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."
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.
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.
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.
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 care. I fully expect cars to drive themselves before I become senile enough to have the keys taken away from me.
I consider myself an excellent driver, but recognize that relatively few people care about improving their driving skills. I would much rather they have access to gadgets that prevent them from smashing into me than not.
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.
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.
I think the driver lost his job because he was the "journalist" taking part in rigging the test.
The test was a fraud in the first place.
Linky
>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
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.
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.
the problem is that they can't indentify whats saving their life
so when they buy or borrow another car that doesnt have tractional control power steering a fish finder
they will be a danger to themselves and others
That's called a 'taxi' ;-)
However - the article can be paralleled with "Interface controls replacing user skill? Twenty standard computer users were shown to a seat in front of a vintage 22-year old Commodore. While all were competent with their newer systems, not a single one was able to control the early model."
People learn to use the systems they have. Just as with development in computer systems the public - through assistive devices designed by others to reduce the complexity - have absolutely no need to know how to work machine code, or programming languages, or even scripting languages, the modern driver has assistive devices designed by others to reduce the complexity of operation. And, as the parent post puts so well, all the better if it stops them killing us.
Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious
"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."
Exactly what I want, public transport without the, errr, ummm, public.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I believe the English car manufacturers mastered automatic breaking of their cars years ago: simply starting the engine was often enough to make my old Rover break. I'm surprised that Mercedes would want to reduce their reliability to the same level.
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.
I consider myself an excellent driver, but recognize that relatively few people care about improving their driving skills.
That is actually the problem. People consider themselves excellent drivers, even when they are not, because they think they are so good they are actually really bad. I always find that Bad Drivers tend to complain a lot and get angry at other people when they drive, because either they are driving to slow, or they cut them off even when there was plenty of room. Then you see them near/tailgate them, swerve in panic, and may other unsafe actions. They figure themselves to be excellent drivers so it has to be everyone else fault. I tend to see myself as an average driver, I realize when I make a mistake when I am driving (We all do, occasionally forgetting to really check the mirror and look to the side if there is blind spot, Getting slightly confused and run a Red Light, Misjudging the time on a yellow, Missed reading a Sign (Stop, 1 Way, etc), ), and I work to correct it the next time, Driving actually takes more brain power then people realize, because they have all the actions in mussel memory. But they tend to forget that they are drive a 1/2 Ton and Up Block of Steel at Speeds that we normally cant run at. Our minds are not Designed to process the world at 60mph, only 10-20mph.
Note: I never met you so I don't know how you really drive, it is not personnel
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
GPS cost under a thousand dollars. How about a system that knows the speed limit everywhere and does not allow the automobile to exceed that limit? How about it knowing where every stop sign is and enforcing that stop too. How about having a wi-fi system in every automobile that will communicate it position, speed and direction of travel to every other automobile within 100 yards of it. Both automobile could change either direction or speed to avoid a collision. How about traffic lights transmitting their light cycle and current condition to all close automobiles so that they can adjust their speed to always hit the green light. When this system is mass produced and placed in every automobile it will probably cost less than air bags which for the vast majority of people are never used. I believe that this system would save thousand of more lives just by giving instructions on how to get to ones destination therefore allowing one to concentrate on the traffic rather than looking for another street or address.
Whilst I will agree that usually this would prevent accidents, there are occasions where I have needed to accelerate out of trouble. I would be pretty damn miffed if some speed limiter stopped me from being able to do so!
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
Maybe this isn't so bad because if I buy a car, it's generally going to be newer than the one it replaces, and so it will have more gizmos, not fewer.
Only enthusiasts are likely to drive BMWs like the one described in the article. I seem to remember the 3-series had a reputation in those days for being a fun to drive but tricky to handle car. These randomly selected drivers are likely to not know how to drive such a car properly, since they have never owned one.
I thought traction control was still pretty exclusive to high-end cars. ABS, of course, is just about everywhere. I transitioned to a car with ABS but I must be among one of the few who can safely drive without it, because I very rarely feel it trigger, even when braking relatively hard.
There may be psychological factors involved in this study that make it unduly alarmist. When you take drivers and unleash them on a track, I'm betting their competitive instincts override their caution. They know, after all, that if they did spin out, the track is designed to be safe under those conditions. So if the drivers were not told the point of the study, they might have thrown caution to the wind and behaved very differently from normal.
A more interesting study (albiet a more boring one to conduct) would be to see how our accident rate has declined over the years with the gizmos coming into effect. Has anyone done something like that? Have accident rates declined thanks to the gizmos, or do they just offer a false sense of security?
D
I agree - You need to know the car you drive.
I've had 4 different cars on my life, want to know the easiest way to learn how they react? Snow covered parking lots! Go with a trusted friend in the passenger seat, drive around at 10 mph or so, left right turing, and ask them to pull the e-brake at times, and release to force a skid that you weren't expecting. It doesn't take long to learn how your car reacts. Do it alone even. I've just found that it's the easiest, and SAFEST way to learn what your vehicle will do with lose of traction.
The above comments are not guaranteed to make sense to anyone other than the author...
I think some people tend to consider better than average car control or car recovery control to make them a good driver. Just being able to induce a car into a controlled slide or recover from one, doesn't make one a good driver. Aggression level and overall attentiveness come in to play a lot where driving is concerned. Overly aggressive drivers who may be able to avoid others, can sometimes tend to cause accidents themselves (they swoop in, cut somebody off who slams on their brakes, and unfortunately gets rearended by some dumbass 2 cars back who was tailgating).
I'd like to think I'm slightly above average, but nothing great. I'm one of the few of my generation to actually take Driver's Ed. I've also taken a defensive driving course, as well as a general car control course, an autocross driving school (more of the same really), and I've raced in a fair share of autocrosses. I'm also one of those people who's always interested in improving their driving skills, and make it a habbit to try to pay more attention to what my car is doing -- feel its movements through the controls.
That said, I would still only consider myself slightly better than average. You know what? I kind of like some of these driver aids. I love having ABS now. Yes, I can drive a car without ABS and learned how to brake at the threshold of tire lockup, but I love having it. It has saved me on at least one occasion where I had a driver pull out in front of me on a wet road. I've yet to drive a car with traction and/or yaw control in an environment where I could test the limits of those technologies, but I'm sure they work well too. I wouldn't want to race one of those cars, but that's the point really. These cars are designed for the road, and these technologies help people keep from having accidents.
One last note. I think everybody should be forced to learn to drive stick on an underpowered car. It really forces you to think about your environment more. You have to pay attention to that hill coming up (Do I need to downshift to make it up?). You pay more attention to the vehicles around you at stop lights (Am I going to roll back into the car behind me?). The reason 90% of people give for driving automatics is that they are lazy and/or want to relax. That's just the problem with our driving society here in the US: they aren't paying enough fucking attention.
If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.
Not me. I just stuck my big foot out the door and stopped right then. Tore up a lot of shoes back then.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
I could be classifed as an excellent high speed, high maneuverability driver. When compared to the average public. I autocross often and I have the autocross timeslips and best of days to prove that I know how to pilot my vehicle well. I can control my car at it's limits because I know almost exactly (you never know 100%) what it will do and what inputs are required to make it do what I want.
That said, I still only consider myself and average driver on the highway. What I do out there on the track doesn't translate to the highway. Just like everyone I get bored in my car. I zone out to music. I don't pay enough attention. I get frusterated in traffic and probably make less than safe passes. I don't qualify that I'm allowed to do these things because I race cars on Sunday. No, I'm just kind of an inpatient asshole with a fast car. I'm not saying I'm a bad driver out there causing wrecks left and right. I'm just saying that I'm your average driver who doesn't think enough when out and about driving on the regular roads.
Granted, if I got into a situation where braking or maneuvering skills came into play, that would obviously help me avoid a collision. However, that assumes I was paying enough attention to react and plan your maneuver properly. Given the amount of concentration I apply at the track and the amount of concentration I have zombiedriving down the interstate, my skills probably wouldn't help the least bit.
Totally disagree. It is obvious this post was written by someone who doesn't drive a stick.
Speaking as someone who has driven sticks exclusively for 15 years, I can tell you that once you get used to driving one, operating the clutch and shifter becomes a second order action - concious thought is not involved. Best way I can describe it the way the slashdot crowd would understand is touch typing - you don't have to think about typing every letter; your fingers know where they are and just do it. There is not concious thought involved (you are not thinking "OK, type 'letter'. The 'l' key is home row, third finger on the right hand...). Driving a stick is the same way.
What a stick *does* force me to do is use all four limbs while I drive. I *can't* talk on a cell phone, I need my hands. I don't get my gas pedal and brake confused, because every time I brake, I have to clutch - which (effectively) disables the accelerator. I have to pay attention to the distance between me and all the cars around me, because what gear I am in determines how long it takes to stop (downshifting), and whether or not I will roll into the car behind me. Driving a stick forces you to do little other than *drive*. I know it sounds like I have a lot more work to do, but remember, a lot of it is not concious. I have no doubt that I am a better driver than my wife who drives automatics, if only because I am forced by the mechanics of driving the car to attempt fewer non-driving activities.
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.