Would you drive a car that could take over steering? : Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:05 pm  

Ford is testing a car that takes control of the steering wheel away from the driver if it believes they are failing to take the action necessary to avoid a crash. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24464480 Now obviously, there are countless thousands on the road who are not competent. The only reason they don't hit more things than they do is pure luck and the fact that even in busy streets there is still more empty space than metal. But what of drivers who take their driving seriously, and are perfectly happy that they would at any moment be competent to take the necessary action to try to avoid a crash? Why should we have the possibility of the car taking over and making a worse decision? If someone is convicted of a poor driving offence then maybe they should have a licence condition that they are only allowed to drive cars which can mitigate against dumb driving, and that might help, but this should never be fitted as standard. People who need it shouldn't be driving in the first place. And yes that is a lot of people, but I resent being lumped compulsorily in with them.

Ford is testing a car that takes control of the steering wheel away from the driver if it believes they are failing to take the action necessary to avoid a crash. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24464480 Now obviously, there are countless thousands on the road who are not competent. The only reason they don't hit more things than they do is pure luck and the fact that even in busy streets there is still more empty space than metal. But what of drivers who take their driving seriously, and are perfectly happy that they would at any moment be competent to take the necessary action to try to avoid a crash? Why should we have the possibility of the car taking over and making a worse decision? If someone is convicted of a poor driving offence then maybe they should have a licence condition that they are only allowed to drive cars which can mitigate against dumb driving, and that might help, but this should never be fitted as standard. People who need it shouldn't be driving in the first place. And yes that is a lot of people, but I resent being lumped compulsorily in with them.

Re: Would you drive a car that could take over steering? : Thu Oct 10, 2013 4:33 pm  

The steering bit sounds a bit dodgy, the last thing you want is you car veering out of the way of a pedestrian straight into oncoming traffic - and then the pedestrian walks off and leaves you trying to explain how you steered straight into four cars coming the other way.

The principle of braking automatically isn't a bad one though especially if its limited to low speeds, say less then 30mph and could save a lot of pedestrians and cyclists from their own stupidity.

Re: Would you drive a car that could take over steering? : Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:41 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

The steering bit sounds a bit dodgy, the last thing you want is you car veering out of the way of a pedestrian straight into oncoming traffic - and then the pedestrian walks off and leaves you trying to explain how you steered straight into four cars coming the other way.

The principle of braking automatically isn't a bad one though especially if its limited to low speeds, say less then 30mph and could save a lot of pedestrians and cyclists from their own stupidity.

I've just got one of the new Golfs that has a radar at the front, which serves 2 uses.

a) it will adjust your speed when cruise control is set, so if you're slowly creeping up on the car in front it will slow you down to maintain the preset gap. It took a little getting used to, but I quite like it now (certainly more than cruise control that just stayed at the speed you set irrespective of anything else.

b) it will (in theory) apply the brakes at low speeds, if you get to close to the car in front, irrespective of if cruise is on or not. I've not yet had cause to see if that works, and I'm not keen on just trying it to see how it works.

Re: Would you drive a car that could take over steering? : Thu Oct 10, 2013 7:56 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

The steering bit sounds a bit dodgy, the last thing you want is you car veering out of the way of a pedestrian straight into oncoming traffic - and then the pedestrian walks off and leaves you trying to explain how you steered straight into four cars coming the other way.

I'd have thought that the car would be programmed to stop in the quickest possible time to avoid hitting anything. I can't think of a scenario where driving into oncoming traffic is deemed as the best course of action.

The principle of braking automatically isn't a bad one though especially if its limited to low speeds, say less then 30mph and could save a lot of pedestrians and cyclists from their own stupidity.

If they implement this technology, then limiting cars to the limits is very close behind. And going down to 20mph whenever there's any ped's on the path is soon behind that. And soon behind that the pedestrians own the road because they can just step out on to the road whenever they like and have the car stop while they chuckle.

I think the group of people who are most in favour of this tech would be South African car jackers. At the moment if they step on to the road to try and take a vehicle they're risking getting run over. With this technology they just need to step in front of the car at the right time and the car stops for them .

Re: Would you drive a car that could take over steering? : Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:17 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: Ford is testing a car that takes control of the steering wheel away from the driver if it believes they are failing to take the action necessary to avoid a crash. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24464480 Now obviously, there are countless thousands on the road who are not competent. The only reason they don't hit more things than they do is pure luck and the fact that even in busy streets there is still more empty space than metal. But what of drivers who take their driving seriously, and are perfectly happy that they would at any moment be competent to take the necessary action to try to avoid a crash? Why should we have the possibility of the car taking over and making a worse decision? If someone is convicted of a poor driving offence then maybe they should have a licence condition that they are only allowed to drive cars which can mitigate against dumb driving, and that might help, but this should never be fitted as standard. People who need it shouldn't be driving in the first place. And yes that is a lot of people, but I resent being lumped compulsorily in with them. At the moment all we have is your claim that you're a great driver and above this type of thing. If your last 100,000 miles had been driven using this system and the logs were completely clear then your claim to be this good would be verified. A bad driver would probably have a flashing light near the reg number alerting the police that they need to stop this div and see what an awful driver they are. But at the moment you and your claim of good driving have the same weight as the serial idiot who has nearly caused a dozen crashes in the last couple of years but only survived on the roads because other people have managed to stop in time before collisions. Why would this be a slight to your driving when really it is protecting you because when the serial idiot and you do get in an accident and claim innocence the system will be able to conclusively prove that it was his fault and not yours.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: Ford is testing a car that takes control of the steering wheel away from the driver if it believes they are failing to take the action necessary to avoid a crash. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24464480 Now obviously, there are countless thousands on the road who are not competent. The only reason they don't hit more things than they do is pure luck and the fact that even in busy streets there is still more empty space than metal. But what of drivers who take their driving seriously, and are perfectly happy that they would at any moment be competent to take the necessary action to try to avoid a crash? Why should we have the possibility of the car taking over and making a worse decision? If someone is convicted of a poor driving offence then maybe they should have a licence condition that they are only allowed to drive cars which can mitigate against dumb driving, and that might help, but this should never be fitted as standard. People who need it shouldn't be driving in the first place. And yes that is a lot of people, but I resent being lumped compulsorily in with them. At the moment all we have is your claim that you're a great driver and above this type of thing. If your last 100,000 miles had been driven using this system and the logs were completely clear then your claim to be this good would be verified. A bad driver would probably have a flashing light near the reg number alerting the police that they need to stop this div and see what an awful driver they are. But at the moment you and your claim of good driving have the same weight as the serial idiot who has nearly caused a dozen crashes in the last couple of years but only survived on the roads because other people have managed to stop in time before collisions. Why would this be a slight to your driving when really it is protecting you because when the serial idiot and you do get in an accident and claim innocence the system will be able to conclusively prove that it was his fault and not yours.

Re: Would you drive a car that could take over steering? : Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:42 pm  

Looking forward to hearing how we differentiate those who 'take their driving seriously' from those who don't.

Re: Would you drive a car that could take over steering? : Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:43 am  

Dave Lister wrote:

Looking forward to hearing how we differentiate those who 'take their driving seriously' from those who don't.

And I'm looking forward to you being able to understand that particular point.

Re: Would you drive a car that could take over steering? : Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:52 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

At the moment all we have is your claim that you're a great driver and above this type of thing.

And what was it you wanted?

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

If your last 100,000 miles had been driven using this system and the logs were completely clear then your claim to be this good would be verified.

Not at all. I might just have been lucky. Or I might have driven my last 100,000 miles (and the rest) without hitting anything yet without any such system. I don't need to "verify" that I haven't hit anyone - the insurance databases already know.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

But at the moment you and your claim of good driving have the same weight as the serial idiot who has nearly caused a dozen crashes in the last couple of years but only survived on the roads because other people have managed to stop in time before collisions.

Pretty much my point, I would be being compulsorily treated just the same as the serial idiots; that is what I am refusing to accept.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Why would this be a slight to your driving when really it is protecting you because when the serial idiot and you do get in an accident and claim innocence the system will be able to conclusively prove that it was his fault and not yours.

If I got in an accident with the serial idiot then it would prove that the compulsory system which was meant to prevent such things was utterly useless as well as unfair since by definition it hadn't worked. And given we crashed despite it, may well have actually caused the crash.

Re: Would you drive a car that could take over steering? : Fri Oct 11, 2013 5:48 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Not at all. I might just have been lucky. Or I might have driven my last 100,000 miles (and the rest) without hitting anything yet without any such system. I don't need to "verify" that I haven't hit anyone - the insurance databases already know.

Just to divert attention slightly - is there such a thing as a shared pool of knowledge on all insured drivers in the UK ?

And if so why do they ask you to self declare your convictions and accidents on every insurance application and then hold that above your head as a tool with which to invalidate your insurance at any point in future if you haven't been entirely truthful - or is that the whole point ?

And if they do have access to your claim/conviction history, why don't they deny your insurance right at the point of application rather than take the money and keep the evidence as a Get Out Of Jail Free card for themselves should you ever wish to claim ?

When I rule the world etc etc etc...

Re: Would you drive a car that could take over steering? : Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:31 am  

Canute and luddites spring to mind .....

I say this is a serious driver that has only ever had accidents owing to idiots on the road (i.e. any other road users and pedestrians ... I suppose you could include various idiotic inanimate objects as well).
The sooner the robots truly take over the better ... and these are steps along the way ... the seeds were implanted in our brains long ago ... oh yes!
Resistance is futile you stupid humans! .... <fades out to hysterical, maniacal laughter>