6 ms·

The thing about ABS is that it operates on the principle of least surprise: It takes what the user expect brakes to do (slow the car down) and makes it work eve

by jordanb 17y ago

The thing about ABS is that it operates on the principle of least surprise: It takes what the user expect brakes to do (slow the car down) and makes it work even when traditional brakes would fail to perform that task. So it took a technology that the user expected to work in a certain way, and made it work better in that way. It made brake behavior less surprising to the user. This technology seems to do the opposite (at least, the way Scoble described it). It massively changes the behavior of the car based on some sensors, and then expects the user of the car to deal with the different behavior of the systems, all in a high-stress situation with alarms going off.

mschy 17y ago
In practice what it means is that if you're about to crash into something, and you hit the brakes, that it hits them 100% right off the bat, instead of the 50% or 80% that most people would go for. I've not used the system in the Prius, but I've used a competing system and it's not at all surprising.
- ams6110 17y ago
  In many cases you're better off trying to steer around the collision than (or in addition to) stopping short of it. I've seen a few crashes where people could have just steered onto the shoulder or median to avoid the crash but it seems that they just applied the brakes and hoped for the best. I don't think driver's education in the USA teaches emergency maneuvering much. How is it elsewhere?
  - TeHCrAzY 17y ago
    Nothing taught in Australia, at least conventionally. My driving instructor was a retired police driver trainer, I benefited greatly from his experience and understanding of vehicles. Never had an accident, but avoided several via quick thinking + knowledge of how the car will react and what options I have when driving.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
  - MartinCron 17y ago
    For what it's worth, that's the main focus of the Motorcycle Safety Foundation course. If I remember correctly, 35 mph is the speed at which is easier/faster/safer to swerve than to try to stop a two-wheeled vehicle.
  - vlad 17y ago
    My drivers education course (in the US) emphasized steering to avoid a collision first, and then braking afterwards. We were taught that colliding with a pole at 35 mph is better than doing so with oncoming traffic for a total effect of 70 mph. It also reduces the chances of injury. After reading that pilots are the safest drivers, I've made sure to always look around my car as I drive.
    - evgen 17y ago
      Ditto. The thing that seemed to trip up most people in the simulators was remembering to correct for the swerve. Most would turn hard right/left to avoid the obstacle and then forget to make a fast counter-turn to avoid running off the road.
    - daveungerer 17y ago
      Remember that F = ma. Hitting another car of the same size coming from the opposite side when each car is doing 35 mph is pretty similar to hitting a concrete wall at 35 mph. There is no 70 mph effect. The reason the pole would be safer is that it has some give. Lower acceleration = lower force.
      - daveungerer 17y ago
        If someone could explain why I was voted down, that would be great. Thanks.
        sailormoon 17y ago
        I didn't vote you down, but you cannot assume the cars are of identical size and mass, or indeed that it's a car at all. Hit a truck at 35, while he is also doing 35, and you'll feel a 70mph effect all right. For a few milliseconds. Unfortunately, poles, especially old ones, do not have as much give as one would like, and large trees have basically none. Plus, their narrow aspect is a very bad thing to hit; cars are designed to collide with large, flat, wide objects and to crumple accordingly to wash off energy. Hitting an immoveable narrow object is outside this design consideration and cars have a nasty tendency to wrap around it.
  - enjo 17y ago
    I believe these systems don't have the effect until the point at which steering is no longer the option. The idea isn't so much to avoid the accident, but rather to try to bleed as much of the force of the accident out through braking as possible. If you can get the brakes fully engaged you can reduce the severity of an accident pretty substantially, even if you can't fully avoid it.
  - jrgnsd 17y ago
    It's not taught in South Africa, although we have a number of Advanced Driving Courses which teaches you anything from skid control to collision avoidance.
ugh 17y ago
Driving cars is very dangerous. The earlier we radically change how we use cars the earlier we can avoid deaths on the streets. I want an autopilot for cars as soon as possible.
- houseabsolute 17y ago
  Absolutely. The moment we develop an autopilot that is safer than average human drivers by a statistically significant margin, it should be mandatory in all cars. I am hopeful that we will see this during our lifetimes.
  - rms 17y ago
    http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/01/gm-says-driverl/ http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/01/gm-says-driverl/
    - houseabsolute 17y ago
      Sure, but that's not the same thing as saying they will be proven statistically safer, which will be the bar you have to pass before you can mandate them for everyone. I figure that's another few years off. But I agree that it won't be long now.
  - ugh 17y ago
    The introduction of such systems (probably expensive at first) would also be a great opportunity to switch from car ownership to widespread car rental (ala zipcar).
    - cakesy 17y ago
      The best thing we can do is kill cars alltogether. Move to a more european style of cities, with medium to high density living, which makes public transport more practical.
  - rdtsc 17y ago
    The technology might get there soon but not the legal framework. I can't even imagine the legal implication of cars on autopilot killing pedestrians and drivers. That is also probably one of the reasons we don't have flying cars yet.
mike_organon 17y ago
Scoble's text is different from what the Ford guy says. Ford doesn't automatically hit the brakes, only preps them and when you hit the brakes, it automatically applies them 100%. Prius automatically applies the brakes and Scoble says he no longer instinctively hits them himself. I wonder if that loss of instinct is worth the benefit.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]

by jordanb 17y ago

mschy 17y ago

In practice what it means is that if you're about to crash into something, and you hit the brakes, that it hits them 100% right off the bat, instead of the 50% or 80% that most people would go for. I've not used the system in the Prius, but I've used a competing system and it's not at all surprising.

ams6110 17y ago
In many cases you're better off trying to steer around the collision than (or in addition to) stopping short of it. I've seen a few crashes where people could have just steered onto the shoulder or median to avoid the crash but it seems that they just applied the brakes and hoped for the best. I don't think driver's education in the USA teaches emergency maneuvering much. How is it elsewhere?
- TeHCrAzY 17y ago
  Nothing taught in Australia, at least conventionally. My driving instructor was a retired police driver trainer, I benefited greatly from his experience and understanding of vehicles. Never had an accident, but avoided several via quick thinking + knowledge of how the car will react and what options I have when driving.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
- MartinCron 17y ago
  For what it's worth, that's the main focus of the Motorcycle Safety Foundation course. If I remember correctly, 35 mph is the speed at which is easier/faster/safer to swerve than to try to stop a two-wheeled vehicle.
- vlad 17y ago
  My drivers education course (in the US) emphasized steering to avoid a collision first, and then braking afterwards. We were taught that colliding with a pole at 35 mph is better than doing so with oncoming traffic for a total effect of 70 mph. It also reduces the chances of injury. After reading that pilots are the safest drivers, I've made sure to always look around my car as I drive.
  - evgen 17y ago
    Ditto. The thing that seemed to trip up most people in the simulators was remembering to correct for the swerve. Most would turn hard right/left to avoid the obstacle and then forget to make a fast counter-turn to avoid running off the road.
  - daveungerer 17y ago
    Remember that F = ma. Hitting another car of the same size coming from the opposite side when each car is doing 35 mph is pretty similar to hitting a concrete wall at 35 mph. There is no 70 mph effect. The reason the pole would be safer is that it has some give. Lower acceleration = lower force.
    - daveungerer 17y ago
      If someone could explain why I was voted down, that would be great. Thanks.
      - sailormoon 17y ago
        I didn't vote you down, but you cannot assume the cars are of identical size and mass, or indeed that it's a car at all. Hit a truck at 35, while he is also doing 35, and you'll feel a 70mph effect all right. For a few milliseconds. Unfortunately, poles, especially old ones, do not have as much give as one would like, and large trees have basically none. Plus, their narrow aspect is a very bad thing to hit; cars are designed to collide with large, flat, wide objects and to crumple accordingly to wash off energy. Hitting an immoveable narrow object is outside this design consideration and cars have a nasty tendency to wrap around it.
- enjo 17y ago
  I believe these systems don't have the effect until the point at which steering is no longer the option. The idea isn't so much to avoid the accident, but rather to try to bleed as much of the force of the accident out through braking as possible. If you can get the brakes fully engaged you can reduce the severity of an accident pretty substantially, even if you can't fully avoid it.
- jrgnsd 17y ago
  It's not taught in South Africa, although we have a number of Advanced Driving Courses which teaches you anything from skid control to collision avoidance.

ugh 17y ago

Driving cars is very dangerous. The earlier we radically change how we use cars the earlier we can avoid deaths on the streets. I want an autopilot for cars as soon as possible.

houseabsolute 17y ago
Absolutely. The moment we develop an autopilot that is safer than average human drivers by a statistically significant margin, it should be mandatory in all cars. I am hopeful that we will see this during our lifetimes.
- rms 17y ago
  http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/01/gm-says-driverl/ http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/01/gm-says-driverl/
  - houseabsolute 17y ago
    Sure, but that's not the same thing as saying they will be proven statistically safer, which will be the bar you have to pass before you can mandate them for everyone. I figure that's another few years off. But I agree that it won't be long now.
- ugh 17y ago
  The introduction of such systems (probably expensive at first) would also be a great opportunity to switch from car ownership to widespread car rental (ala zipcar).
  - cakesy 17y ago
    The best thing we can do is kill cars alltogether. Move to a more european style of cities, with medium to high density living, which makes public transport more practical.
- rdtsc 17y ago
  The technology might get there soon but not the legal framework. I can't even imagine the legal implication of cars on autopilot killing pedestrians and drivers. That is also probably one of the reasons we don't have flying cars yet.

mike_organon 17y ago

Scoble's text is different from what the Ford guy says. Ford doesn't automatically hit the brakes, only preps them and when you hit the brakes, it automatically applies them 100%. Prius automatically applies the brakes and Scoble says he no longer instinctively hits them himself. I wonder if that loss of instinct is worth the benefit.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]