Auto Safety Tech May Encourage Dangerous Driving 601
longacre writes "Modern highway planning schemes designed to make roads safer combined with the comfort and safety technology found in the modern automobile may actually be putting us in danger, according to a compelling piece in Popular Mechanics. Citing studies and anecdotal evidence, the article points out that a driver on a narrow mountain road will probably drive as if their life depends on it; but the same driver on an eight-lane freeway with gradual curves and little traffic may be lulled into speeding while chatting on his cellphone. Quoting: 'Modern cars are quiet, powerful and capable of astonishing grip in curves, even on wet pavement. That's swell, of course, until you suddenly lose traction at 75 mph. The sense of confidence bred by all this capability makes us feel safe, which causes us to drive faster than we probably should. We don't want to make cars with poor response, but perhaps we could design cues — steering-wheel vibration devices, as in video games? — that make us feel less safe at speed and encourage more care. ... In college I drove an Austin-Healey 3000 that somehow felt faster at 45 mph than my Mazda RX-8 (or even my Toyota Highlander Hybrid) feels at 75 mph. That was a good thing.'"
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No kidding! (Score:5, Interesting)
What's wrong with being in a plane not being like flying? I fly to get where I'm going, not to 'fly'. Flying is boring - you're trapped in an uncomfortable chair with bad food for 12 hours, and if you open the little plastic window thing to look outside a stern woman comes and hits you with a stick and tells you to close it. I want to 'not fly' as often as possible, thanks.
Risk Compensation (Score:5, Interesting)
wrong problem (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem here isn't improvements in technology but rather user expectations. This should be a familiar problem to almost everyone here. What's amazing about this is that there are so many drivers on the road with little or no formal training, there aren't more accidents. These are people who are routinely lulled into a sense of security because they repeatedly engage in dangerous behavior without consequences. Well, what's the natural, human, thing to do when you do something a hundred times without ill-effect? You assume it's safe. You've driven with that 64 oz big gulp between your legs, a cheeseburger propped up on your leg, fries in the cup holder, while talking to a friend in the next seat doing the same thing how many times? Too many to count. And you haven't been in an accident. It's precisely this erosion of standards that leads to accidents, and the ONLY -- and I repeat ONLY -- way to safeguard against it is routine training.
Which is the one thing nobody will ever agree to, because they think driving is a right, not a priviledge. Afterall, it's all those other jerks that are causing problems, not me, right? Just like how something like 90% of drivers think they're "above average", huh. If you want to solve the accident rate problem, the solution is training and certification by a competent authority and stiff punishments for non-compliance with those standards. Hard pill to swallow though, as entrenched as the automobile is in our culture and the sense of entitlement -- even repeat DUI offenders insist they should have their license.
Re:No kidding! (Score:3, Interesting)
And then you run out of fuel halfway between Edmonton and Montreal and suddenly start flying a 150 ton glider [wikipedia.org]...
Or you run into a flock of birds and both engines flame out...
Antilock Braking Systems... (Score:3, Interesting)
...are the bane of my existence. I used to have a '94 Grand Am, and the ABS control chip failed in it-- a failure which manifested itself in a particularly terrifying way: Occasionally when I would attempt to apply the brake, the pedal would go straight to the floor and not actually activate the brakes. At all. I'd have to quickly take my foot off and reapply. Luckily it never happened in a situation where I would have had to slam on the brakes to avoid a collision. You can bet your ass I got that little problem fixed in a hurry, because there's no feeling like stepping on the pedal and finding that the brakes aren't fucking there.
Now, I drive a Scion Xa with what can only be called an overzealous ABS. If I'm braking and happen to hit a pothole or bump hard enough, the ABS is triggered and suddenly my stopping distance is not going to be less than the distance to the bumper of the car in front of me. Once again, the solution is to quickly take my foot off and then reapply. I have had to learn where the trouble spots are on the roads I frequent and brake very carefully when approaching them, always ready to lift my foot and then brake again if necessary.
I kinda wish ABS was something that could be toggled by the driver... it has its uses, but IME it's been more of a pain in the ass than a lifesaver.
~Philly
Re:A legislative issue meets an engineering one.. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:No kidding! (Score:3, Interesting)
Now selecting a non-airport landing site, or landing someplace without well-defined runways or approaches is another problem altogether.
But I don't see why we couldn't just have one or two ground-based remote pilots available for emergencies. In the case of a serious failure a senior non-pilot crew member could push a button to enable remote control (hence negating the possibility of a remote attack on the control systems), and someone sitting in a simulator in St. Louis could try to land the plane for them. It's not quite the same has having a pilot actually in the plane, but it's a lot cheaper, and you could have just a handful of very good pilots that actually spend a lot of time doing emergency landings and related training, rather than a bunch of mediocre (and I mean that in a statistical sense, not as a slight to pilots; most people are average) pilots who rarely perform emergency landings.
Re:No kidding! (Score:1, Interesting)
This is utter foolishness. Some drive act more safely than others. The technology tries to help those that drive more poorly, but ultimately it is every drivers responsibility to drive safely.
Something similar happened in SCUBA diving when dive computers became popular. According to DAN statistics the use of dive computers did not particularly impact diving fatality counts. There is no authoritative answer for why, but the widely held speculation was the way people used the computers. Before the computer, a person would plan a dive by table with a bit of fudge factor in there. With the computers, even though the training said to plan in the same way, people would simply not plan the dive. Instead they would stay underwater until the computer said to go up or they ran low on air in the tank. This results in some divers pushing the safety limits. On the other hand, the computers prevented some divers from accidentally exceeding the limits they set for themselves.
"When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."
Re:Self-correcting? (Score:3, Interesting)
You miss my point. The feel of a modern car is different than the feel of an older car. The problem is that people who have driven older cars (myself included), need to get used to the feedback of newer cars.
Rather than adapting the cars with tech to make them mimic old cars, why don't we focus on people getting used to the new feedback model?
Seriously, this is nothing new in cars... for a hundred years, the feeling of 'danger' at high speeds has been decreasing... often because the danger has actually been reduced (shock absorbers, better tires, etc). Let's not step in the way of the natural progession just because there is a learning curve for people to get used to the feedback of newer cars.
Instead of artificially inducing steering wheel vibration, etc, why not disable all car radios and keep people from closing their windows fully? Or how about just a dashboard light that lights up when some algorith determines that there is too much slippage, or something?
Personally, I know the limits of my car because I'm an experienced driver. I know what speed is safe in different conditions, for my tires, since I bothered to read the specs and have bothered to push the limits of my car on a closed course, and for sake of caution, keep my speed well below what I would consider to be the safe threshold.
I think this idea of adding in fake feedback mechanisms is yet another way we encourage people to be intellectually lazy, and I don't like it.
YMMV.
Re:No kidding! (Score:5, Interesting)
Painfully slow speed limits on long stretches of nothingness also lull people into such obliviousness. It really sucks when the interstates are obviously modeled after the autobahn, but are not properly implemented or maintained as such. If we were able to go all out autobahn-style (weather permitting), I think more people would actually start paying attention. (Because that type of risk factor would wake you up, and also you'd have less travel time in which to get fatigued. Also the darwin factor would cut out people who go too fast for their own ability and the stupid people that don't understand that left lane is for passing. The removal of selective pressures against bad drivers just means there will be more and more every generation.) But with the current speed limits and the mentality of the legislation behind it, it's no wonder the cruise control is popular and the dashed line induced hypnogogic state kicks in.
Re:Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis as applies to usability. (Score:3, Interesting)
No, not at all. The lesson that if you hide the risks from people, they tend to make more risky decisions.
Rather than simply cushioning people from the risks in their environment, they need to be made aware of them and their consequences.
Anyway, geeks? Football? Going outside to play? That's crazy talk! :-)
Re:Safety is bad (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Best Road Safety Feature... (Score:5, Interesting)
Move it to the rear bumbler and you've got yourself a deal.
I've never, ever understood why some morons insist on driving half a meter behind me, even on otherwise empty roads. The so-called "professional drivers" are the worst of this lot, especially if they're driving a truck or a bus that's guaranteed to not stop as fast as me. Are they simply bloodthirsty, or is there some kind of rational reason for it?
There's a device in these vehicles that keeps records of the speed they've been going. We need to add a radar which keeps track of the distance between a truck and the car on front; if the distance is consistently less than 20 meters - which is far too close in almost any situation, BTW - it should be grounds for compulsory and permanent loss of driving license.
Cue a hundred butthurt truck drivers posting that they are professionals and know what they're doing. And of course they do: they're deliberately and in cold blood endangering my life to shave a half a second off of a few hours journey, since that makes them half a penny more.
That's one thing that seems to never get emphasized. I've been told that I am overreactive because I do not allow people to tailgate me. I will gently tap my brake lights a couple of times to ask them to back off. Then I'll give them a moment to see what they do. If they don't take the hint, I start slowing down until one of two things happens: they realize I'm not going to be a pushover and they back off, or, I match the speed to their following distance since they refuse to match their following distance to the speed. I'm not trying to replace one tyrant with another, so if they get the message and stop tailgating me I will speed up again.
The situation is just as you describe. They are willing to endanger your life because they wish to intimidate you into submitting to them and giving them what they want. That I've been called overreactive for my refusal to accept this amuses me. Considering that they are needlessly endangering me, I think my reaction is quite mild. I respond to them the way that I do because I used to get quite upset about it and have since then decided that there is a better way. Having said that, I really believe that anyone who does things like willfully and needlessly endangering others should be considered "fair game" and has no right to complain about anything that happens to them as a result.
Like most other aberrations, there's a million excuses for this, too. The bottom line is quite simple. Tailgaters are bullies and a wise person does not reward a bully by giving them what they want. Every time you cave in and appease a bully, you are sending the message that their behavior is acceptable and will be rewarded with the result they desire. I think this shit is so widespread because people have largely forgotten these basic things.
Re:No kidding! (Score:3, Interesting)
http://nerdnirvana.org/2009/01/08/comedian-louis-ck-on-conan-obrien/ [nerdnirvana.org]
Re:No kidding! (Score:2, Interesting)
It all goes back to the consequences of breaking the law and what is illegal.
Colliding with another vehicle:
- Possible consequences: Any collision is potentially fatal.
- Other laws broken: Loss of vehicle control, Careless & imprudent driving (a.k.a. "reckless endangerment").
Running a red light:
- Possible consequences: Collision.
- Other laws broken: Failure to yield.
Turning/changing lanes without signalling (a.k.a. "Illegal lane usage"):
- Possible consequences: Collision.
- Other laws broken: Careless & imprudent driving.
Speeding:
- Possible consequences: Get to your destination faster, get pulled over by police and charged a fee for violating an arbitrary rule
- Other laws broken: none (Unless you're being a douchebag in heavy traffic, in which case you're probably weaving - see Illegal lane usage - and could be slapped with C&I as well.)
On a highway, speed limit laws cover nothing that can't be covered by other laws. You lost control of your vehicle while speeding? You lost control of your vehicle. Period. That's illegal, speeding or not. You weaved through traffic like a maniac while speeding? Again, illegal without "speeding" attached to it. Caused an accident? Speeding only makes it worse; it doesn't cause the accident.
Speed limits are a revenue generator. End of story. Every other traffic law is preventing collisions. Speed limits are preventing government bankruptcy.
Re:Learn to drive. (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't need evidence. I've witnessed first hand just how incredibly stupid and/or oblivious so many drivers are. I've been through 11 major collisions, 9 of them total losses on my part. Two of them were my fault (one of those was a technicality - I didn't have right of way but the van that hit me came speeding around a corner whilst I was already in the intersection - it was not visible when I entered said intersection).
I am an idiot driver magnet. One of my favorite ones was the 90 year old lady who though she could cross 5 lanes of high speed traffic from one parking lot to another without bothering to look first. After I managed to get what was left of my car off the road, I ran out to see if she was OK. She was, but the first thing she asked me was "Did you see who hit me?". Thankfully, I got more back from the insurance company then I'd payed for that car.
The one that pissed me off the most was a woman who, stopped at a stop sign that entered into a state road, managed to wait until all traffic passed by in front of her except for me. Once I was squarely in her sights (as in, directly in front of her), she slammed on the gas and managed to total the only nice vehicle I'd ever dared to buy. This was in broad daylight, and I had my headlights on just in case: I was highly visible.
It's not the speeders and assholes you have to watch out for; stay out of their way and they'll stay out of yours. It's the ones who can't pick a lane, brake when going down hills, and get confused at 4-way stops. Above all, it's the ones that just don't pay attention. Making the vehicles safer isn't any help in this regard. Making the driving tests stricter will go a long way, though.
Lack of (force) feedback is the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been aware of this effect for two decades, and it's all about an absence of feedback from car to driver. Think about the feedback that you get as a "driver" when you ride a bicycle: the faster you want to move, the harder you have to work physically and the greater the feedback you get from both the bicycle and your own muscles.
That is precisely what is missing in modern cars. Not only is there no physical work involved - we now even have power steering, power windows, power everything - but the engine is largely silent at all speeds, the tires don't hum, the shocks are quiet; the interior is like a virtual womb.
The last vehicle I drove, for 14 years, was a 1989 Mercury Tracer (which had the same engine as a Mazda 323). I miss that little vehicle for the degree of feedback that it gave me as the driver: the engine actually made noise and vibration that increased as I drive faster, etc. Even though I still don't drive a "luxury car" by any means, I don't get that so much since then. Fortunately I still have what you might call muscle memory of the Tracer.
If we REALLY want to make cars safer, AND teach people to use fuel more wisely, then vehicles should be made much more an extension of our physical bodies; there should be some tangible or physical consequence and feedback from driving faster or driving recklessly.
Re:No kidding! (Score:2, Interesting)
"Now selecting a non-airport landing site, or landing someplace without well-defined runways or approaches is another problem altogether."
Not really. That's a perfectly computable problem, all you need to do is have the autopilot contain a model of the nearby geography within its memory, know its own location (GPS), and either analyze nearby areas for flatness over a long stretch, or, better yet, simply do the analysis beforehand, find locations within x distance of one another which could serve as emergency landing sites and rank them preferentially in the autopilot's database.
As for landing without a well-defined runway all the autopilot needs to do is follow the same rules that pilots follow when landing without a well defined runway. While it would likely be safer to have a human at the controls 90% of the time it's not an incomputable problem by any means.
Re:No kidding! (Score:3, Interesting)
I think simply having the police actually enforce the exiting "slower traffic keep right" laws would be a better idea.