Slashdot Mirror


Smart Cars to Save Stupid Drivers?

bl8n8r writes "Ford spokesman Mike Vaughn said they tested computerized optical scanning and a variety of warnings: a vibrating steering wheel, the sound of a car driving over rumble strips and a visual warning projected on the windshield. Researchers also tested a so-called "active" system in which the vehicle would actually adjust the steering automatically if it veered too far one way or the other."

13 of 476 comments (clear)

  1. If they keep protecting stupid people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How do they expect evolution to produce a better human species?

  2. Nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So when you swerve to miss the idiot ahead of you who's wrecking due to his smart car BSODing, your car will automatically adjust the steering so you plow head on into him. Where do I sign up?

  3. Smart cars to save stupid drivers? by broothal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Personally, I'd rather see smart drivers in stupid cars.

    Really - the solution to drowsy drivers shouldn't be of a technical nature, but of educational nature. If you're drowsy don't drive the fsckin car .

    1. Re:Smart cars to save stupid drivers? by kalidasa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately, though one can engineer smarter cars, only Darwin can engineer smarter drivers.

  4. Re:So what if it screws up? by mks113 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You could say the same about anti-lock brakes. "What happens if the computer decides to release your brakes at the wrong time!!?".

    The answer is that they asked that question early in design. It detects anomalies and shuts the system down. I expect it to be the same with "auto-steering".

  5. Still... by dolo666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To me, the most interesting part of the whole Smart Car debate, is the human facets of it, whereby humanity has to decide if they are going to relinquish control of their driving to a more automated system. The benefits are there, indeed, but some people just hate giving up power (which will cause the big problems, if you ask me). Eventually this will lead to a total-control model, whereby drunk driving would become a thing of the past, tickets would be a thing of the past, driving lessons would be a thing of the past, and speed limits would be a thing of the past. Accidents will likely still occur until the system had all the kinks worked out of it.

  6. "Risk homeostasis" by dpbsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's say it all works just exactly as advertised and is adopted.

    It will make things safer for a short time. Then everyone will get less alert, because they'll expect the car to take care of warning them.

    People will make their own decisions about whether they are too drowsy or intoxicated to drive, and if driving is a little easier they'll let themselves get a little drowsier or intoxicated than they would have before, and things will be just about as safe as they were before.

  7. Safe Cars to Save Wealthy Drivers... by David+Hume · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apparently only those wealthy enough can afford to be saved while the rest of the 1500 people a year that croak because of drowsy driving have to suffer.


    Your complaint appears to be a subset of a larger complaint, and of a larger debate. "Safe for wealthy drivers." Why should somebody (and his family) be safer on the road than you just because he can afford a Volvo, Saab, etc. while all you can afford is a used Ford Pinto?

    Then again, why should somebody who makes more money be afforded superior health care just because he can afford to pay more for it?

    Are you suggesting that if someone places less value on short term leisure and recreational activities, invests more in his education, works harder and longer, and as a result earns more money, that he (and his family) should be relegated to the same relatively unsafe car (and relatively unsafe medical care) as the person who invested and worked less?

    1. Re:Safe Cars to Save Wealthy Drivers... by John+Starks · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think he's saying that the wealthy people should be expected to pay for superior health care and safer cars for everyone because if they don't, they're greedy.

      At least, that's the typical Slashdot attitude.

  8. Re:Not sure how it relates... by briansz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think everybody can agree that rumble strips on the side of roads are A Good Thing.

    Unfortunately, it's the reaction that some drivers have when suddenly jarred awake that's the problem.

    Not that the reactions of many drivers are much better when they aren't dozing. It amazes me no end how we give a person license to pilot a 5000-pound missle - day or night, and in all types of weather - when all they've proven that they can drive it around a small parking lot and answer a few questions.

    Want to reduce accidents? Want to save lives? Mandatory driving skills and car control training before you get a license. As it stands, we're so concerned with car control here in the USA that you'll get a Reckless Driving ticket for doing donuts in a big empty parking lot while testing out the limits of your ride to see how it behaves in a skid condition.

    Won't Somebody Think Of The Children?

  9. I'm more afraid of this actually working. by oneiros27 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Especially the 'auto correct' bit.

    That means no erratic driving, and no way for a police officer to potentially head off an accident from a drowsy or drunk driver.

    And I admit, I have been one of those people who have fallen asleep at the wheel, and have realized that I was in a different lane than I remembered having been in. I have probably been saved by the little rumble strips along the edge of the highway at least half a dozen times.

    But I'm not comfortable with this if it means that drowsy people are more likely to drive, because their car will warn them if something might go wrong. And there's no way in hell that I want rich alcoholics having an extra excuse for throwing back a few extra before they hit the road.

    In some ways, I'd almost prefer that they just took the driving completely away from humans. [well, all animals... I don't want there to be some monkey driving, even though I know in Cannonball Run [2, I think], he wasn't really driving]

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
  10. There's an easy fix for this. by tgd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Teach people how to drive.

    15 hours of how to move in traffic isn't driving instruction. People need to know what to do when they understeer and oversteer. They need to have done it before, over and over, so they learn how to react.

    Controlling a car isn't hard, and the majority of times people think their car is out of control, its not so far gone a knowledgable driver couldn't recover safely.

    We just don't teach anyone how to drive in this country. Fifty bucks and fifteen hours behind the wheel of a minimum wage driving teacher shouldn't cut it.

  11. Re:Smart Cars to Save Wealthy Drivers... by ragnar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apparently only those wealthy enough can afford to be saved while the rest of the 1500 people a year that croak because of drowsy driving have to suffer.

    Suffer? I hope this is in jest, because your current auto is no less safe tomorrow as it is today because of this technology. In addition, many safety items are first produced on high end cars because the cost is more easily absorbed by the purchaser. If the system works it will become a commodity item and become affordable for more people.

    --
    -- Solaris Central - http://w