Crashes and Carnage on M27 & A27

[pwa]

So you don't think that technology can make driving safer by taking over some of the driver's duties?

I have grave doubts, have you seen "I, Robot"?

No. But I would be surprised if, ten years from now, we are not mostly using cars with something to stop us driving too close together on motorways. I think relatively simple stuff like that is realistic and probably desirable.

[[XAP]Bob]

So you don't think that technology can make driving safer by taking over some of the driver's duties?

I have grave doubts, have you seen "I, Robot"?

It's already happening. Even ignoring the autopilot features in the Tesla (and they're not the only manufacturer doing it), and the Goomobiles...

Volvo have collision avoidance systems built in - they'll detect the approach of a hazard and will apply the brakes on your behalf.

Even going down the tech tree... There are plenty of cars with ESP - traction control. the car is applying the throttle, and brakes - far faster, more accurately and in a more controlled fashion than a human could (the computer even does it per wheel, which drivers would really struggle with)

Keep going down and we have ABS...

It's not exactly hard to see where this is heading. Technology will make travel safer - unfortunately we have (until very recently) had systems which predominantly increase the safety of the vehicle occupants. The latest are actually increasing the safety of others.
The collision avoidance system in Volvo works within certain limits - but it is designed to prevent a collision caused by driver inattention.

This is a fundamental change from the 'make the driver safer and they can take more risks' technology of earlier systems (ABS/ESP etc.)

The Tesla autopilot and Goomobiles are tackling the same challenge in a different way. Rather than incrementally adding features to help the driver (who can then pay less attention each time) they are looking at the whole package and genuinely removing the human from the loop.
They are under very strict regulation at the moment, and have every incident (most of which are the fault of the humans around them) analysed in great detail, and in public.

The Goomobiles have a much better safety record than humans (albeit in relatively limited climatic conditions at the moment) - the Tesla Autopilot is also doing incredibly well - there have been a very small number of collisions which are attributed to autopilot failures - but also to the driver watching a DVD or similar (see the incremental issue mentioned above). There isn't, to my knowledge, a public record of how often a Tesla driver takes back control for safety reasons.

The learning experience of every incident is after all learned by every 'driver'...
I don't think we'll have a problem with declaring them categorically safer than humans in just a few years...


At that point I can see legislation catching up, insurance companies becoming rather concerned, and the manually driven car being consigned to the same path in history as the horse has taken (in that people still enjoy using them, but they are hobby/sport rather than working animals in the vast majority of cases).

[tykeboy2003]

No. But I would be surprised if, ten years from now, we are not mostly using cars with something to stop us driving too close together on motorways. I think relatively simple stuff like that is realistic and probably desirable.

I would agree with this, I used to work for Jaguar and the last XK model (introduced over 10 years ago) had Adaptive Cruise Control which slowed upon approaching an obstacle in front, applying brakes if necessary. I would say though that this sort of feature will always be capable of override and the majority of drivers will do so, like the facility to stop/start engines when in queues etc (designed to save fuel and benefit the environment); everybody I know who has a car with this feature has disabled it.

[kwackers]

I would agree with this, I used to work for Jaguar and the last XK model (introduced over 10 years ago) had Adaptive Cruise Control which slowed upon approaching an obstacle in front, applying brakes if necessary. I would say though that this sort of feature will always be capable of override and the majority of drivers will do so, like the facility to stop/start engines when in queues etc (designed to save fuel and benefit the environment); everybody I know who has a car with this feature has disabled it.

I can imagine why some folk might turn off auto stop/start since I've read enough posts by idiots that claim it "causes traffic jams" although I don't know anyone that does and despite your statement that "everyone I know" turns it off, when the lights change then all around me I hear the sound of engines starting so presumably nobody you know ever uses the same roads I do.

As for turning off automatic brakes - why? There always has to be a point. I'm pretty sure most folk will see it as a positive thing. I think only a very few hard core idiots are likely to turn it off, probably the same folk who turn off the stability control and other 'driver aids'.
Every driver that doesn't though adds a safety benefit to the roads as a whole and I'm guessing we're not seriously suggesting that because some folk might turn it off (if that's even possible) then we shouldn't implement it...

[axel_knutt]

The much higher traffic density means that small errors are much more likely to lead to accidents and more drivers are frustrated and taking their frustration out on other road users.

Smeeds Law says otherwise: higher density leads to lower accident rates. Traffic density has increased, accident rates have fallen.

[axel_knutt]

It seems like crashes are getting a lot more common especially around here.

Clusters occur in random data, if you want to make data look random you have to make it non-random.

[axel_knutt]

We will have to make sure they are offline, I suppose.

The Iranian centrifuges were offline, that didn't stop Stuxnet.

[tykeboy2003]

As for turning off automatic brakes - why? There always has to be a point. I'm pretty sure most folk will see it as a positive thing. I think only a very few hard core idiots are likely to turn it off, probably the same folk who turn off the stability control and other 'driver aids'.
Every driver that doesn't though adds a safety benefit to the roads as a whole and I'm guessing we're not seriously suggesting that because some folk might turn it off (if that's even possible) then we shouldn't implement it...

I think an awful lot of people will judge the distance being maintained (by an automatic system) behind the car in front as way too big and will get peed off by the hoards of people jumping into the gap. They will turn it off.

[kwackers]

I think an awful lot of people will judge the distance being maintained (by an automatic system) behind the car in front as way too big and will get peed off by the hoards of people jumping into the gap. They will turn it off.

The gap the automatic brakes maintain is actually quite small, mainly because they respond instantly, are a safety feature and because they're tracking the vehicle in front anyway.
They don't exist as a mechanism for 'keeping distance'.

Anyway, even turned off I bet you can't turn off the warning. (And we're still assuming that we'll be able to disable them).

[tykeboy2003]

The gap the automatic brakes maintain is actually quite small

If so then this is a really bad idea, it simply educates drivers to drive really close behind the car in front, exactly the opposite to what is really needed.

[kwackers]

The gap the automatic brakes maintain is actually quite small

If so then this is a really bad idea, it simply educates drivers to drive really close behind the car in front, exactly the opposite to what is really needed.

How can brakes that apply automatically when the driver isn't paying attention be the opposite of what's required?

Admit it you're just looking for arguments, you don't like it whichever way it rolls.
If you want large gaps and the inability to disable it then lobby your MP, don't throw away the tech.
Ditto if you want driver education. The purpose of safety features isn't to educate drivers, it's to save lives.

[tykeboy2003]

How can brakes that apply automatically when the driver isn't paying attention be the opposite of what's required?

My last post on this subject, it's getting tiresome.

BUT do you really want to encourage drivers not to pay attention by bailing them out all the time? What happens when the system fails and the diver is laid back reading The Sun or watching the telly?

Driving should be the only thing on a driver's mind.

[kwackers]

Driving should be the only thing on a driver's mind.

Should be. But isn't.

As I've said many times, monkeys make poor drivers. You can tell them to do whatever you like but they don't listen because it'll never happen to them and "hey, is that a crash over there!?"
There's a ton of peer reviewed stuff on the web that explains why this is so and why it'll never really change. Feel free to ignore at your peril.

This imo is why moving to automation and removing their input is a good thing. I get you don't like the idea but you've offered nothing as an alternative and personally I'm more than happy with the way things are going. Reduce input and finally remove their ability to do anything. It's coming and you can't stop it.

[Cyril Haearn]

The gap the automatic brakes maintain is actually quite small

If so then this is a really bad idea, it simply educates drivers to drive really close behind the car in front, exactly the opposite to what is really needed.

It will be a big problem while lots of older cars are still in use too. Watch heavy traffic on a single carriageway, almost all follow too close. I leave plenty of room in front to avoid braking. Really annoys the normal drivers behind. I touch my brake light a couple of times to warn them to drop back, almost always in vain. Would a self-driving vehicle understand this signal?

[kwackers]

It will be a big problem while lots of older cars are still in use too. Watch heavy traffic on a single carriageway, almost all follow too close. I leave plenty of room in front to avoid braking. Really annoys the normal drivers behind. I touch my brake light a couple of times to warn them to drop back, almost always in vain. Would a self-driving vehicle understand this signal?

In this context we're not talking self-driving, simply braking assist.
Self driving cars are a different kettle of fish. I'd find it odd if they followed you so closely though you felt the need to warn them off.

FWIW in my experience flashing the brake lights usually encourages the idiot behind to drive even closer. Back when I had an old diesel I used to drop it into 2nd, it would over-rev and chuck out loads of muck whilst slowing down markedly, most folk thought something bad was happening and dropped right back.