became reasonable enough for the mainstream.


----------



## ctenidae (Oct 17, 2011)

speden said:


> If you agree that the driver is the most dangerous element, then it doesn't make sense that would wouldn't want to *stop the driver from doing something dangerous*, like flying into a pileup.
> 
> In the scenario I laid out, the driver is about to collide with something.  Imagine you're the passenger and see a car about to t-bone you from the side if you don't stop.  You yell at the driver, "Look out! Stop now!"  *But the driver does nothing and sits there like a statue.*  You are probably going to die if you don't get the car stopped.  If you had a brake pedal in the passenger seat, would you press it to save your life, or would you be worried about offending the driver and taking away his fun of driving?
> 
> Well the computer is the passenger, and computers are so much faster than humans that we look like statues to them.  They can see when a crash is imminent and that *the driver isn't doing anything about it*.  Why wouldn't you want the computer to apply the brake and prevent the accident?  Because you think the computer is too heavy and costs too much money and that the government may one day mandate it so therefore it must be bad?  Stuff like this is usually pioneered on high end luxury cars, so if you don't want it, don't buy it.  It wouldn't be mandated unless it was proven to save lives and the cost became reasonable enough for the mainstream.



Wouldn't it be better still to train drivers to avoid getting into those situations to begin with? All of your examples are the result of operator error. The vast majority of crashes are the result of operator error. An "accident" is rarely truly an accident- someone did something that was incorrect. There are very few other reasons for crashes. The Fins have a solid driver's ed program, and very low accident rates.


----------



## speden (Oct 17, 2011)

ALLSKIING said:


> Thats just it....Half the drivers on the road should have never passed there drivers test. The system is garbage.



It is what it is, and it's not likely to change in any significant way.

Most of the common causes of accidents cannot be taught away.  Drunk driving, speeding, cellphones, poorly maintained cars that break, etc.  That kind of stuff isn't going to stop no matter what you do.  The best way auto manufacturers can make headway on reducing fatal accidents is to make the cars smarter and more crashworthy.


----------



## speden (Oct 17, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Why is "Knowing how to drive and wishing others did, too" always equated with being a speed freak? ...



Well I hope you don't think I was saying that.  bvibert was saying he thought the weight of safety equipment was ruining the fun of driving, so I asked him if he liked driving fast.  If he does, then a bike is the way to go.

But to your point, wishing others did too is just a pipe dream, not a solution.


----------



## ctenidae (Oct 17, 2011)

speden said:


> It is what it is, and it's not likely to change in any significant way.
> 
> Most of the common causes of accidents cannot be taught away.  Drunk driving, speeding, cellphones, poorly maintained cars that break, etc.  That kind of stuff isn't going to stop no matter what you do.  The best way auto manufacturers can make headway on reducing fatal accidents is to make the cars smarter and more crashworthy.



I disagree. All of those things can be taught away- largely simply by enforcing the laws. Make it a license-suspending offense to be on your cell phone. Make car inspections and safety checks more effective. Making it less necessary for drivers to actually be driving their cars makes it less likely that people will actually drive their cars.

Instead of paying for extra safety features in cars, I'd rather build out better public transport.


----------



## speden (Oct 17, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Wouldn't it be better still to train drivers to avoid getting into those situations to begin with? All of your examples are the result of operator error. The vast majority of crashes are the result of operator error. An "accident" is rarely truly an accident- someone did something that was incorrect. There are very few other reasons for crashes. The Fins have a solid driver's ed program, and very low accident rates.



When two cars collide, usually one of them is at fault, and if you're a good driver, it was probably the other guy that made the operator error.  If the other guy had a collision braking system, then they wouldn't have hit you.  If he was bombed out of his mind, he could try to hit stuff all the way home from the bar until someone called the cops and put his butt in jail.  Without the collision avoidance he'll hurt himself and probably take someone with him, which doesn't help anyone except the lawyers.  The Fins may have a solid driver's ed program, but they also have a different culture and populace than the melting pot of the U.S., which is probably more significant.



ctenidae said:


> I disagree. All of those things can be taught away- largely simply by enforcing the laws. Make it a license-suspending offense to be on your cell phone. Make car inspections and safety checks more effective. Making it less necessary for drivers to actually be driving their cars makes it less likely that people will actually drive their cars.
> 
> Instead of paying for extra safety features in cars, I'd rather build out better public transport.



You might get a marginal improvement in accident rates with that kind of stuff, but nothing significant.  And then you're living in a police state with random drunk driver checkpoints and punishing people that can use their cellphone safely while driving.  There are lots of people driving around on a suspended license, illegal immigrants that don't even try to get a license and training, etc.  Stopping these people before they do damage using law enforcement is extremely difficult.  The cops aren't usually called in until after the accident and then it's too late.



ctenidae said:


> ... Though, Darwin would argue that people who just want to go fast should drive donorcycles. Can't say I entirely disagree.



This is actually a very good point for what I'm talking about.  You can't really add many safety features to a motorcycle.  It's inherently dangerous and the riders know that and act accordingly.  But the biggest danger to a biker is actually car drivers that don't see them.  It's a weakness in human perception and motorcycles are practically invisible to many drivers.  That's why we used to call them "Left turn Larry", who would turn left directly in front of an oncoming motorcycle.  Well motorcycles aren't invisible to a computer.  They could stop Larry in his tracks and let the organ donor keep his organs until another day.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Oct 17, 2011)

speden said:


> Why do you say that?  Most bikes can leave a car in the dust.  When I used to ride, cars often seemed like non-moving objects.


Its just a silly statement. Snowmobiles go fast as hell as well..If one likes speed should he just stick with snowmobiles? Most bikes can leave normal cars in the dust but somebody that is into speed like a lot of my friends and myself to a certain point do not drive normal cars. I have driven in many cars that would outperform a street bike so to say that is just really silly.


----------



## bvibert (Oct 17, 2011)

speden said:


> If you agree that the driver is the most dangerous element, then it doesn't make sense that would wouldn't want to stop the driver from doing something dangerous, like flying into a pileup.
> 
> In the scenario I laid out, the driver is about to collide with something.  Imagine you're the passenger and see a car about to t-bone you from the side if you don't stop.  You yell at the driver, "Look out! Stop now!"  But the driver does nothing and sits there like a statue.  You are probably going to die if you don't get the car stopped.  If you had a brake pedal in the passenger seat, would you press it to save your life, or would you be worried about offending the driver and taking away his fun of driving?
> 
> Well the computer is the passenger, and computers are so much faster than humans that we look like statues to them.  They can see when a crash is imminent and that the driver isn't doing anything about it.  Why wouldn't you want the computer to apply the brake and prevent the accident?  Because you think the computer is too heavy and costs too much money and that the government may one day mandate it so therefore it must be bad?  Stuff like this is usually pioneered on high end luxury cars, so if you don't want it, don't buy it.  It wouldn't be mandated unless it was proven to save lives and the cost became reasonable enough for the mainstream.



Because I don't want a computer that has the ability to apply the brakes on my car.  Period.  End of story.

Increase driver responsibility and driver training.  You're never going to completely remove the driver from the equation.

No amount of your scenarios are going to make me feel otherwise.


----------



## speden (Oct 18, 2011)

bvibert said:


> Because I don't want a computer that has the ability to apply the brakes on my car.  Period.  End of story.
> 
> Increase driver responsibility and driver training.  You're never going to completely remove the driver from the equation.
> 
> No amount of your scenarios are going to make me feel otherwise.



Okay I give up trying to convince you, but here's a good article on it:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2011-07-18-self-braking-cars_n.htm


----------



## bvibert (Oct 18, 2011)

speden said:


> Okay I give up trying to convince you, but here's a good article on it:
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2011-07-18-self-braking-cars_n.htm



That article makes me cringe.  At least there's one voice of reason in it:



> "I'm fairly old-school. I still like to drive a manual transmission because I like control of my vehicle," says Jayne Griffith, 51, a Honda Civic driver from Minneapolis. "I don't think it's reasonable to spend thousands of dollars of extra money because someone is a careless driver."


----------



## speden (Oct 18, 2011)

bvibert said:


> That article makes me cringe.  At least there's one voice of reason in it:



One thing that stood out to me was this: "Only about 40% of people brake in crashes".  Most people never see it coming.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Oct 18, 2011)

speden said:


> One thing that stood out to me was this: "Only about 40% of people brake in crashes".  Most people never see it coming.


Those 40% should be the only ones with a drivers license. The rest should retest.


----------

