Let's talk about redundant/useless car tech

[Casio]

In theory, if all vehicles were like this then evasive manueuvres would be a thing of the past, as the autonomous vehicles would never drive in a manner that would inconvenience other autonomous vehicles

That's exactly my point!

 

[Jim Prower]

Oh, CLEARLY none of you have seen eX_Driver...X3

 

[Keef]

If all cars could make evasive maneuvers autonomously, then I would jump out in front of one and make it evasive itself right into a tree. I'd do that until none of them were left.

People's evasive maneuvers would often be much more successful if they didn't put $10 tires that will last 80,000 miles on their cars. Speaking of which, even an autonomous car has to work within its tires' limits.

One cool thing about us people is that we can analyze and anticipate. Machines can't do that. The only problem with that is that many people refuse to pay attention, thereby throwing their advantage over a computer out the window.

 

[Tornado]

That automated car flying down the road, with an sensor on the front and around it, can detect something, pulling like a car or person, in front of it, and apply the absolute best stopping time, with next to no reaction. In time it would easily be feasibly possible for the car to perform evasive maneuvers autonomously.

Until those sensors fail or encounter something unexpected and the driver, not knowing how to actually drive, crashes in reaction. Exactly like that plane crash in Buffalo in February, in fact.
Automation will never be able to replicate human control due to the very definition of automation.


Also:

 

[Casio]

If all cars could make evasive maneuvers autonomously, then I would jump out in front of one and make it evasive itself right into a tree. I'd do that until none of them were left.

See. This why we can't have nice things.

People's evasive maneuvers would often be much more successful if they didn't put $10 tires that will last 80,000 miles on their cars. Speaking of which, even an autonomous car has to work within its tires' limits.

As stated above, in an ideal world, all cars would be talking to each other, so the only evasive maneuvers would be for pedestrians, or other non car related things. If someone runs out in front of your car, and you're driving it, you can't do anything a computer controlled car can't theoretically do, and you're even slower than it because by the time you react and press the brake the computer controlled car did that half a second ago.

Until those sensors fail or encounter something unexpected and the driver, not knowing how to actually drive, crashes in reaction. Exactly like that plane crash in Buffalo in February, in fact.

If a sensor fails, in a hypothetical car with no driver controls, that could cause a crash, it is akin a failure on a car such as a brake failure, which you can't plan you. You can't dismiss automated cars, because they might crash if something goes wrong, then we couldn't have the cars we have now. As I said before, the obvious advantage car automation has over aircraft automation, is that if the car recognizes a sensor has failed then it can easily and safely pull itself over.

Automation will never be able to replicate human control due to the very definition of automation.

Agreed.

 

[Omnis]

The only thing useless/redundant I find with a lot of cars is the steering wheel audio controls. On the E320B, for instance, the volume control toggle on the steering wheel is literally 2-3 inches away from the main volume control knob on the dash. I mean, put the volume knob on the right side of the dash if you're going to do that. This way I, as the passenger, can adjust it without having to reach over in front of the wheel.

 

[Northstar]

I don't see a problem with those, as niky said anything that allows you to focus on the road more (even for a fraction of a second) should not be criticized as it can save lives. I'm not sure on what the numbers are but I'm guessing a decent fraction of accidents happen as a result of the driver messing with the radio.

 

[Keef]

As stated above, in an ideal world, all cars would be talking to each other, so the only evasive maneuvers would be for pedestrians, or other non car related things. If someone runs out in front of your car, and you're driving it, you can't do anything a computer controlled car can't theoretically do, and you're even slower than it because by the time you react and press the brake the computer controlled car did that half a second ago.

I could have used my senses, particularly my eyes, to anticipate that person walking out in front of me. I could have sped up. I could have slowed down. I could have stopped completely, even before the person ever stepped out. I could have done nothing and ran right into them.

Humans can anticipate events and act preemptively. Computers cannot. Computers can only react. There's no equation that could be programmed into a computer that can replicate the decision making abilities of a human.

If a sensor fails, in a hypothetical car with no driver controls, that could cause a crash, it is akin a failure on a car such as a brake failure, which you can't plan you. You can't dismiss automated cars, because they might crash if something goes wrong, then we couldn't have the cars we have now. As I said before, the obvious advantage car automation has over aircraft automation, is that if the car recognizes a sensor has failed then it can easily and safely pull itself over.

Where would it pull over? How would it pull over? How quickly should it slow down? Is the ground wet? Is it gravely? What happens if the shoulder of the road is uneven? What happens if there is an old man mowing the grass right there on the edge of the road? What happens if something changes?

Like I said before, computers can only react after they have analyzed the conditions. Even their nearly instantaneous reactions are not as good as a human's ability to anticipate. A person could already know the general conditions before an accident might happen. Even if your brakes fail and all four tires blow out, believe it or not, you're not necessarily going to wreck. There are actually things you can do about it, but they depend entirely on the situation. A computer doesn't have the capacity to make the appropriate decisions.

 

[McLaren]

The only thing useless/redundant I find with a lot of cars is the steering wheel audio controls. On the E320B, for instance, the volume control toggle on the steering wheel is literally 2-3 inches away from the main volume control knob on the dash. I mean, put the volume knob on the right side of the dash if you're going to do that. This way I, as the passenger, can adjust it without having to reach over in front of the wheel.

I think that's a great feature, knowing I don't have to look down to turn the knob when I can just move my thumb down an inch & press the volume or channel button.

 

[Casio]

I could have used my senses, particularly my eyes, to anticipate that person walking out in front of me. I could have sped up. I could have slowed down. I could have stopped completely, even before the person ever stepped out. I could have done nothing and ran right into them.

Humans can anticipate events and act preemptively. Computers cannot. Computers can only react. There's no equation that could be programmed into a computer that can replicate the decision making abilities of a human.

No, but computers can be aware of so many more things than a human can. What if all street lamps had sensors in them, giving information to the passing cars about the position of things around it. This information could even be things that you, as a human cannot preempt, as it could be a dog or person running out from behind a car, wall, obstruction until it is too late to stop. Going a step further, you could even install position sensors into humans, allowing autonomous vehicles to know the position of people around it at all times, even if they can't even see them.

Where would it pull over? How would it pull over? How quickly should it slow down? Is the ground wet? Is it gravely? What happens if the shoulder of the road is uneven? What happens if there is an old man mowing the grass right there on the edge of the road? What happens if something changes?

As above. ABS, and stability control programs sense all these on the fly, making changes that we as humans could never possibly do, even excellent drivers like yourself, like control individual wheel brake pressures 1000s of times a second.

Like I said before, computers can only react after they have analyzed the conditions. Even their nearly instantaneous reactions are not as good as a human's ability to anticipate. A person could already know the general conditions before an accident might happen. Even if your brakes fail and all four tires blow out, believe it or not, you're not necessarily going to wreck. There are actually things you can do about it, but they depend entirely on the situation. A computer doesn't have the capacity to make the appropriate decisions.

What are the major causes of Vehicle accidents?" The majority of accidents aren't caused by people running out infront of cars. They're cause by people being stupid. Speeding, Drink Driving, Not concentrating, Playing with the CD player, Thinking that have More skill than they do, etc, etc. Yes, a computer controlled vehicle may not have the anticipation to see a kid in the distance chasing his basketball out onto the road (Though as stated above, that can be worked around), but it can basically eliminate 95% of accidents involving vehicles.

 

[niky]

Computers are only as stupid as you make them.

On radar-assisted cruise control cars, the computers already react to objects that are not ahead in a straight-line. A fully autonomous system can be programmed to react to objects that are far to the side but are potential obstacles.

Humans already disregard objects that are not visible through the windshield. How many accidents happen because of someone merging suddenly, or crossing a red light at a blind intersection? A computer can prevent that with cameras mounted in the bumper. And computers can do parallel processing taking into account data gathered from dozens of cameras and sensors around the car. A human can only look in one direction at a time. Sensor failure? How much do cameras actually cost? A multiple camera system is the answer... plug cameras in behind headlight lenses, so headlight wipers can keep them clean. Use sensors that don't depend on a clean surface... my new backup sensors never require cleaning, not compared to those I had in 2000, which needed cleaning every week.

While I do lament the "dumbing down" of the driver due to automated systems... they do have their uses, even for those of us who are smart enough to live without them. I guess all the drawbacks of progress can be cured by forcing student drivers to learn driving on cars with 1950's technology. No power steering, no power-assisted brakes, no crash protection. Weed out the idiots early, too.

 

[Slicks]

I could have used my senses, particularly my eyes, to anticipate that person walking out in front of me. I could have sped up. I could have slowed down. I could have stopped completely, even before the person ever stepped out. I could have done nothing and ran right into them.

Humans can anticipate events and act preemptively. Computers cannot. Computers can only react. There's no equation that could be programmed into a computer that can replicate the decision making abilities of a human.


Where would it pull over? How would it pull over? How quickly should it slow down? Is the ground wet? Is it gravely? What happens if the shoulder of the road is uneven? What happens if there is an old man mowing the grass right there on the edge of the road? What happens if something changes?

Like I said before, computers can only react after they have analyzed the conditions. Even their nearly instantaneous reactions are not as good as a human's ability to anticipate. A person could already know the general conditions before an accident might happen. Even if your brakes fail and all four tires blow out, believe it or not, you're not necessarily going to wreck. There are actually things you can do about it, but they depend entirely on the situation. A computer doesn't have the capacity to make the appropriate decisions.

+1.

Our five senses give us a far superior knowledge of our surroundings and potential hazards than a computer can.

The less driver involvement there is, the worse people will generally become at driving. As such, I'm in the camp that most of the technologies listed are redundant. The worst offenders? Lane assist, brake assist, blind spot assist (all of the 'let the car drive for you' technologies). Night vision, IMHO, is a bad thing as people will rely on it too much rather than simply slowing down in bad conditions.
That, however, is not to say that all the technologies listed are redundant or bad. Rear view cameras can be a lifesaver, given the amount of vehicles today with horrendous visibility. The same applies to the bumper sensors that are becoming more common. Magnetic shocks? Great. They can adapt to the conditions and improve performance.

As far as drive by wire and automatic climate control and steering-mounted stereo controls (which, I've found, get accidentally knocked and pressed far more than they're purposely used), I prefer the KISS principle.

 

[niky]

Computers are only as stupid as you make them.

On radar-assisted cruise control cars, the computers already react to objects that are not ahead in a straight-line. A fully autonomous system can be programmed to react to objects that are far to the side but are potential obstacles.

Humans already disregard objects that are not visible through the windshield. How many accidents happen because of someone merging suddenly, or crossing a red light at a blind intersection? A computer can prevent that with cameras mounted in the bumper. And computers can do parallel processing taking into account data gathered from dozens of cameras and sensors around the car. A human can only look in one direction at a time. Sensor failure? How much do cameras actually cost? A multiple camera system is the answer... plug cameras in behind headlight lenses, so headlight wipers can keep them clean. Use sensors that don't depend on a clean surface... my new backup sensors never require cleaning, not compared to those I had in 2000, which needed cleaning every week.

While I do lament the "dumbing down" of the driver due to automated systems... they do have their uses, even for those of us who are smart enough to live without them. I guess all the drawbacks of progress can be cured by forcing student drivers to learn driving on cars with 1950's technology. No power steering, no power-assisted brakes, no crash protection. Weed out the idiots early, too.

 

[Tornado]

Was the some kind of weird bisected double post or something?

What if all street lamps had sensors in them, giving information to the passing cars about the position of things around it.

Oh come on. You don't see the flaw in this idea? What if those sensors break? What if there is interference? Really, you completely take control out of the hands of the driver then if the computer fails for whatever reason than the driver won't know what to do.

This information could even be things that you, as a human cannot preempt, as it could be a dog or person running out from behind a car, wall, obstruction until it is too late to stop.

That isn't something that a computer could react to any better than a person, and I could very easily conjure up a similar situation with a single variable changed where the computer would be worse off.

Going a step further, you could even install position sensors into humans, allowing autonomous vehicles to know the position of people around it at all times, even if they can't even see them.

Yeah, that would go over well. You really aren't being realistic.

ABS, and stability control programs sense all these on the fly, making changes that we as humans could never possibly do, even excellent drivers like yourself, like control individual wheel brake pressures 1000s of times a second.

All of which points to a reactionary system. A human driver can set his driving style according to the conditions. If there is snow on the ground for example, he can go ten under the limit to prevent the risk of accident. All a computer can do in a similar situation is rely on stability control to try and prevent an accident after it has already started to occur.

 

[YSSMAN]

Hmmm, I don't know. While the purist in me dislikes the majority of the tech talked about in the article, at the same time, I understand what it is for, how it is a selling point... And why its there in the first place; To sell cars to John Q. Public, who doesn't know anything about cars in the first place.

I guess I'd rather look at it this way. Is it a luxury? Or is it a safety feature? Within those two categories, most-certainly the "luxuries" are completely redundant and unnecessary. The safety features? For me, I may not want/need them... For for someone like my Mom, its nice to know that there would be something to help her in her increasingly terrible driving (shes 49, and I'm ready to take the keys away). The self-adjusting audio systems are overkill, but the traction control and stability control systems save lives. I can't disagree with that.


RE: Backup Sensors

They're a lifesaver when you're in anything bigger than a Cobalt. If I wouldn't have had it in the Town Car whilst in Miami, I don't know what I would have done. Ever try to park a car (or SUV) the size of a house? You'll know how they're beneficial.

 

[Viscerous]

Probably the worst article I have read all year.

 

[Philly]

Maybe I should put up a warning for all you haterz that Jalopnik is a bit like the Clarkson of automotive journalism?

RE: Backup Sensors

They're a lifesaver when you're in anything bigger than a Cobalt. If I wouldn't have had it in the Town Car whilst in Miami, I don't know what I would have done. Ever try to park a car (or SUV) the size of a house? You'll know how they're beneficial.

I definitely agree here. I thought they were stupid until I pulled into a parking lot, got out of the car and turned around to watch a big truck with a big hitch backing into the spot right in front of me. I was starting to cringe once he got pretty close, and then he stopped, got out and said "gotta love them backup sensors." I'm convinced.

 

[Casio]

Oh come on. You don't see the flaw in this idea? What if those sensors break? What if there is interference? Really, you completely take control out of the hands of the driver then if the computer fails for whatever reason than the driver won't know what to do.

You can not not have electronics for fear of them malfunctioning. As niky stated, obviously something would be designed with redundancies in place, if one sensor on the car fails, it can still operate on other ones, if one street light sensor fails, then others around it will still convey the information.

That isn't something that a computer could react to any better than a person

It is if the computer is sharing, gathering and processing locational data from a plethora of sources around it, that we can not even hope to achieve. Most people have enough trouble changing lanes with simple blind spots.

Yeah, that would go over well. You really aren't being realistic.

Obviously there are so many issues with that, it's for another day. I'm just stating how some of the issues can be feasibly be solved using technology.

All of which points to a reactionary system. A human driver can set his driving style according to the conditions. If there is snow on the ground for example, he can go ten under the limit to prevent the risk of accident. All a computer can do in a similar situation is rely on stability control to try and prevent an accident after it has already started to occur.

Watching US news in the Winter sometimes, it doesn't seem like human drivers slow down in any case, and out of those who do, who waits until the get their first little slide, before they think they should slow down. Their could be many ways in a situation like that for technology to overcome the situation, such as friction/rolling resistance sensors, or even a system where a car notices a slippery/dangerous section of road, and alerts all other cars to go slower over that location.

I'm not saying that it will happen over night, I'm not even saying that it should be done on a mass scale without advancements in technology (though I think it could), but it is something that needs to happen.

 

[niky]

Was the some kind of weird bisected double post or something?

Yeah. Ran out of battery while posting. Plugged in half-an-hour later... reloaded the page... and... errh... resent the post.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Obviously there are so many issues with that, it's for another day. I'm just stating how some of the issues can be feasibly be solved using technology.

What about a thermal camera on the car that could identify humans and pets?

 

[Jim Prower]

What about hacking into a car's control system to, say, from a computer, make it go where YOU want it instead of where the DRIVER does?

I doth not want the day where some baddie can hijack my car from a computer station down by the river.

I already fear this with the Air Force's radio-control airplanes UCAVs. How hard would it be for some enemy geek to either disrupt, or worse, take control and use, one of these aircraft?

 

[Pupik]

The only thing useless/redundant I find with a lot of cars is the steering wheel audio controls. On the E320B, for instance, the volume control toggle on the steering wheel is literally 2-3 inches away from the main volume control knob on the dash. I mean, put the volume knob on the right side of the dash if you're going to do that. This way I, as the passenger, can adjust it without having to reach over in front of the wheel.

I have to admit I am addicted to that feature on my Scion (I unconsciously press the left part of the steering wheel on her CR-V, which is unfortunately close to the horn button), although some cars take it a bit too far, with more than 10 buttons on the wheel, and 10 more surrounding the gaps between the spokes. It's far safer, and quite a lot easier when you're driving a manual transmission, since the volume/track/mode controls are on the left side of the steering wheel at the 9-o'clock position.

I think some of you are missing the point that automakers are trying to one-up each other with new technology, since a 0.3-second gap in 0-60 times (between competitors for the same type of car) is a wash for most consumers. Also, while one technology debuts from one automaker, in 2-3 years, version 2.0 or 3.0 usually supplants it nicely, potentially without all the initial cost of research and development.

I think many of you think that these technologies are creating a less-involving automobile, yet they are gadgets that people generally ask for in the name of safety and convenience, not because they want to nap while driving drunk. They are only distractions when the owners attempt to learn them while driving in congested environments, or when other stimuli like musics, cellphones, food/drink, screaming children are distracting them. And many owners give up after a while on many of these options, since they're usually used for just a few occasions.

Lastly, since cars are becoming more and more "maintenance-free" and generally more reliable, the service departments are still eager for your business (even if it's warranty work).

Many of these owners who buy luxury cars are over 30+ years old, and have been driving for quite a while now. They do not all need lessons on how to drive again, despite the pandering of our 20-somethings here. The 16-year-old just getting a license, or the 90-year-old that may need an eye-test is more an issue.

 

[Omnis]

I think that's a great feature, knowing I don't have to look down to turn the knob when I can just move my thumb down an inch & press the volume or channel button.

I have to admit I am addicted to that feature on my Scion (I unconsciously press the left part of the steering wheel on her CR-V, which is unfortunately close to the horn button), although some cars take it a bit too far, with more than 10 buttons on the wheel, and 10 more surrounding the gaps between the spokes. It's far safer, and quite a lot easier when you're driving a manual transmission, since the volume/track/mode controls are on the left side of the steering wheel at the 9-o'clock position.

I like my wheel buttons too, but I'm talking about the configuration. Some cars just have a really dumb/redundant button placement. Like on the E-class, they should've swapped the volume knob with the navi control stick if they were going to have a volume adjustment button on the right side of the steering wheel.

 

[McLaren]

What about a thermal camera on the car that could identify humans and pets?

BMW currently offers that on select models under the Night Vision Driving Assistance System option. Mercedes has also offered it on the S-Class.

 

[YSSMAN]

Thermal cameras? That's soooo late-'90s GM. Why does everyone forget that they had them on the DTS back in MY2000?

 

[Duke]

You're arguing that unless you drive a car that is a manual with no power assistance for anything that you don't know how to drive are putting people at risk?

No. What I think people are saying (at least I am) is that semi-automated cars are the worst of both worlds. Enough technology to lull the idiot 'drivers' into a false sense of security, but not enough automation to remove them from the equation altogether.

How many times have we all seen people driving inappropriately fast under poor conditions, secure in the knowledge that the all-wheel-drive, ABS, and TCS allow their expensive, technology-laden car or SUV to overcome basic laws of physics? I've seen a thousand of them. I've hung around waiting for an ambulance to come for a driver of a wrecked Lexus who claimed that he "shouldn't have skidded because he has traction control".

Besides, the average sheep aside, I absolutely hate having to second-guess what the technology is going to do with my control inputs. And that goes from the stupid automated "features" of Microsoft Word to my ongoing battles with the office copier that I have to argue with every damn time I want to copy something onto a differently-sized piece of paper than the original.

Let alone a 2-and-a-half-ton Mercedes that lies and tells me I've completely switched off the driver support systems when it has not.

 

[Kylehnat]

The only thing useless/redundant I find with a lot of cars is the steering wheel audio controls.

Blasphemy!!! I am in love with the wheel-mounted audio controls. How else am I supposed to change tracks while holding opposite-lock?

 

[mustangGT90210]

...

You're not?

 

[Keef]

Computers are only as stupid as you make them.

On radar-assisted cruise control cars, the computers already react to objects that are not ahead in a straight-line. A fully autonomous system can be programmed to react to objects that are far to the side but are potential obstacles.

That sounds like a huge pain in the ass. Radar cruise control has already been proven to be a pain in the ass, actually. They can be programmed to do that, sure, but they can't be programmed to do that to one thing, and not another. A human has the capacity to decided whether they want to react to that potential obstacle or not. For instance, close calls with merging cars. Every now and again I refuse to move, and end up about 6 inches of the rear bumper of some idiot who wasn't paying attention as he merged. All is well though, because we kept going to same speed and I slowed slightly to give a gap, and we all just went on our merry way. But in your situation, the computer would have gone "aww, snap", whacked the brakes, causing all sorts of mayhem behind which didn't actually need to happen. Reacting to a situation that didn't necessarily need to be reacted to.

You guys can argue about instant reaction times and seeing beyond the horizon all you want, but computers simply do not have the decision making capacity of a human. It's the reason we still put people in the Space Shuttle, pilots in an airplane, and a computer technician in your house fixing something that nobody makes a program for.

 

[Casio]

For instance, close calls with merging cars. Every now and again I refuse to move, and end up about 6 inches of the rear bumper of some idiot who wasn't paying attention as he merged. All is well though, because we kept going to same speed and I slowed slightly to give a gap, and we all just went on our merry way. But in your situation, the computer would have gone "aww, snap", whacked the brakes, causing all sorts of mayhem behind which didn't actually need to happen. Reacting to a situation that didn't necessarily need to be reacted to.

In a fully automated system. Changing lanes would be seldom. Vehicles would be programmed to make sufficient space, when another vehicle sends out a message of intent that it is going to move over.

Though more specifically in your situation, it doesn't matter if a car cuts infront of a car with laser guided cruise control, because even if it does slam on it's brakes no one should be tailgating that close behind it.

You guys can argue about instant reaction times and seeing beyond the horizon all you want, but computers simply do not have the decision making capacity of a human. It's the reason we still put people in the Space Shuttle, pilots in an airplane, and a computer technician in your house fixing something that nobody makes a program for.

The people in Space Shuttles and Aeroplanes are totally reliant on computers.