4 ms·

Yeah this technology ain't mature in any way, 99% or 99,9% is simply not good enough to deploy anywhere en masse. Lane assists, braking, collision recognition -

by jajko 3y ago

Yeah this technology ain't mature in any way, 99% or 99,9% is simply not good enough to deploy anywhere en masse. Lane assists, braking, collision recognition - I've seen false positives, I've seen no reaction where there should be one. By far the safest driving for me is simply having experience and no assistants enabled, ever. I know this begs question how to get to that level, these flawed helpers can maybe statistically help, but they shouldn't be forced upon everybody. It seems older cars will keep their value for quite some time. I am actively beginning to hate all new development in cars, when all everybody wants is simply full autopilot. If we are not there (and we are not), then just wait and help companies get there.

drawkward 3y ago
Yet, those 1% or 0.1% false positives, even if they kill the car's occupants, may still reduce the aggregate number of deaths. I expect government to make choices that are best for society at large, rather than for any individual.
- kyleee 3y ago
  That’s fine as long as it’s opt in at the individual level.
- tristor 3y ago
  > I expect government to make choices that are best for society at large, rather than for any individual. I expect the government to ensure the market contains accurate information and leave me alone to make choices for myself, not kill me to save 20 other people without my input or consent.
alphabettsy 3y ago
This hasn’t been my experience. And like anything else, turn it off if you don’t like it and don’t buy the vehicle with poorly implemented technology.
- DontchaKnowit 3y ago
  You are saying "if yoy dont like it dont participate" in response to a conversation about a feature that will be mandated. Use your noggin
- rascul 3y ago
  In the truck we had with it, it couldn't be disabled. We tried pulling the fuse but then the truck wouldn't start.
  - alphabettsy 3y ago
    What truck?
    - rascul 3y ago
      It was a 26 foot International box truck.
      - alphabettsy 3y ago
        That’s a commercial vehicle.
ckdarby 3y ago
I am very skeptical of the claim. A driver glance down to change the station, going 110 kms, with less than 15 meters and the car in front of you full stop breaks, you are going to crash, but yet folks still continue to do it and still they believe they'd be able to stop in time even with all the experience of driving. I don't believe most drivers today would be able to pass the present driver test successfully the first time due to formed bad habits.
- DontchaKnowit 3y ago
  You are also atill going to crash if you break automatically in that scenario... i dont get your point
  - ckdarby 3y ago
    No, the system could always maintain the correct distance to be able to break given your speed and the speed of the car in front of you or maintain that the crash will never exceed X speed based upon stats of the vehicle of survival rates. As another commenter said, even reducing 10km more than a human will reduce the consequences.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Not all collisions are equivalent. Suppose you and the car in front of you collided a fraction of a second later when both are doing 10MPH less, that alone removes a great deal of energy and thus risk. You may avoid whatever the first person was trying to avoid hitting or spinning into the next lain etc.
    - DontchaKnowit 3y ago
      Okay fine, but youve now introduced a whole class of accidents (false positive caused wrecks) that didnt exist before.
      - Retric 3y ago
        You also eliminate an accidents where the system prevents a collision. Insurance companies pay attention to the total risk and it’s a clear benefit.
matthewfelgate 3y ago
This technology is already in 99% of all new cars sold. Are you one of those nutters who claim its safer not to wear a seatbelt?
- DontchaKnowit 3y ago
  Are you a nutter who has never hydroplaned before? Breaking during a turn is fucking dangerous especially if you dont know its gonna happen. I really dont understand how anyone cluld think its a good idea
- flerchin 3y ago
  No it's not. Not as described in the article.
shrimp_emoji 3y ago
> It seems older cars will keep their value for quite some time. I am actively beginning to hate all new development in cars s/cars/things/g
thrixton 3y ago
My wife’s car has this and it’s not perfect but good enough. It has known (not published maybe) failure modes such as driving into a roundabout where the car is initially pointing towards the keep left sign (Australia) but then the road turns left. This is easy to remember and compensate for and while unnerving, not generally a problem. I’m totally in favour of it, especially since rear end crashes are the most prevalent, accounting for 31% of crashes [0], this would avoid a large percentage of them I’d guess. [0] https://www.dinggo.com.au/blog/car-crash-statistics-australia https://www.dinggo.com.au/blog/car-crash-statistics-australi...

by jajko 3y ago

drawkward 3y ago

Yet, those 1% or 0.1% false positives, even if they kill the car's occupants, may still reduce the aggregate number of deaths. I expect government to make choices that are best for society at large, rather than for any individual.

kyleee 3y ago
That’s fine as long as it’s opt in at the individual level.
tristor 3y ago
> I expect government to make choices that are best for society at large, rather than for any individual. I expect the government to ensure the market contains accurate information and leave me alone to make choices for myself, not kill me to save 20 other people without my input or consent.

alphabettsy 3y ago

This hasn’t been my experience. And like anything else, turn it off if you don’t like it and don’t buy the vehicle with poorly implemented technology.

DontchaKnowit 3y ago
You are saying "if yoy dont like it dont participate" in response to a conversation about a feature that will be mandated. Use your noggin
rascul 3y ago
In the truck we had with it, it couldn't be disabled. We tried pulling the fuse but then the truck wouldn't start.
- alphabettsy 3y ago
  What truck?
  - rascul 3y ago
    It was a 26 foot International box truck.
    - alphabettsy 3y ago
      That’s a commercial vehicle.

ckdarby 3y ago

I am very skeptical of the claim. A driver glance down to change the station, going 110 kms, with less than 15 meters and the car in front of you full stop breaks, you are going to crash, but yet folks still continue to do it and still they believe they'd be able to stop in time even with all the experience of driving. I don't believe most drivers today would be able to pass the present driver test successfully the first time due to formed bad habits.

DontchaKnowit 3y ago
You are also atill going to crash if you break automatically in that scenario... i dont get your point
- ckdarby 3y ago
  No, the system could always maintain the correct distance to be able to break given your speed and the speed of the car in front of you or maintain that the crash will never exceed X speed based upon stats of the vehicle of survival rates. As another commenter said, even reducing 10km more than a human will reduce the consequences.
- Retric 3y ago
  Not all collisions are equivalent. Suppose you and the car in front of you collided a fraction of a second later when both are doing 10MPH less, that alone removes a great deal of energy and thus risk. You may avoid whatever the first person was trying to avoid hitting or spinning into the next lain etc.
  - DontchaKnowit 3y ago
    Okay fine, but youve now introduced a whole class of accidents (false positive caused wrecks) that didnt exist before.
    - Retric 3y ago
      You also eliminate an accidents where the system prevents a collision. Insurance companies pay attention to the total risk and it’s a clear benefit.

matthewfelgate 3y ago

This technology is already in 99% of all new cars sold. Are you one of those nutters who claim its safer not to wear a seatbelt?

DontchaKnowit 3y ago
Are you a nutter who has never hydroplaned before? Breaking during a turn is fucking dangerous especially if you dont know its gonna happen. I really dont understand how anyone cluld think its a good idea
flerchin 3y ago
No it's not. Not as described in the article.

shrimp_emoji 3y ago

> It seems older cars will keep their value for quite some time. I am actively beginning to hate all new development in cars s/cars/things/g

thrixton 3y ago

My wife’s car has this and it’s not perfect but good enough. It has known (not published maybe) failure modes such as driving into a roundabout where the car is initially pointing towards the keep left sign (Australia) but then the road turns left. This is easy to remember and compensate for and while unnerving, not generally a problem. I’m totally in favour of it, especially since rear end crashes are the most prevalent, accounting for 31% of crashes [0], this would avoid a large percentage of them I’d guess. [0] https://www.dinggo.com.au/blog/car-crash-statistics-australia https://www.dinggo.com.au/blog/car-crash-statistics-australi...