Have Useless "Safety" Features gone too far?

[Crazy Dazz]

I'm all for safer cars. Especially cars that handle better, and are more likely to save your life in a serious crash.

But I'm starting to suspect that some features are not only useless, but dangerous.
Let me take but one example: "Lane Departure Warning" and it's big brother "Lane-Keeping Assist."
It is a well established fact that the biggest killer on our roads is inattention. Whether its caused by fatigue, alcohol, texting, whatever. Even when the cops say it was "speed" what they actually mean is that the speed outstripped the drivers ability to react.

SO, do we really need features that actively encourage drivers to be drongos?
Frankly, if you can't keep your car between the lines, I don't want you driving anywhere near me. At best, all this will do is encourage more morons to text or twit or check for zits whilst driving. Besides which, the worst category of drivers just so happens to be those who will most likely ignore (or not hear) any beeping. I have seen them cruising along, with a fire engine right up their clacker, full bells & whistles, and completely oblivious.

The only way this technology should be accepted, is if instead of a buzzer, it is wired to electrodes in the driver's seat, roughly near the genitals.

The lane-keeping assist should simply be outright illegal. What idiot thought encouraging himbos to take their hands off the wheel, was a brilliant idea?

And since this technology relies on marked white lines, what the hell happens when there aren't any?

[vztrt]

People are inattentive with cars that have little to no driver aids so doubt that.

Mind you to me i dont want those features. Have driven cars with them and not a fan.

[.:4:.]

Tafe dropped the common sense course years ago.

[Junkyard-Dog]

Originally Posted by .:4:.

Tafe dropped the common sense course years ago.

If it was anything like their other courses, they were probably asking an arm and a leg for it anyway.

[.:4:.]

Originally Posted by Junkyard-Dog

If it was anything like their other courses, they were probably asking an arm and a leg for it anyway.

I believe it's along the lines of 13 and half for a non apprentice. That's for a 3 year course of course.

[prydey]

Well I think driver assist technologies are a good thing. It will be easier and more effective to add technology rather than try to change human behavior. History shows that human behavior rarely changes. The number of deaths in the road isn't going down due to drivers improving, it's because cars are safer.

[XByoot]

Originally Posted by prydey

Well I think driver assist technologies are a good thing. It will be easier and more effective to add technology rather than try to change human behavior. History shows that human behavior rarely changes. The number of deaths in the road isn't going down due to drivers improving, it's because cars are safer.

Until you have a disengaged driver and the system fails or cannot sense a certain scenario. Most typical human reaction is the startle factor of what's going on,they were expecting the system to protect them and it didn't,typical reaction is "why didn't it" rather than actually managing the emergency...this stuff is a huge issue in aviation,many many good reads. Basically for every advantage,there is a new complexity and possible disadvantage introduced. This stuff is coming,but driver education better be up to the task...which I doubt it will be.

[commodorenutt]

Totally agree with the OP. Watched a guy today in a late model Merc on the M7 who was speeding up & slowing down. When he sat beside me, he had both hands going through crap on the front seat, and wasn't even looking at the road - this was at 100km/h!

It makes it even easier for drop-kicks to fall asleep at the wheel now - the car will keep them in their lane, and autonomous braking will stop them at the first set of lights that are red. Even if that's 300km away. Unless they run out of fuel first.

I reckon if this technology is allowed in cars (eg Volvo's "follow me" cruise control - you set cruise, and if a slow car is in front, it slows down, and also stays in the lane by itself) then it should come with biometric sensors that detect if your eyes are off the road, or you aren't paying attention.

On one part of my commute I go through an affluent suburb, where euro SUVs are everywhere, and I've watched soccer moms in XC60s & XC90s turning around to the back seat while crawling along in 10-15km/h traffic - letting the car drive itself while they tie little Johnny's shoes and brush his hair. Fantastic example for kids to see.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by commodorenutt

Totally agree with the OP. Watched a guy today in a late model Merc on the M7 who was speeding up & slowing down. When he sat beside me, he had both hands going through crap on the front seat, and wasn't even looking at the road - this was at 100km/h!

It makes it even easier for drop-kicks to fall asleep at the wheel now - the car will keep them in their lane, and autonomous braking will stop them at the first set of lights that are red. Even if that's 300km away. Unless they run out of fuel first.

I reckon if this technology is allowed in cars (eg Volvo's "follow me" cruise control - you set cruise, and if a slow car is in front, it slows down, and also stays in the lane by itself) then it should come with biometric sensors that detect if your eyes are off the road, or you aren't paying attention.

On one part of my commute I go through an affluent suburb, where euro SUVs are everywhere, and I've watched soccer moms in XC60s & XC90s turning around to the back seat while crawling along in 10-15km/h traffic - letting the car drive itself while they tie little Johnny's shoes and brush his hair. Fantastic example for kids to see.

Safety features in cars or not at all, I see plenty of drivers these days not paying attention as one should do when driving, just damn bad habits people have.

Nothing wrong with the safety features it is just the culture of people being distracted by trying to do other things as they drive cars, one example is talking on the mobile phone.

[TheGreenKugaaah]

Reminds me of the dilemma currently facing autonomous vehicles.

The car is driving towards a crowd of people on the road and there is not enough time to stop. Does it A - save the crowd by swerving and crashing at the expense of the driver? B - plough through the crowd knowing the driver will be safe?

In my opinion the focus should be on better educating drivers, better quality driving tests and implementing re-testing every time you renew your licence.

[chrisandsharon]

Originally Posted by TheGreenKugaaah

Reminds me of the dilemma currently facing autonomous vehicles.

The car is driving towards a crowd of people on the road and there is not enough time to stop. Does it A - save the crowd by swerving and crashing at the expense of the driver? B - plough through the crowd knowing the driver will be safe?

In my opinion the focus should be on better educating drivers, better quality driving tests and implementing re-testing every time you renew your licence.

Better education - it's out there already and many do not listen. The attitude is 'it will never happen to me'. The majority know how to drive properly and safely but choose not to. Many chose to drive in a fashion that flouts the law and in a way that generally just ****es off other drivers doing the right thing.

Look at the use of mobile phones whilst driving. Drivers of all ages and experience are smashed with info about the dangers of using mobile phones whilst driving, doesn't make any difference with many. Alcohol whilst driving - meh, I'll be ok to drive home at .09. Many drivers attitudes whilst driving are disgraceful.

I'm all for safety technology leading to safer cars. I'd rather put my faith into
technology rather than relying on the sort of driving and accidents we're seeing everyday.

[PG2]

Originally Posted by TheGreenKugaaah

Reminds me of the dilemma currently facing autonomous vehicles.

The car is driving towards a crowd of people on the road and there is not enough time to stop. Does it A - save the crowd by swerving and crashing at the expense of the driver? B - plough through the crowd knowing the driver will be safe?

In my opinion the focus should be on better educating drivers, better quality driving tests and implementing re-testing every time you renew your licence.

I'm only quoting your post for reference.

If you are about to plough into a crowd of people you probably weren't paying attention in the first place.

An autonomous vehicles will more than likely never get into the above situation in the first place.

The autonomous vehicle will see the crowd before you will, will brake with plenty of time to spare and will not be put in the situation that it needs to make that sort of decision.

[mike_nofx]

Originally Posted by TheGreenKugaaah

Reminds me of the dilemma currently facing autonomous vehicles.

The car is driving towards a crowd of people on the road and there is not enough time to stop. Does it A - save the crowd by swerving and crashing at the expense of the driver? B - plough through the crowd knowing the driver will be safe?

In my opinion the focus should be on better educating drivers, better quality driving tests and implementing re-testing every time you renew your licence.

Or C, detect that there is a crowd earlier and apply the brakes earlier avoiding plowing into the crowd or steering the driver into a wall? How often does a crowd just appear out of thin air anyway?

However, if it's a crowd of cyclists in the middle of the road around a blind corner... well it's obvious to me what the car should do

[.:4:.]

I have bought it up before and I'll bring it up again. A few weeks back I pulled out of my street an gassed it up the hill in the wifes ecoboost g6. Old mate behind in his audi couldn't keep up on the incline. Back on the flat I stuck to 60. He came flying up behind me. Crash avoidance said no. He got stopped in his tracks. What a tool

[ozrunner]

Totally agree Crazy Dazz.

In fact, I was only thinking today if I had membership I would respond to that idiot bagging the Mustang for not having this very same feature and thus it is a safety s*****x. So in his mind he considers this is required in a high performance vehicle so drivers can text on their phone without actually have to always look where they are freaking going and thus can rely on this crap to stay on the road. Dumbass.

If you can't keep a car between the lines then you shouldn't have a licence.

Cars are getting like Microsoft putting features in their products that have no use whatsoever other than stuff you around and only all for the sake of being able to do it.

You'll never see my rectum in a driverless electric car

[RANGEREST]

I'm not sure if they have gone too far in general, but the lane departure/assist in the Everest is a pita on the narrow country roads around where I live, it wont let you hug a white line, even when the lane is barely a car wide, then once it realises this it turns off till the road straightens up.
I turn it off most of the time.

[4stanger]

I'm not a perfect driver, once tried setting a cruise control on a car I was unfamiliar with, eyes on speedo when setting cruise speed, when finished glanced up to the road and my drivers side wheels were on the centre line, any longer setting cruise I would have been in the oncoming lane.

Recent years I see a lot more common news reports on early morning TV of cars crashing into suburban houses over night, I would like to know the various causes of those incidents.

Many years ago when computer controlled efi cars came out, I used to think wouldn't it be good if the police had some special device to point and aim at these cars to disable the computer and stop the car, such a device would be good these days with police chasing speeding stolen cars.

[XByoot]

Originally Posted by 4stanger

I'm not a perfect driver, once tried setting a cruise control on a car I was unfamiliar with, eyes on speedo when setting cruise speed, when finished glanced up to the road and my drivers side wheels were on the centre line, any longer setting cruise I would have been in the oncoming lane.
.

That's acutually a very good example. So why did the vehicle drift into the centre of the road? My answer would be you were involved in carrying out a very basic chore of setting the computer and were distracted from the primary task of driving the car and temporarily lost situational awareness?

So how do we fix the problem? Add more automation? Make current automation more user friendly so the driver doesn't come distracted? Remove it completely! Train drivers on the correct time to carry out these chores?

Please,I'm not having a go mate,we all do this type of stuff, it it's a really good,simple example of what we must be preparing ourselves for. This tech will come,all I'm saying is we all must be very very ready for it.

[FPV+fteT3]

You either enjoy driving and are good at it or your uninformed and/or dont care how dangerous a task it can be and are easily distracted much like children by phones, gloveboxes, hair, make up, music, etc... and need all the help you can get to protect you from yourself. Drivers that rely on all this tech to survive should be on public transport. For me it would ruin a good drive having nanny intervening when hitting an apex or pushing through some twisties or having autonomous braking when closing speeds that allow for an easier overtake and less time on the wrong side of the road intervene. I dont need that negative shyte in my life.

[CyberWasp]

Like it or not it is here to stay.
Here is a quick example of when technology works.
The car was doing 110kms an hour when this was recorded and was in autopilot mode.
If the car in front had of (been paying attention) or had the same technology it would not have happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FadR7ETT_1k

[XByoot]

Originally Posted by CyberWasp

Like it or not it is here to stay.
Here is a quick example of when technology works.
The car was doing 110kms an hour when this was recorded and was in autopilot mode.
If the car in front had of (been paying attention) or had the same technology it would not have happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FadR7ETT_1k

Thanks for that,really great example of the benefits. System worked well,no doubts about it..

Taking it one step further,how would the driver in the car filming the accident react if the car actually failed to respond? They were filming the accident and chatting about it,expecting the automatic protection of the car to do its thing and stop,throw in a few seconds of startle factor and the old "what"is that warning? "Why"isn't it doing something and finally "how" do I fix the problem I'm in.....if they actually did manually brake they may have lost valuable seconds and become part of the accident themselves. It's a very interesting subject,but this stuff is definitely headed our way.

[Express]

As far as I’m concerned you can’t have too much safety.

As I’ve grown older I’ve felt time diminish things like my reflexes and stamina and I’m not the only one on the road who should be honest enough to say the same thing.

If you youngsters believe avoidance safety systems are unnecessary or a hindrance to good driving skills then good on you for being perfect drivers, personally when I’m out cruising I don’t see too many like you on the roads.

Most vehicles have the ability to accelerate fast today and for sure they handle better but many roads are still below par and many drivers are still distracted or inattentive so bring on the safety features to take up the slack in my opinion.

Like everything they’ll only get better as they’re refined over time.


.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by CyberWasp

Like it or not it is here to stay.
Here is a quick example of when technology works.
The car was doing 110kms an hour when this was recorded and was in autopilot mode.
If the car in front had of (been paying attention) or had the same technology it would not have happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FadR7ETT_1k

Dashcam videos on youtube are not the greatest way to see exactly what happened on the road. Judging by the video it seams like any driver who was paying close attention would have noticed that traffic ahead was stopping and the car in front was still going way to fast.
Sure it's cool the car itself realized the situation, but any decent driver should have picked up on it as well if they were paying attention.

[chrisandsharon]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Sure it's cool the car itself realized the situation, but any decent driver should have picked up on it as well if they were paying attention.

You hit the nail on the head, say no more. Forget about 'decent' drivers, decent drivers make mistakes too, and if they do the technology could save that decent driver from slamming into the back of you.

The safety technology advantages far outweigh any disadvantages. I'm also sick of seeing absolute morons on our roads, bring in every bit of technology available - I'll feel a lot better knowing some of these halfwits have a back up whilst I'm travelling on the road with my family.

[chrisandsharon]

All this talk about good driving, 1300 people died on our roads last year.
I'm sure those drivers who caused those accidents would swear blind that they were a great driver prior to them killing themselves and others. Some would have lived and now have to live with the burden of taking another life/lives - ask those drivers their thoughts on safety technology.

Never tempt fate as the saying goes. Murphy's law - tell everyone how safe you are and you'll **** up tomorrow.


.

[yakabot]

With regards to the "Lane Departure" warning, it may be a good idea, but i would like it to disable the car if it goes off 3 times in 5 minutes. I imagine it is designed with fatigue/tired driver in mind. 3 times in 5 minutes means driver is fatigued, system slows down car and shuts off for 15 minutes for driver power nap.

[paulb351]

Originally Posted by yakabot

With regards to the "Lane Departure" warning, it may be a good idea, but i would like it to disable the car if it goes off 3 times in 5 minutes. I imagine it is designed with fatigue/tired driver in mind. 3 times in 5 minutes means driver is fatigued, system slows down car and shuts off for 15 minutes for driver power nap.

I have lane departure on my Everest and when testing it out by deliberately wandering into (empty) lanes it corrected as expected but after a few goes the car showed a fatigue warning and an alarm sound... much better than the arbitrary 2hr have a rest break warning the falcon had... it also detects if you take hands off the wheel and again a warning comes up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mercury Bullet]

I hate the blind spot warning in my Volvo.
Damn mirrors flash constantly at night from going past trees on country roads.

Nobody dies on the unlimited section of the Stuart hwy doing 240. Speed forces you to concentrate.

[lra]

None of my cars have any of these ‘safety’ features.
They have have ABS, ESP and Traction Control, all of which are related.
One has a driver reminder that goes off after 2 hours of driving. The first time I experienced it, I spent nearly 5 minutes trying to work out what the alarm was, distracting me from the primary task of pointing it in the right direction.
I am more interested in whether my car’s structural crashability is up to the task when things go bad.
All the other gizmos, to me, are an unnecessary electronic addition that will go wrong as the car ages, and are an incentive the ‘dumb down’ the ability to operate a machine.
If a driver is drunk, stoned, on a self destructive mission, or just plain stupid, these features a not going to save them or others.

[Express]

Originally Posted by lra

None of my cars have any of these ‘safety’ features.
They have have ABS, ESP and Traction Control, all of which are related.
One has a driver reminder that goes off after 2 hours of driving. The first time I experienced it, I spent nearly 5 minutes trying to work out what the alarm was, distracting me from the primary task of pointing it in the right direction.
I am more interested in whether my car’s structural crashability is up to the task when things go bad.
All the other gizmos, to me, are an unnecessary electronic addition that will go wrong as the car ages, and are an incentive the ‘dumb down’ the ability to operate a machine.
If a driver is drunk, stoned, on a self destructive mission, or just plain stupid, these features a not going to save them or others.

To put it basically, structural integrity is there to save you in low impact crashes where avoidance systems are there to help keep your mind on the job and correct errors at higher speeds and the key word is ‘avoid’.

Many of the comments here remind me of all the similar negativity towards seat belts when they were being mandatorily introduced.

Really you shouldn't need to worry, if you are such a good driver then many of the avoidance systems should never need to click in.

Not knowing what an alarm was shows you didn't bother to take the time to familiarise yourself with your car before you drove it and if it was distracting you from driving for 5 minutes then you should have pulled over.

It also may have been of benefit if you had some other avoidance systems fitted to help you out while you were being distracted.


.