Slashdot Mirror
High-tech Cars Replacing Driver Skill?
Nick writes "What happens when you take a bunch of average drivers, put them in a car with no high-tech systems like anti-lock brakes and traction control, and ask them to drive on a safety test track? 360-degree spins, of course. And not only do today's drivers need ABS and traction control to keep their cars under control, it also turns out most drivers can't even name the high tech safety systems that are continually saving their butts. And to make matters worse, carmakers plan to install automatic radar-based blind-spot checkers so motorists can avoid looking over their shoulders while changing lanes. Even geeks find some of these technologies scary, including Wired's Bruce Gain, who drove Mercedes' S-Class with automatic braking."
I drove an '89 Celebrity with no ABS or anything other than power steering up until a year ago. You just need to know how to drive the car you're in, not some hypothetical automobile from 20 years ago
I work in the R&D division of a major Japanese video game corporation. Some members of my research group have been working with major Japanese automakers (whose identity I am not at liberty to discuss at the moment) to apply concepts learned in video game design to driving cars. Instead of a cumbersome set of multiple controls, we are experimenting with a single two-axis controller, one axis controlling acceleration and braking in the up-down direction, and the other controlling steering in the left-right direction. Gear shifting is mapped to the start and select buttons. We're experimenting with a number of control devices, from the Power Glove to GameCube controllers as input effectors.
We believe that this research will lead to much more drivable and intuitively controllable autos, especially for a generation of drivers raised on video games, and will cause fewer accidents on the road, due to the intuitive nature of the control mechanisms and the ingrained neurological psycho-response actuations which have developed from extensive game playing. It will further open up driving to those who may not have all limbs working, but as long as one has thumb control, driving will be accessible to all. I look forward to seeing this coming revolution on the commericial market.
-- Samir Gupta, Ph. D. Head, New Technology Research Group, Nintendo Co. Ltd., Kyoto, Japan.
yeah, thats going to be real popular, untill there is a sensor malfunction and you take out the little old lady in the pinto stationwagon. Those would have to be out for a few years before, and open source, before Id even begin to trust them.
Did drivers ever really have skills in the first place?
There are few automobiles out there (mainly SUVs) that now have systems installed to let you know if you are leaving the lane via a photo-sensor connected to an alarm inside the vehicle. After all, why should we expect drivers to keep their *!@?% car in their own lane without the aid of a computer? Here's an article that goes perfectly with the theme of this post.
..i LIKE to drive. Sometimes helpful systems that assume control take all the fun out of things.
This "study" is big-time BS for the simple reason that the typical road-going driver has NEVER been able to pilot a vehicle safely through these sorts of dog-n-pony show tests which is why all of these technologies got invented in the first place.
Seriously, the people doing this study actually think that your typical driver facing a panic situation somehow had the foresight to remember some verbal instruction back from a high school driver's ed class about "Cadence Breaking" before ABS was a standard feature? Or that drivers from as little as 10 years ago had the sort of skid-pad training required to drill in the muscle memory and experience necessary to control a car in an understeer/overseer situation? No way; it was the inability for the typical driver to control a vehicle in these circumstances that led to hundreds of millions of dollars of automotive industry investment in these technologies.
I see what the study is getting at and it is a point that any rational person will agree with; drivers need better skill training. Telling people which way to move the wheel in a spin or how to massage the break pedal out of a textbook (or even on a video) is a useless substitute to making a student actually experience car control and build the muscle memory actually required to apply those skills in a high stress situation. At the same time, rational people also realize that nobody will ever invest the billions of dollars necessary in the sort of meaningful driver education on a skidpad and through static exercises.
Given our inability (through unwillingness of lack of funds) to train drivers, I believe that the technologies we've put on the typical passenger car are pretty amazing.
At the same time, the biggest contributing factor to accidents is simply the fact that people don't pay very much attention. Even with all of the idiot drivers on the road and the noted lack of car control skill, the overwhelming majority of accidents are totally avoidable. Unfortunatly, doing so requires the typical driver to have situational awareness above that of a rock...
People learn the skills appropriate for their lives. Do I know how to castrate a bull or build a replacement wooden wheel for my Conestoga wagon? No, because I'm not a settler living in the early 1800's.
Why not an article that asks the same questions about medical technology? Does the fact that we have made advancements in heart repair, diagnostics, medicines and more somehow indicate that people today are weaker or dumber than those of ten years ago?
Correlation != Causation, yet that seems to be what this article is obliquely suggesting.
If you buy their premise, then go ask some pirates about global warming, they have strong opinions regarding its affect on their trade.
High-tech planes replacing pilot skills
High-tech seat belts replacing stuntman skills
High-tech calculators replacing math skills
High-tech screwdrivers replacing screwing your freaking wrist to death skills
High-tech phones replacing screaming really loud skills
High-tech shovels replace digging dirt with your fingers skills
High-tech whining replaces err.... wait... no people are as good at that as ever
I need a "get the &#^$ out of my way" button that works on the self-absorbed asshole yapping on his cellphone while driving his enormous SUV 52 in the 65 passing lane and backing up traffic for a mile behind him! I push the button, he moves his ass over and life goes on.
Well, I guess a rocket launcher would do, too.
A friend of mine had it come on recently. He was behind an old guy when a light turned yellow. It saved his ass but it was the first time he'd ever seen it work. Lots of people are so surprised by the ABS when it comes on for the first time that they unconsciously release the brake.
This test is pure bullshit. The only thing it proves is that people don't instantly adapt. If you had done the opposite, taking drivers accustomed to older cars and putting them in a new car with high-tech safety features, they'd fail all the same...
ABS is a very good example. When it came out, it was causing a large number of accidents. People accustomed to standard brakes would continue their "cadence-braking" techniques on their new ABS-equiped vehicles, and would therefore be unable to stop.
Even though people are accustomed to it now, I personally dislike ABS because of the trade-offs made... It is a system that assumes that less braking ability is okay, provided you are still able to steer. That make be true a lot of the time, but not always. When you have to slam on your brakes, but you still roll into an accident, you can thank ABS for that...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
What does this prove? See subject for an easy analogy.
... ...
My fun/backup car is a 1977 honda civic, complete with manual choke. It takes an act of god to start it, but I have JUST the nack to get it every time. Most people getting into the car wouldn't have any idea what a manual choke is.
Does this mean that anyone who can't start it is not skilled at starting modern day cars?
Ask your typicall 747 pilot to jump into a spitfire and fly 500km.
You see where I'm going. It's like programmers bitching about no one knowing assembler any more, when no one apart from serious system optimizers (or race car drivers....) need to know it.
Reminds me of this story I read about a month or two back - Mercedes took three shiny new S-Class's with this automatic braking system to a facility to demonstrate how well it worked for a german auto magazine. So they filled this facility with fake fog, sent a test driver down into the fog and lo and behold he ploughed into the back of one of the other S classes.
It was a bit of an embarassment and for some reason the test driver ended up losing his job despite it being nothing to do with him. Still shows that sometimes these pieces of technology do have a way to go before they work properly.
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
The good ole' BBC has done some interesting comparisons involving Automobiles, which the Google heads have kindly made available on line:p>
Old vs New is here.
But my favorate by far is Play Station vs Real Life here.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated up.
Denmark has the worst drivers in the world. If it wasn't for all these fancy toys and the taxes making sure most vehicles only have tiny engines it would be utter carnage out there.
I cycle 50+ km a day and on my way to and from work I pass the wreckage of at least one accident in either direction. i.e. I see on average more than one accident every 25km.
Can anyone beat that?
(P.S. For the Danish readers the journey is along Roskildevej, right at Radhusplassen and over the swing bridge)
(P.P.S. I only notice so much as they appear to dump the wrecked cars on that bit of road I have the temerity to try and cycle along.)
(P.P.P.S. I do wish they would properly clean up all the glass and other rubbish afterwards as well.)
threadeds blog
Except you now have an additional set of potential points for failure in a system many will come to rely upon to keep themselves safe. There's alot of evdience(go google it) that suggests people drive faster knowing they have ABS,APRS,SC[stability control],TC[traction control],etc. to help them drive (and survive accidents in the case of Active Passenger Restrain t Systems[airbags].)
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
One of the things that makes a steering wheel a good control input for a car is that in order to make large changes in what your car is doing, you have to make large changes in the control input. Want to floor the car? You have to STOMP the gas peddle. What to stop SUDDENLY? You have to STOMP the brake. Want to make a SHARP turn? You have to turn the wheel at least a half ref, often up to 2 revs for really sharp, and almost a quarter for a turn that will induce a skid at highway speed before you have a chance to correct it.
There's also a reason your acceleration and braking are controlled by your feet - because your leg muscles are stronger than your thumb muscles. You can't have your acceleration/braking controlled by a non-resistive joystick, because it'd just be too easy to sneeze/drop your coffee/knock it with your elbow and have sudden acceleration or braking. You need pretty stiff resistence to prevent accidental input. Now can you imagine driving for an extend period of time using your thumb muscles instead of your leg muscles?
Even on vehicles that have throttle controls (like planes and boats), the throttle is a separate input device, has a large range of motion, and the vehicle being controlled usually experiences INFREQUENT velocity changes.
paintball
I would be interested if my assumption is true, and that is the more you automate the car into preventing the driver from losing control the more likely that driver will eventually pay so little attention to their driving that when they do ultimately push the car too far the result will be catastrophic.
The less drivers need to think about the fact they are in control of a couple of tonnes of metal adhering to the whims of inertia the less attention they'll pay to that fact. When this innatentive Michael Schumacher finally does push his vehicle past its ability to correct for driver stupidity, the speed at which the car leaves the road is therefore higher, making a bigger crash and increasing the chances of making driver/passenger/pedestrian into shoe custard.
SO, if that is the case, adding more stupidification features into automobiles may reduce the number of collisions, but increase the odds of the collision causing death.
Something for the grant hungry amongst you to draft a study proposal over.
--My signature is six words long.--
ABS is not designed to make the car stop faster. ABS is designed to enable the driver to maintain maximum control over the car while breaking. ABS Q&A. If you skid you don't steer. Though I don't think ABS makes the stopping distance longer so I don't see the need for your proposed kill-switch. Please don't use it if driving behind me..
Also take into consideration that the development of ABS just might have improved it in the last 13 years..
I would take my 2005 Skodas ABS, EDS and ESP Electronic Stability Programme over unassisted braking anyday.
Remember, there are no stupid questions. But there are a lot of inquisitive idiots.
>if the road is dry, the stop time will be much shorter if the wheels lock and you skid.
This is simply not true. Dynamic friction (skidding) is lower than static friction.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/brake4.htm
There's a system available that allows you to do that now - it's called a chaffeur. I believe the "ding" sound is an optional extra, though.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
You guys need to go back to school and research why joystick controls of the first cars were abandoned. It's something called IMMUNITY to G-Forces and vibration from a bumpy and rocky road as well as other situations. The game floor is VERY different from a real road ride. Then there's the aspects of having independent controls such as accelerator and brake. This is the same for bicycles and for them scooters for the handicapped.
There's a reason why some rally cars have independent front/rear braking pedals. Sure that may be not an everyday example, but it's still more representative than trying to reinventing the controls from the unreality of video games.
Unless you are flying/floating like a plane, it is pointless to try to reinvent the wheel with controls of such low resolution and fidelity controlled by sub-par limbs of coordination, the thumbs.
The reason for accidents on the road happens to be more a direct result of poor driver competance than from poor controls. If you eliminate any driver that can't pass the B-license driver's test from Gran Turismo (1-4) at the level most drivers are subjected to in Europe or Japan, THEN can you start thinking about if the controls are an issue.
Sometimes, people are just not meant to drive.
Well, say what you will, I like having power steering and power breaks. I could do without the automatic transmission, but apparently many cars no longer come with "standard" transmissions.
The ability to slow down for traffic in front of the vehicle would be appreciated as well. I have been in two accidents where the driver of the vehicle following did not pay attention and slammed into someone that had stopped. A system that helped prevent this from happening would have saved time and effort on my part, especially since the insurance payments are never really enough to cover your expenses.
When driving I also worry about my blind spots quite often. I now drive a minivan and it's difficult to see small cars that are traveling in my blind spot... As a motorcyclist I often have people pull into my lane and have to keep a constant eye out to prevent injury.
So nebulus comments about how no one needs traction control outside of racetracks, attributing new driver skills to skills picked up in video games and talking about how if you took away modern technology like anti-lock breaks etc modern drivers would have more accidents... Well, I'm sorry wasn't that why the new systems were added in the first place? To make driving safer....
Also, I'm highly doubtful that locking the brakes on dry pavement will stop you faster than anti-locking brakes. From my own personal experience it takes longer to stop and you have less control so it appears to me that this is just FUD.
/* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
Last winter I had an experience using ABS, and it seemed to me that it was knowing how and when to use ABS is a skill still sorely lacking in most drivers. You can read the entire quote on my blog, but here are the pertinent points...
Today's commute was quite an experience, as the Poconos, as well as most of the Northeast United States, were graced with 12 or so inches of the white stuff - snow, in layman's terms.
As I headed down the mountain, I spy a snowy white Range Rover, England's answer to the Hummer, creeping along the other side of the road. I assumed the road was blocked - I stopped and we both rolled down our windows - I asked the gentleman was the road ahead blocked by a car, was that why he was turning back? He replied in a Russian accent, "Is terrible road conditions - my wehicle can't make it - I'm goink home."
He rolled his window up and I mine, and I considered his words. Let's add this up. This man has a 2005 Range Rover, costing about $84,085 (Ichecked this price on the web later) - basically a car designed to scale Mt. Everest without shifting out of 1st gear, and I, on the other hand, am leasing a 2001 Toyota Rav4, list price about $20,000. He is going back to his safe, warm house, and I am attempting to drive down the mountain. The voice inside me says - go for it, (please note I have scheduled my inner voice for a visit to a good therapist) and proceed. Sure enough, the Rav starts to emit the familiar sound of the ABS brakes kicking in, but I find it relatively easy to keep it headed around the the steep curve and make it past the most challenging portion of what qualifies as our little Mt. Everest in these parts. Note to inner voice - you were right and I'm canceling that therapist's appointment.
The Moral Of The Story? - Thinking of buying a Range Rover? Buy a Rav4, save $64,000.00 and STILL be safe.
Arriving at the Park and Ride, I find that my bus company decided it was a tad too dangerous to venture forth into the elements, and so I was faced with a decision to either wait until they felt conditions improved, or drive in by my lonesome.
Lonesome won. The roads were actually fairly clear of snow, thanks to the road plow crews in PA and NJ, and since it was quite possible that the remainder of all timid Range Rover drivers had opted to decline descending the incline, remarkably free of traffic as well. Although I had phoned in earlier and given an estimate of at least a 2 to 3 hour delay in my arrival at work, I was only about 5 minutes late, and my boss was quite pleased!
"Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair" - George Washington
Go to a super market car park, stand near the road, and just watch the drivers for half an hour.
You'll never want to be on the road again after the display of universal incompetence you'll see. I had to do this as part of my motorcycle training in the UK, and getting on the bike again was a severe brown trousers moment.
I think much of what goes wrong in driving is the result of the increasing disconnect from reality that modern drivers face.
When you're riding a bike, the danger of what can happen if you're not cautious is all too real. Same with skiing. Same with walking.
Cars are another story entirely. It goes far beyond gadgetry like ABS, traction control, and the other modern technologies. It's far more fundamental than that.
You're in an enclosed environment. The windows are up. You can't fully hear the sounds outside the car. When you're on the highway going 80 mph, you've got the windows up. You can't feel or hear the loud, howling, fierce, blistering wind, the loud, raw sound of the tires grinding down the pavement. The shrieks of cars and trucks passing you by. You hear and feel maybe 20% of that, with the windows rolled up. These are all danger cues, things to keep you on high alert, but you've blocked them out, enclosed in the false security of your vehicular cockpit, with comfortable reclining bucket seat, music and talk radio, comfort-maximizing air conditioning and heating, zero wind, etc.
And then you've got those nice cars with the great suspension. No longer can you feel the all-too-real road beneath you. Now you don't even realize you just drove over a giant pothole at 40 mph.
The car control schema itself is like a video game. One pressure-sensitive button to stop, another to go. A wheel to steer. Each of these controls, your low-effort movements are amplified 1000x to control the multi-ton vehicle you're sitting in. Tired of pressing the B button? No problem, flip on the cruise control.
And most importantly, of course, is the need for speed! We love going 70, 80, 90 mph -- as fast as we can get away with. Why? Because we love to live in the moment, and that's ALL you feel when you're zooming along at 100 mph down an open road. You're steering a giant death machine at 100 mph...you don't have TIME to think about anything but the present.
And this, "living in the moment," is dangerous for exactly the same reasons it's enjoyable: You're not thinking about the future. Not even the near future. Not even the next few minutes. You've all but completely blocked out all thoughts, all concerns of the potential consequences of your actions.
1.ABS does shorten stopping distances on snow covered or 2.wet roads, 3.but if the road is dry, the stop time will be much shorter if the wheels lock and you skid.
First part is not true, second part and third part is slightly more true as written by you. ABS can actually lengthen stopping on snow covered roads due to the fact that locked tires build up snow dams in front of them that can stop a car quite abruptly. When ABS kicks in the tires roll and break the dam apart increasing stopping distance.
For part 2 and 3, while stopping distances may be slightly increased (but not really significantly) your tires will not lock and you will maintain control of the vehicle.
The point of ABS is NOT in anyway related to stopping distance. It's function is to give you steering control during panic breaking.... allowing you to break as hard as is possible while still being able to steer. Computer controls can be better at some things then us meatbags can... and this is one of them.
I do however agree that cars should include toggle switches for these functions. I've had good need to switch off my traction control at times, and I could think of reasons to turn off ABS as well.
Now people have argued that keeping a skill like driving a vehicle safely is no longer required as computers will be able to do it for us. But the required skill here- to be able to pilot a big hunk of metal, plastic and glass among other similar vehicles without anyone getting killed will still be a required skill for many years to come.
I think the real question here is how much control of these machines can be safely handed over to the judgement of an automated system, and whether we'd be willing to accept human death caused by such a system.
It's hard enough to accept death if it's human error or bravado that caused the accident. But when an error on your onboard computer means your car rams the back of a 7 seater and kills the two five year olds in the back seat, who do you blame?
Now people will answer with 'but planes already have autopilots and all sorts of automated systems' but a n autopilot doesn't do much more than keep a passsenger plane pointed at the desired heading while two or three professional crew members keep the plane safe. There's still a pilot and crew watching out for the safety of the plane and passengers, there are Ait Traffic Controllers making sure that planes don't come within miles of each other, and planes don't have to watch out for pedestrians (much).
Computers won't make driving much safer for now, and if we're going to allow automated systems such as these to get into the hands of ordainary people, who will take them as an excuse to pay less, not more attention at the wheel, then we're going to have to deal with the consequences of computer error killing people on a regular basis on our roads.
When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
It would be even better if I could step into my car with a latte, cell phone, and laptop, ask the car to take me to the airport, and read slashdot along the way. My guess is that it will happen within 20 years.
1950 called. It wants its prediction back.
'... it also turns out most drivers can't even name the high tech safety systems that are continually saving their butts'
Why is this a problem? There are plenty of things my Mum doesn't understand about her PC but it doesn't stop her getting enjoyment from using it.
I bet most of the youngsters her don't understand what double-declutching is, why it was needed and what invention came along that made it unnecessary?
Do you understand how the electronics in the ECU that drives the engine works? I'd bet half the geeks here don't know that a cam shaft and a crank rotate at different speeds.
This is soooo much of a non-story.
if the road is dry, the stop time will be much shorter if the wheels lock and you skid.
This is absolute nonsense. It is a total myth. A skidding wheel actually takes longer to stop as the wheel(s) has lost grip on the surface that it is supposed to be adhered to. A rotating wheel is still gripping the surface and will slow you faster.A skidding wheel or wheels is also an invitation to lose control of your vehicle. If you do have to steer you cannot unless you remove your foot from the brake and reapply it.When I did the advanced motorcycle training years back, they taught us that the quickest and safest way to stop was through progressive braking - that is a steady application of the brakes - which can yield up to 70% more stopping power than slamming on the brakes and skidding. Proper application, i.e. not locking wheels, also allows for additional weight transfer to the front wheels, further enhancing your stopping power. Their theory is absolutely correct too, as the practice exercises we did showed and the fact that I am still alive and in one piece also shows. If I had done the whole skidding thing, I would be dead or serious injured.
Don't tailgate - the end is near!
From Wikipedia:
Oh dear. the article goes on to mention that the 1969 model had a 400 cubic inch engine, which is about 6.4 litres, a size usually reserved for cargo trucks and airplanes. Someone has seen it fit to place such an engine into a two seater vehicle weighing less than one ton.
You can apparently drive this vehicle. However, I would go so far as to say that the ability to drive such a hotrod in no way prepares anyone for driving modern 1.1 litre hatchback runabouts, equipped with ABS, safely through town.
If people cannot drive without traction control or ABS (minimally) then they should not be able to drive at all. Driving a motor vehicle is not difficult.
And if people cannot drive with such systems, as was a frequent occurance when such systems were first introduced?
Getting a vehicle in motion is not a difficult process. Driving on the other hand is a very, very difficult skill which a great many people simply never achieve. Driving includes both the ability to move the vehicle and obey the rules of the road. It's the second part that most people have trouble with, not the first.
Any ass can get a 7 litre hotrod up to 200kph. But it would take a demi-god to use the beast on work, school and grocery runs for 10 years, in heavy traffic, with no incidents.
Some that I know still can't drive at all even with safety features and such... it is truly sad
Some people that I know have fifty times more time behind the wheel than I do and still cannot drive. They can get the car in motion in a paticular direction, but they speed, don't signal, brake lights, cut across lanes and generally put their lives more at risk than I ever will, despite the fact that my driving time is measured in hours and theirs in weeks.
My key point here is that people often mistake the ability to "move" a car for the ability to "drive" a car. They are very different things. Someone can still be a reasonably good "driver" without having fully mastered the ability to get the car in motion.
May the Maths Be with you!
I think you should check your tires on your SUV. Over 6 years ago, I had a Audi 80 with none of the safety systems you find on modern cars. It handled wonderfully, and I knew very well about intermittent braking on slippery surfaces. This didn't stop me from crashing it due to a large ice plaque on the road, but nobody (except rally drivers) could have recovered the car as many people have told me on that particular situation.
Now, I do have a "sports car" three times more powerful than my Audi 80, with power brakes (which took a big time to get used to), ABS, ESP and whatnot. The first winter that I had it, I made the mistake of keeping the summer tires. ABS kicked in pretty much every time I had to brake harder than usual. (On wet roads or snow) The winter after that, I learned my lesson and I replaced my summer tires with winter tires. Result: ABS only kicks in very extreme situations (snow + very hard braking). It's all in the tires, after all the tire are the contact with the road.
On dry road my ABS never kicks in even with hard braking for emergencies (with tires adapted to the season of course) Finally: ABS will not shorten your brake distance. It is actually suseptible to make brake distances longer: this has been repeated to us many many times in driving school. (But then, getting your drivers license in Europe isn't as easy as in the US) ABS is designed to enhance the control of your car when braking: you cannot steer when your tires are locked and thus you lose control. The electronic intermittent braking that ABS does, gives you control because the tires are kept in a state between locking and rolling.
Also, it might be due to the mass of your SUV: both my Audi 80 and the car I own now weight about 1.3 tonnes. I don't expect a 2.5+ tonne vehicle to brake fast. There is not much difference between car brakes and SUV brakes and you have to take that into account when driving higher weight vehicles. (Note that my old car had drum brakes on the rear axis and disc brakes on the front axis. My current car has all disc brakes and that also makes quite a difference while braking. Check your SUV: at 13 years old it probably has drum brakes on the rear axis)
I also have ESP, which I can turn off when I want to. It only kicks in when you do extreme turns on wet or snowy roads. ESP uses ABS in order to brake specific tires, so that it can correct trajectory. If you go on a (empty) snowy parking lot, and floor the pedal and make a very hard turn you'll still skid with ESP on. With ESP off, you don't even have to do that ;-) It's fun though, but you don't do this kind of shit on the public road.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Sure some cars have all these automatic features, but many of these are for people who are either too lazy, or have neglected their good driving techniques for far too long. A machine is not a good substitute for informed human judgement. Sure antilock breaks are more effecent than regular breaks, but if you need radar to check your blind spots, perhaps the vechicle you're driving is too big. There are countless people who drive mammath suvs who learned how to drive on a small car. Because of this, they have bad habits like taking 2 parking spaces in a parking lot. I drive a small compact (1999 ford escort se) and i have 2 very small blind spots, I don't need radar, and i really dispise people who drive large suv's and then almost merge into me because my roof is up to their mirrors. Perhaps suv drivers should be forced to get a new licence to prove they can drive the supersized cars.
Either way i'm not a fan of automated features. Like automatic transmission, its great for people who are lazy, but most times a manual will be more effecent (and imo safer in unsafe road conditions). Certanly there are features that without a doubt make people safer, but these features are no subsitute for safe driving practices.
We need nanny cars here. BIGTIME.
We have many immigrants who either cross over by mexico (that doesnt mean theyre mexican)and then go cross across the southern states till they reach south florida or float across from cuba. (we've found rafts canoing in the keys) After that they get a job either with the construction industry which is booming here right now or with field labor. As soon as they have a job theres someone out here who will finance them a car despite not having a license.
The result?
Hundreds of brand new cars zooming all over the place at high speed doing seriously dangerous manuvers.
I just moved here from los angeles and this is the worst driving i have EVER seen. I see cars without license plates driving around, trucks carrying scrap piled high and unsecured with pieces falling off the back. Everyone here tailgates, its just a fact of life in miami. The amount of illegal driving activity on roads down here is so much the police departments have basically given up. Its taken quite a deal of work to learn to drive acting as though everyone around you is a drunk because many of these people haven't had as much practice driving with a cellphone as we in los angeles have. Seriously I dare anyone in the country to come down here and tell me this isnt the scariest driving in the country. In california they taught me defensive driving in school, here they seem to teach offensive driving or none at all.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
the skill to traverse a slalom, especially given the amount of traffic and some of the manouvres and corning you have to do on a daily basis: If you drive past a school during the 'school run', this in particular becomes a matter of life and death, but still needs to be done at speed in order to not be late.
wait... let me get this straight. You drive through a school zone, slaloming between students, but you do it at speed because you can't be late for your appointment? And here I was thinking of doing an exchange program in the UK...
being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
Pardon me, but the poster can't drive well either. It's dangerous to look over your shoulder when changing lanes. Only look to the left and right to see if there are cars next to you. Use your mirror to look behind you. Looking over your shoulder takes your eyes too long the front. Many accidents happen this way.
I have always thought that modern learner cars allow the pupil to get away with far too much. When I learned the car had ABS, power steering and fuel injection. Now they even come with parking sensors! Being able to drive in a car that does everything for you is great, until it doesn't. Then you're screwed.
My last car was a Citroen AX - carburettor engine, manual choke, no ABS, no power steering, no parking sensors - nothing. Car before that? 1986 VW Polo - that didn't even have servo assisted brakes (PUMP THAT PEDAL!)!. Did I ever crash them? Spin them? Lose control in a skid? No. Why not? Because I learned how to drive, not just how to work the controls. I was well aware of the limits of both the car and myself. If I pushed, it would let me. And I'd be the one suffering.
One of the rules of the driving test in the UK is that the driver MUST be in control of the vehicle at all times. So, let people have their electronics, their gizmos and their gadgets, but don't let them into the toy cupboard until they've proven that can go without.
Can't speak for the requirements in the USA but here in the UK:
Have to be over 17 years old
For motorcycles, you have to pass a basic competency test before you can even get on the bike on a public road
Have to pass a multiple-choice theory test before you can take a practical
Have to pass a video-and-button "hazard perception" test before you can take a practical
Have to pass a quick vision test at the start of your test before you can start the practical
Have to pass a practical test which usually involves at least some (if not most or all) of the following:
Emergency stop, parallel park, reverse around corner, three-point-turn, reverse parking, demonstrating how to check oil, water etc. and that you can locate the necessary components.
The practical test lets you make up to 15 "minor" driving faults and still pass the test (16 or more results in failure). However, if you commit one serious or dangerous fault you will fail the test.
Usually, it takes at least six months of driving lessons (one or two a week) for someone who doesn't know how a car works to get to the standard necessary for passing the practical test. Most people only pass on their second attempt at the practical test and the theory test has something like a 50% pass rate at any time.
I know for a fact that almost every country in the world treats a UK driving licence like it was a revered religious artifact when hiring cars etc.
Would someone from the US care to state the minimum requirements to obtain a full car driving license in their states?
"You have to STOMP the gas peddle. What to stop SUDDENLY? You have to STOMP the brake. "
No you don't. Its the mark of an experienced driver to be giving huge inputs for any reason.
The amount of pressure needed to floor the gas is only slightly higher than that need to move forward a 1 MPH. Likewise, unless you're driving a huge 40 ton earthmover, braking force to lock the wheels is only slightly greater than the force necessary to gently stop the car.
Since you seem to be inexperienced, let me point out a few things to you:
1) the gas pedal does not provide proportional input to fuel system. That is, pressing the gas slightly may provide proportionally greater amounts of fuel than if you press the gas 3/4's of the way to the floor (and before you argue I'm wrong, re-read the sentence. Remember the key word is "proportionally")
2) The brake pedal is very proportional because it allows you to do what's called "modulating" the brakes. The gives you the ability in emergency braking to take your brakes right to the limit by modulating pressure as you feel a wheel starting to lock.
I realize to most 17-25 year olds with only a few years of driving that the controls seem poor when compared with your PS2, but remember, if you understand how to drive, you'll realize that video game controls are crude compared to the controls in an automobile. Its also not helped by the fact that the SUV's you tend to prefer have *bad* control systems, because you guys decided that "chunky looks" and bad gas mileage are way cooler than operating a vehicle that requires precision and finesse. And now you're bitching that the crappy vehicle you chose is no fun to drive. Boo hoo.
Actually, as a real race car driver, I've used GT4 (and many other driving programs) to help practice for racing. Running a real racecar is very expensive in terms of $ per min of seat time, where a Playstation is pretty cheap.
Part of it is that I have the controls set up to replicate the race car as much as possible - that means a wheel and pedals, similar seating position, etc.
Playstation practice is really good training, especially the license tests. If you can get Gold on everything, you're doing well.
But like the show pointed out (Top Gear rocks BTW) the Playstation doesn't tell the whole story. It is very good for teaching line, hand/eye co-ordination, and agression. It does less well for teaching the sensation of keeping a car balanced right on the limit. With modern race tires, it's not unusual to pull 1.7G transients on concrete without aero. There's just no way for a game console to replicate that. The consoles also have trouble conveying elevation change and road camber (probably because you feel that more than you see it) The Nurburgring in person is *far* more intimidating than in GT4.
But if you understand the limitations, it makes a good training tool.
As far as ABS goes, my racecar has ABS, but its primary purpose is to keep the tires round. In testing, we found that driver modulation beat the ABS in terms of stopping distances (race tires and dry pavement) On wet pavement, same deal, but it was much harder for the driver to walk the line between "I've got it" and "it's got me". Part of the problem is the difficulty in an enclosed car of telling when the wheels are locked. With the ABS on, you could transgress the braking limit and the tires would stay round and the car would still stop.
For me, ABS has been an ass saver, but not a performance increasing device per sae (ie, I don't just mash the brakes and let the ABS do all the work - that's slow)
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Dumbest thing I have ever read about ABS. If ABS is making control of your "much WORSE" then you must be trying to fight it or something. ABS is great, just push down the pedal as hard as you can and let the computer stop the car for you.
It is possible (don't know much about Sentra's) that you have front disk brakes and rear drum brakes (still pretty common). In that configuration ABS isn't as effective as on a 4 wheel disk system but even in that configuration the computer can pump the brakes far faster than you could ever hope for. Not only that most ABS can control each wheel seperately. In a 4 wheel disk 3 or 4 channel ABS the stopping capabilites of your car in dry and defintely wet conditions is FAR superior to what you will obtain by yourself.
There's another name for this, which I can't remember right now, but essentially there is a theory in the academic (psychology) literature that states very simply that people adjust their behavior to acheive a preferred level of risk.
This applies when driving, and is _extremely_ important when developing safety systems when driving. Take a person and let them get used to a vehicle that is unsafe, and they will drive more carefully to compensate for the problems that the vehicle has. However, as soon as more safety features are added they will return to their previous (less safe) habits. The problem is that almost everyone overestimates how much safer they are because of the devices, thus they overcompensate, and are actually less safe driving the newer vehicle (because of their changes in style) than they were in the older vehicle. But they actually feel safer because of the safety features and whatnot.
This is the real reason that unless a feature is absolutely necessary, or shows a difference in safety greater than the compensation, I do not want auto braking or lane change signals and similar tech. What I do want is simple: two devices, one that show the CURRENT speed limit accurately; and one that shows the actual color of the light that you are approaching and how long you have before a light (if green or red) changes. These are two things that would help improve safety by making sure that no one ever has an excuse for running a red light. The speed limit device would give folks a clear idea of their speed in relation to the law. Then if they get caught, the fines could be handled appropriately.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Occasionally there are horror stories about ancient legally blind people in Florida who take the test 20-30 times before passing and getting their license. Florida's also the only state I've ever heard of where elderly people routinely get on the Interstate going the wrong way. They usually end up killing half a dozen to a dozen people and suriving themselves. Seemed like it was happening about once every six months while I was living down there.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Give me a break of COURSE the drivers are going to have trouble with the old beemer on this track. It's not called the "Ultimate Car Control training school" for nothing. It's probably a very very difficult track. Do you honestly think that someone who bought this car originally 15 years ago would have done significantly better?
And just because a car is new doesn't mean it's loaded with auto-driving doodads. I have a 2005 Nissan Altima. No ABS, no traction control. I put 168,000 miles on a 1997 200SX 5-speed. No whiz-bang gizmo's on that sucker. Somehow I managed to drive in all conditions from 1/2" ice-cover, to snow, to rain, to black-ice etc without ever crashing into anything. [Although I did come close to sliding into a telephone pole at 2mph, stupid crowned road with 1/2" solid ice. But ABS wouldn't have saved me there either]. Did I lose traction? Sure, but I knew how to control my car. If I was suddenly dropped into an unfamiliar car and onto the track at "Graham Griffiths Ultimate Car Control training school" would I lose control? Yeah I probably would. And most people who aren't professional drivers probably would too.
Of course, I think my old car was easier to control with the 5-speed than an automatic since I could also modulate the clutch a bit to help control what the wheels were doing but even with an automatic I think I'd be in trouble if I ever get ABS. It's just second nature for me to start pumping the brakes if I start to lose traction. I know the ABS would be much more effective than I could ever get with my foot but that will be a hard habit to break.
Nothing to see here
Our minds are not Designed to process the world at 60mph, only 10-20mph.
Is there a study that confirms this? I would like to disagree that our brain is incapable of processing the world at 60mph.
At 60 mph, the world is indeed moving much faster. There is more information that passes before our eyes going 60 mph than going 3 mph in any given time period. Our mind is very selective, and is incredible at filtering information to reduce information overload.
Even at 60 mph, though, our brain still pays attention (incredibly!) to detail. If you concentrate on the road and do not get distracted, you will be amazed at how much detail you can catch, process, remember and still control.
Do not confuse "inability to process the world at 60 mph" with "too preoccupied with own thoughts to notice the world". Oftentimes when we are walking and have things on our mind, we will hardly pay attention to the sidewalk, to the storefronts, even to passersby. Much of the time people are just as preoccupied when driving, but not paying attention to detail should not be attributed to the fact that we're travelling at 20X the speed we're walking.
The danger lies that we can react just so quickly. If it takes us 1 second from the time we recognize a situation, make a decision about it, send electric impulse to our muscles at 3 mph, it still takes us the same 1 second at 60 mph, even at 600 mph. A whole lot can happen during that 1 second, and the faster we go the more dangerous it becomes.
Does this mean we can't process the world at higher speeds? I think it becomes more and more challenging, but 60 mph is nothing to fret about.
As I learned from the literature sent out by my auto insurance company years ago, you can eliminate your blind spots by readjusting your side mirrors. What you do is put your head right up to your side window and adjust the mirror so that you can just barely see the side of your car. Then put your head in the middle of the car (ie. to your right...or left depending on which part of the world you're in) and adjust the other mirror likewise. That way, you don't just duplicate your view of what's behind you with your rear view and side mirrors, and your side mirrors show what's in your blind spot. By the time you can't see a vehicle in your side mirrors, you'll be able to see the front of it right beside you. It takes a little getting used to (maybe a day or two) because, since you can no longer see the sides of your car in your side mirrors, you don't have a fixed point of reference to show you where things are, but as soon as you get used to it, you don't need that crutch anymore.
Convert RSS to HTML - integrate webfeeds into your website
I think the concept of mussel memory is a great idea. Mussels multiply prodigiously, and often live in clusters. If we could somehow use those mussel colonies to store information...why, the possibilities are endless. Maybe we could finally learn to communicate to dolphins.
Actually, this is not correct. The Bosch Automotive Handbook has graphs on this, but I could not find them online. A very similar graph is found here. Notice the black line, which represents acceleration/beaking force. The X-axis of that graph is the slip ratio. From the graph you can see the highest braking force comes from a relatively low slip ratio (~5%). The force quickly drops after passing this ratio. Therefore - locking up the brakes will _not_ give you better braking than keeping the slip ratio at the peak braking force area of the curve. Also see threshold braking.
this sig was brought to you by the letter
I think some rear-facing, side-mounted, wide-angle video cameras would be better than "blind-spot checking radar." I would never be able to trust a simple indicator light. An actual visual from a better angle would be more useful, I think.
The picture you sketch makes me see roads almost as a system of public transport. You punch in your destination, and with minimum input from you, you're driven to it (quickly, safely, smoothly and efficiently). Sounds great to me! But in a system like this, what's the use of having a sporty car that can pull serious g's when accelerating and cornering? Really, the weakest of economy cars could perform just as well as a sporty one in an automated system like the one you describe.
As for me, I think this is a very good thing: it would encourage responsible, economical cars. But I also know that the more nostalgia-prone drivers who prefer sporty cars would really hate this.
If you want to turn off the DSC (dynamic stability control) you can do so from a switch on the console. Of course, this leaves the ABS engaged, but I can definitely notice a difference with the DSC off. For those who dont' know, the DSC system controls the amount of power transferred the engine make. For instance, it prevents wheel spin by reducing the flow of fuel so you can't "peel out" with DSC engaged.
All of these technologies are tools to improve driving safety. The point of ABS isn't to allow drivers to stop without pumping the brakes, the fact of the matter is that computer control allows the car to stop in a significantly shorter distance than any human could manage. Partly because the computer samples and responds several hundred times per second, but also because computers never lose their cool when coming around a corner and seeing a semi truck stopped in the middle of the lane.
A (silly) analogy would be saying that antibitoics are inhibiting the ability of the human immue system to evolve, so we should just let people die.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
It gives you greater control over the vehicle.
Stick is the CLI of driving.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.