Are 'Advanced Driver Assistance Systems' Making Us Worse Drivers? (zdnet.com) 134
An anonymous reader quotes ZDNet:
Advanced driver assistance systems are becoming on the norm even on midlevel cars. For safety advocates that seems like good news: Systems designed to prevent crashes should, after all, result in fewer crashes. But what if that thinking is flawed? A new report from AAA suggests that might be the case and that our increasing use of driver assistance systems may actually be resulting in higher rates of distracted driving.
"This study drives home that engaged drivers are the key to staying safe," says Stefan Heck, CEO of Nauto, which makes driver monitoring technology... "Distracted driving is surging as the next major health epidemic, the top cause of fatal and injury collisions. It's imperative that automakers embed technology that doesn't lull drivers into a false sense of security -- -and instead keeps them focused on the road no matter what...."
Data from one of these studies indicates that the simultaneous use of advanced driver assistance systems was associated with a 50% increase in the odds of engaging in any form of secondary task and an 80% increase in the odds of engaging in visual and/or manual secondary tasks, compared to the same drivers who were not using the automated system. In the other study, speeding related errors were present 19% of the time when driver assistance systems were in use, a higher rate than when driver assistance was available but turned off. In the same study, drowsy driving was present more often when driver assistance systems were active (5.4% of the time versus 3.4% when no system was active), indicating a possible detrimental effect of automation use associated with driver alertness.
"This study drives home that engaged drivers are the key to staying safe," says Stefan Heck, CEO of Nauto, which makes driver monitoring technology... "Distracted driving is surging as the next major health epidemic, the top cause of fatal and injury collisions. It's imperative that automakers embed technology that doesn't lull drivers into a false sense of security -- -and instead keeps them focused on the road no matter what...."
Data from one of these studies indicates that the simultaneous use of advanced driver assistance systems was associated with a 50% increase in the odds of engaging in any form of secondary task and an 80% increase in the odds of engaging in visual and/or manual secondary tasks, compared to the same drivers who were not using the automated system. In the other study, speeding related errors were present 19% of the time when driver assistance systems were in use, a higher rate than when driver assistance was available but turned off. In the same study, drowsy driving was present more often when driver assistance systems were active (5.4% of the time versus 3.4% when no system was active), indicating a possible detrimental effect of automation use associated with driver alertness.
It's about risk tolerance (Score:5, Insightful)
Civil engineers and Urban planners have long known it's about risk tolerance. People have a set level of risk that they are willing to take. If a designer makes a road safer, the person will increase their risk in another way, typically more speed.
Re: (Score:2)
If a designer makes a road safer, the person will increase their risk in another way, typically more speed.
If the person thinks the car can drive 100% by itself . . . the more likely they'll feel that it's OK to use a phone for texting, talking, watching a crappy TV show or playing a game while the car "drives" itself.
Re:It's about risk tolerance (Score:5, Interesting)
"If the person thinks the car can drive 100% by itself . . . the more likely they'll feel that it's OK to use a phone for texting, talking, watching a crappy TV show or playing a game while the car "drives" itself."
I think there's a greater risk in switching cars.
Example: I have two cars I alternate driving -- a 1988 toyota pickup (manual) and a 2016 Honda CRV (automatic). I find myself often going for the "phantom clutch" on the CR-V.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone switched from an "advanced driver assistance" package to a car without one and had a reflexive expectation that the alternate car would perform the same way.
Lower risk (Score:3)
The phantom clutch example you're giving is actually nice because it brings to attention the fact that 'it doesn't work this way' (there's no clutch pedal, there are no multiple gears to switch, you end up uselessly waving you left foot and right hand in empty space).
Same with driver assistance: in most of the FCAS (Forward Collision Avoidance System) and ACC (Adaptive Cruise Control) systems I've driven you need to keep your foot away from the the pedals for the system to work. As soon as you touch the gas
Re: Lower risk (Score:3)
No, it's not in empty space, it will land on the brake pedal which will result in a nice surprise.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not in empty space, it will land on the brake pedal which will result in a nice surprise.
That is exactly why the brake pedal in an automatic-trans car is NOT in the same place where the clutch would be.
Re: (Score:2)
Still close enough to cause a surprise - and it's often larger too.
Re: (Score:2)
I can guarantee you that you do hit the brake. First time I drove an automatic transmission (I live in Europe, where manual is the norm), I did exactly that, and the guy behind me didn't seem to appreciate it.
The brake pedal on an automatic car is often wider, and because you are using full force when using the clutch pedal, you will trigger the brake even if you just touch the corner of the brake pedal during the "phantom clutch" movement.
Re: (Score:2)
I usually avoid using cruise control on any car but my own because I end up pressing the wrong button and driving erratically if I don't.
Re: (Score:2)
The phantom clutch example you're giving is actually nice because it brings to attention the fact that 'it doesn't work this way' (there's no clutch pedal, there are no multiple gears to switch, you end up uselessly waving you left foot and right hand in empty space).
The phantom clutch is useless but not always without consequences. If you manage to hit the edge of the wide brake peddle common on automatic cars so you slow down, it can seem like you have not pushed the clutch in far enough so you push harder, and harder, and harder, with results better imagined than experienced.
Re: It's about risk tolerance (Score:2)
Nobody is switching cars except you. Stop bullshitting people with your irrelevant personal anecdotes
Re: (Score:2)
> I wouldn't be surprised if someone switched from an "advanced driver assistance" package to a car without one and had a reflexive expectation that the alternate car would perform the same way.
That's actually been my experience. My dad has a 2018 Acura with multiple driver assist enhancements, and I have a stick shift 2015 Mazda 3 with no driver enhancements except traction control. When I visit him, he usually likes me to chauffeur him around in his car and I found that driving with all the assist it
Re: It's about risk tolerance (Score:2)
I've found that stability and traction control are the big ones.
It's really easy to misunderstand how little grip you actually have when the computer is babysitting you. Fortunately it's only the really old cars that have no ABS, ESP, or anything. Gen-X remembers.
Re: It's about risk tolerance (Score:2)
Exactly. If the driver perceives a lower risk, they will increase there risk in another way to Max out their risk tolerance.
Re: (Score:3)
How does that work when the car is taking all the "driving" decisions?
Re: (Score:2)
How does that work when the car is taking all the "driving" decisions?
The problem is that the car doesn't make all the decisions (yet). Current systems are at Level 2 [wikipedia.org] yet drivers are acting like they are at Level 3.
Evidence is mixed [wikipedia.org] about whether the tech makes up for the inattentiveness. Adaptive cruise control and rear-end automatic braking seem to help. Automatic lane control does not appear to be helpful in preventing accidents.
Re: (Score:2)
>Evidence is mixed [wikipedia.org] about whether the tech makes up for the inattentiveness.
My experience with Tesla autopilot leads me to trust adaptive cruse control (I steer, car keeps a distance from car in front), but not self driving in its current form (car steers in lane and changes lane). It works, but it goes to crap in rain and dark and it's December in Oregon right now. My attention increases when I use it because I'm having to second guess when it's going to see a phantom and randomly slow do
Re: (Score:2)
The scary part is that some people do trust autopilot, presumably because they drive as badly as it does.
Re: It's about risk tolerance (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The amount of risk we tolerate while driving is higher than the risk we tolerate in anything else in our daily lives, though.
I think it's far more likely that the use of driver assistance features is associated with distracted driving because drivers who are already choosing to be distracted wish to lower risk by enabling the features (while the people who disable the features do so because they're attentive drivers). Because as far as I can find, the rate of accidents appears to be declining -- not rising.
Re: It's about risk tolerance (Score:3)
Accidents are declining, except for pedestrian accidents which are sky rocketing. People are running over pedestrians at rates never before seen.
Re: (Score:2)
People are running over pedestrians at rates never before seen.
Not true. Pedestrian deaths went up by 35% from 2008 to 2018, but that is after decades of decline. Pedestrian deaths were higher than today in 1980-1990.
Reason for more pedestrian deaths:
1. Smartphones. Both drivers and walkers are less attentive
2. SUVs, which not only hit more pedestrians, but also are more likely to kill rather than injure.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect pedestrian accident rates are the result of the sudden proliferation of earbuds and walking while texting this century, not a change in driver behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
I did see someone slowly crossing the road while looking at the phone and having earbuds, while cross traffic had the greenlight. At night while wearing dark clothes. It was amazing, cars kept honking and he kept plodding along oblivious.
Re: It's about risk tolerance (Score:3)
Right, it's the pedestrian's fault the driver wasn't paying attention and driving too fast and killed him.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, it's the pedestrian's fault the driver wasn't paying attention and driving too fast and killed him.
Many people do drive faster than conditions warrant. Sometimes it's the fault of the pedestrian. Physics does rule the road. Especially in conjunction with the explicit cases mentioned: "sudden proliferation of earbuds and walking while texting". It's best when everyone takes responsibility for their own actions.
Re: It's about risk tolerance (Score:2)
The driver is the only one responsible for killing anyone. The earbud wearing pedestrian is a threat to no one.
If you can't drive safely, don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Legally it's almost always the driver's fault for running over a pedestrian. But as the pedestrian, you're still dead for not keeping your eyes open. The more you pay attention to your surroundings, the most likely you can save yourself. We clearly have more pedestrians that aren't aware enough to evade a bad driver now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The rate of accidents here is on the rise, and the increase is because of "distracted driving", i.e. cellphone use.
Yep, and we know that's not going to go down (people are too stupid), so... ...so we're now forced to make self-driving cars. It's not optional.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Can you detail where "here" is and provide a link to the statistics, please?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, people are phenomenally bad at assessing risk. We don't usually make decisions based on risk tolerance at all, and when we do, we often get it very wrong anyway. That's arguably one reason we're more afraid of terrorism than heart disease.
Re: (Score:2)
Then the risk from getting a ticket should go up to compensate, rather than the driver take the slightly higher risk of an accident?
Re: (Score:2)
I agree...it's an arms race of smart-gadgets to stupid drivers. As the old computer saying: no matter how fool-proof an interface is, there will always be someone who screws it up.
I try to think as how ABS affected accidents: rate was not affected, only has moved towards single-car accidents (due to easier avoidance). And now threshold braking is a fad for us racer wannabes (and real racers).
Oh...and let's not forget about 1-in-100 trips were the driver is in a hurry (yes...even more than normal) and tries
Re: It's about risk tolerance (Score:2)
Re: It's about risk tolerance (Score:3, Informative)
With Tesla FSD (which I currently use extensively), the cars' statistically significantly safer. Tesla reports a crash every 4m+ miles Vs 2m+ miles driven in cars without it. That first number will only go up the further they advance the system. It does probably make me a worse driver when I get into a non-FSD car, like my old SUV, but I reach for those keys so infrequently now that my safety statistic multipl
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't know if these numbers have been "verified by the NHTSA" or whatever"
Those numbers look good marketing wise but they aren't very informative, i.e. they aren't a meaningful comparative measure, and if Tesla thinks it looks good it's willing to let float very inaccurate and unrealistic numbers:
"CEO Elon Musk has never shied away from making aggressive predictions about Tesla's autonomous-driving technology. In 2015, Musk said the company's vehicles would be able to drive themselves by 2017. He also sa
For at least some, yes (Score:5, Interesting)
>"Are 'Advanced Driver Assistance Systems' Making Us Worse Drivers?"
In my case, I got one of the first of these kinds of cars 11 years ago, with assisted cruise control. I tried for months to get used to it and found it to be extremely dangerous. Yes, the system works as it is supposed to- using lidar to adjust speed and even brake if needed. But what I found is that unlike using regular cruise control (which I use all the time), when this automated stuff was turned on, part of my brain "disengaged" and it then affected my ability to stay focused on highway driving. Has nothing to do with physical distractions, I never have and never will mess with phones or electronics while driving.
It might be different if there were just warnings, but if the car does anything else on its own, my driving suffers greatly. I have a feeling I am not alone with this problem and the situation would be MUCH worse if it included steering. Either the car has to drive 100% without any engagement from me or I will have to do all the driving.
Re: (Score:3)
For easily distracted people, I can imagine that su
Re: (Score:2)
>"Odd, I don't find that at all."
Indeed. That is why I was careful to post only my own experience. Everyone is different, especially with stuff like this. I do know people I think are safe or safer with such systems, but I also know people (like myself) who are not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with this (Tesla driver here), but when I drive my Leaf instead of the Tesla, I have to keep reminding myself that I have to actually drive.
Re: (Score:2)
If you find driving more relaxing with the aids then it sounds like you are paying less attention. Relaxing in this context means to be less focused and aware, with a lighter grip on the wheel, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I've had the opposite experience -- with assisted cruise, the car does a better job than I can in maintaining an always safe following distance, and I can devote more attention to the traffic around me rather than just the car in front of me. Less tunnel vision in some ways.
I find some of the warning-only systems (with the exception of forward collision warning), like lane-deviation warnings, to be a bit of a negative distraction. Crossing lane markers slightly is totally common in many places, especially
Re: (Score:2)
As someone with a lot of driving experience, I recently drove a new car with ACC on a trip. The closest thing I could compare it to is a new driver - slavishly following some rules while using zero judgement or consideration for how your driving is affecting others. On the other hand, the experience does now allow me to recognize who is letting their car do the thinking so I can avoid them.
Some examples: if someone passes you, pulls in front of you, and immediately slows down to slower than the speed of t
Re: (Score:2)
This is nutty thinking and asking to experience a collision if not participating in a large chain collision. Your brakes literally cannot stop you at the "tailgating" following distance common in most traffic. You are not a competent driving if you are following too close to the vehicle in front of you. What you're doing is giving in to the psychological pressure of pathological speeders behind you.
A modern ACC also won't just slam on the brakes to maintain following distance, the ones I've experienced (
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say you should tailgate. I said you have to use some sense, and drive in a manner that others expect you to (if you want safe highways). Suppose you are in the left (passing) lane, and want to move into the right lane. Lets assume everyone in the right lane is maintaining the safe following distance. At 65MPH the gap between cars should be about 200ft. In order to be able to move into the right lane and not be too close to the car in front or in back of you, you would need to find a gap of alm
Re: (Score:2)
I remember reading about how long straight roads are more accident prone than similar but slightly curved roads. The claimed reason was that people loose their focus when the driving is too easy/boring. The brain starts wandering when there's no input to process and it starts doing other stuff instead. I guess the situation could be similar with some driving assistance systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Automation isn't a cure for Addiction (Score:4, Interesting)
"Are 'Advanced Driver Assistance Systems' Making Us Worse Drivers?"
No. Addiction is what makes us worse drivers.
And I'm not talking about the small group of adults battling the usual suspects of drugs and booze. I'm talking about every fucking driver having an Advanced Distraction Device (a.k.a. smartphone) within the drivers reach at all times, powering a serious addiction which everyone denies.
The only thing car "automation" has done, is provide a false sense of safety and security to enable the addict behind the wheel to feed their addiction. And automation isn't going to cure that.
Re: (Score:2)
That's never going to be fixed. The horse has bolted.
Logic dictates that we're now forced to make cars self-driving. It's no longer optional.
In a few years we'll look back on this like the introduction of anti-lock brakes. There were plenty of people who fought that, who swore they could brake better without them but overall safety improved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Automation isn't a cure for Addiction (Score:2)
Look at the Teslas with sleeping drivers. Assist makes driving safer of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy one... (Score:2)
YES!
Yes (Score:2)
The worst thing about autopilot is that it is pretty boring. And that can lead to that last scenario of falling asleep. Because successful elimination f driver input makes you another passenger. Hard to imagine not becoming a worse driver when you hardly ever drive.
Example: Parking Assistant (Score:2)
I recently drove a car with a parking assistant. I drove backwards assuming it makes a sound when a collision is imminent. It failed to detect a railing and warned me 0.2 before the impact.
Or any function that manipulates steering while I steer. Its just irritating.
yes (Score:2)
Humans are terrible at intermittent attention.
If the car can 100% drive itself, great. Less than that, we need to have constant involvement. Otherwise we'll have to wake up and have milliseconds to take lifesaving action.
Well, it is like smartphones. (Score:3)
They are trying to be smarter than the actual user, ... whose choices they are supposed to represent, as an extension of their body, like any tool.
Resulting in condescending, overbearing, patronizing treatment of the user. Telling *him* what he "wants". And that is ... chosen out of the dumbest common denominator of what the developers assume the average user is. Preferably Family-Feud-style. ;)
So good luck, if you're actually not a retard. Cause you will be assumed to be one, UNTIL. YOU. ARE.
Maybe, if you aren't, you too have noticed all those little moments, where you know a very easy, efficient and elegant way to do a task, which should obviously be available in any computer UI, but somehow you fail to do it... Until you switch to "How would a complete moron do this?"... AND THEN IT WORKS!
That is precisely the point, where you are trained to turn into a moron.
And because humans don't like making an effort until really pressing, after a while, you will just default to acting like that. It will become ingrained. Without even
thinking about it as a problem anymore.
I think it is hard to pinpoint more precisely than that, the moment where it literally made you a dumber and worse person.
And even if you are not so smart that you can think those ways up, ... maybe you are smart enough to profit from having them available (in an accessible form). In this case, it is actively stifling your growth and efficiency.
Examples, please?
Well, there is a pattern: Whenever you need to do something repetitive. Whenever something is indirect for no reason. And whenever you do not get to choose, no matter if you wanted to, or get no feedback (like logs or useful errors or information on what that damn rotating thing is actually waiting for!).
Every time you have to manually tap each item in a list, that matches a basic pattern. (Like being in a consecutive range, in any valid ordering, based on its properties. E.g. "photos from Oct 2018 - Jan 2019".)
Every time, you have to copy some text manually, by writing it down, because there is no way to select and/or copy it, in that stupid app.
Every time, you have to correct autocorrect!! Or Google Clippy going "I think you meant", on your search.
You do the next one...
See, and I think this analogy wil apply just as well, to cars. ...
Except here, there are lives at stake. And your physical body. Can't just switch it off and throw it in the couch. You are sitting in it, at 80mph! It is your master now!
And if that doesn't raise the hair on your neck
Of course they will! (Score:2)
Why does anyone dare to ask that question?
If you transfer a part of your daily activities, your abilities will decrease, because they are not used and your brain will only use and keep things updated that is useful for your current "survival".
Itâ(TM)s about learning (Score:2)
With all the assists cars give, there is no incentive to learn what happens or should happen as you drive.
The result, a choice to remain ignorant resulting in greater road mayhem. And... people bleating about the fact that they didnâ(TM)t know [insert epic fail point here].
Yes, and not really surprising (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure this has been seen with aircraft auto-pilots as well. If you use automation do to something you spend less time "training" yourself to do it, and its not at all surprising if you get worse at it. If i have been traveling for month without driving, I feel like I'm a worse driver when I get back.
Humans are especially bad at monitoring something that operates with high reliability - its very difficult to concentrate, and I don't think threats of consequences can fix that.
Re: (Score:2)
Another parallel can be drawn from aircraft: "and so what?"
Pilots can't pilot. Drivers can't drive. Providing the accident rate continues to trend downwards as we approach a computer doing everything it doesn't matter. And the accident rates continue to trend downwards, both for pilots and for cars.
Are cell phones/smart phones making us worse? (Score:3)
Bad idea for rental cars (Score:3)
In my experience with several different makes of car, these features are more trouble than they are worth. Things like automatic high beam, intrusive warnings about lane changes, or trying to steer or brake for me (which I was already doing fine) are not only unhelpful, but are horribly unreliable. For example, turn signals are by law supposed to be used in anticipation of turning or changing lanes, and therefore *must* be engaged *before* the actual manoeuvre - it's not a mistake by the driver.
Traditional cruise control is different - without it in order to drive at constant speed the driver has to constantly check the speedometer. Anything that the driver can already do without taking their eyes off the road is not something that they need help with.
But for a car rental agency, these features are insane. Sure, some customers will appreciate them, but others will find their car that they are already unfamiliar with suddenly doing bizarre unexpected things while the car is doing 100km/h, typically distracting the driver at the worst possible moment, when they need their concentration the most. My last rental car had lane change warnings that were not only making very poor judgements, and had extremely intrusive and distracting warnings, but was the one feature that could not be turned off.
Re: Bad idea for rental cars (Score:2)
"My last rental car had lane change warnings that were not only making very poor judgements, and had extremely intrusive and distracting warnings, but was the one feature that could not be turned off."
Some people that set those lane departure warnings off all the time (not saying this is you) actually need to be told what they are doing. Lots of totally sober, awake people can't maintain a good lane position. You know it, but you can't tell them without nagging, and when the new car beeps at them several
Very likely, but wrong question (Score:2)
Does the devices make us more effective drivers? Do they reduce the overall crash rate and reduce the injuries and property damage in crashes?
That is hard to measure.
Do calculators make us worse at arithmetic? Probably, but does it matter?
Re: (Score:2)
Calculators are extremely reliable. Setting aside human error, it is safe to use calculators to calculate drug dosages, engineering designs, or financial transactions.
Self observation (Score:2)
Yes, my facilities to navigate myself have atprophied over the last decade with good navigation systems via smart phones available all the time.
You can't day-dream driving stick (Score:3)
Like it or loathe it, one thing about a manual transmission is that it is difficult to day-dream. It is a very engaged driving experience.
I am not arguing that it makes you a better driver by default because lousy drivers have been with us since the dawn of automobiles, but with an automatic transmission one can put the car in gear and be half-alert, waiting for one's destination to pull up. Naturally with more driver assistance the expectation and habit to be vigilant erodes.
Re: (Score:2)
Money (Score:2)
It's no longer the driver that matters but the driver + computer. That is what needs outcomes studies vs. just drivers.
We also have to keep an eye on lawyers ready to sue if the computer goofs up, even if that computer is statistically better than a human. Rather than "improving things", which is the standard sophistry that coincidently lines their pockets, it could cause a delay in the introduction of these systems, leading to more deaths, not less, which is their ostensible "concern".
Transitioning to Driverless will cost. (Score:2)
To fully implement self-driving cars, we will need full driver inattention. No road rage, no cutting people off. Once all cars are driverless, then things will be a lot safer.
In moving toward that goal, these baby steps of the driver giving up control are bound to cause temporary situations that can cause accidents.
The transition to driverless will not be com
Sometimes actively hinder safe driving (Score:3)
I sometimes drive my wife's new CRV which has a shit-tonne of driver assist tech, some of which either can't be turned off easily or can't be turned off period. Some of those features are dangerous.
Just recently I had to back out of a driveway at night on a dark country road. Fucking backup display came on, bright as daylight - between it and the (not optional) tinted windows, I literally could not see the road clearly enough to be sure there were no cars coming.
At night the headlights auto-switch to high-beam when light levels drop below a certain point. The first time it happened I was on a tight-curve off-ramp with a couple of big signs and LOTS of reflector sticks; the combination of high beams and reflectors partially blinded me to what I REALLY needed to see, which was the fucking ROAD! I now know that when the lights go auto-bright I can flick the switch and that feature turns off - until next re-start. But in some circumstances I might not have gotten a second chance with that 'helpful' bit of high-tech meddling.
Frickin' turn signals automatically blink three times if the indicator stalk is moved a little bit. It's easy to engage that 'feature' accidentally by overshooting when cancelling a turn indication - then it's easy to repeat at least once during the same incident, when I attempt to cancel the first incorrect indication.
And don't get me started on that god-awful touch display with no tactile feedback, the totally non-intuitive environment controls, and the shift console which doesn't light up at night, because of course it's oh-so-intuitive for me to look at the DASH for a stupid little indicator light when every other car I've driven has lighted gear indications beside the shift lever.
I can well believe that driver assist technologies make drivers more dangerous by making them more complacent and less attentive. But I think the way in which they actively hinder safe driving is a much bigger problem that seldom gets talked about. And there's a simple solution that could almost completely solve both sets of problems - an 'OFF' switch that simply disables all the assistive crap in one fell swoop.
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately the real solution is totally autonomous self-driving vehicles. ... humans).
This cures a lot of problems (caused by humans being
Until we get there, we have some iterations to go through :)
I will say that for long trips the self-driving we have used is actually quite good, but the danger is that (as people) you naturally want to tune out what you are not focused on and with the car doing the bulk of the driving for you, well ... (the opportunities for even more spectacular stupid are immense).
I am
No, it's enabling bad behavior (Score:2)
I see it quite a bit (I commute nearly daily into Santa Monica, I ride motorcycle, and lane split when it's heavy traffic), and it's almost always a driver texting/screwing with their phone, and trying to let their car "help them" hold a lane or distance. People are so addicted to their phones, they will trust some chunk of #RANDOM code in a car's "autopilot" to save them from a major accident. And yes, this includes Tesla drivers (who are also the LEAST likely to leave space for motorcycles to lane split
Distracted Driving could exploding (Score:2)
Does it matter? (Score:2)
With an accident rate per mile traveled now 33% lower than it was a decade ago, does it really matter? Let's take this to the logical conclusion. I'm sitting in a car reading a news paper, the self driving car takes me to work.
The future is looking awesome.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes (Score:2)
Just like everyone should have to work in customer service for two years, everyone should be made to learn to drive a stick shift vehicle and drive it for five years.
Only then will people begin to understand what it means to be a driver. If you're not engaged while driving a stick shift, you're screwed.
Yep! (Score:2)
Yes, it absolutely makes for worse drivers, but that in itself doesn't really lead to any good conclusions.
Aviation has dealt with this problem for a long time, and it's an ongoing issue. For example, pilots are taught to scan the air constantly to look for other planes, but when sensors can detect more and more aircraft before you'll ever see them, it's really hard to not start to just rely on that more by default. Pilots are strongly encouraged to do a ton of pre-flight planning, including choosing waypoi
Are "Spelling Checkers" making us worse spellers? (Score:2)
Are "Advanced Social Interaction" systems (Facebook etc) making us worse at social interaction?
Are calculators making us worse at math?
Are automobiles making us worse at horse and buggy skills?
Are matches making us worse at using flint & tinder to start a fire?
I think every advance promotes the shifting of expertise from one paradigm or methodology, e.g. the "old way" of doing things, to the advance or the new way. We concentrate
The data is clear (Score:2)
The data is pretty clear - as ADAS has expanded in the marketplace, collisions and deaths per mile driven have gone down, as they've been going down for decades as car engineering and safety laws reduce risk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So while there are certainly distracted drivers, the safety equipment and laws have made driving overall safer. That's not to say that people shouldn't pay attention when driving, of course, but since safety is improving overall, perhaps the correlation in this case (e.g
Uh Oh! (Score:2)
YES, they are! (Score:2)
So, by the way, do so many other 'conveniences' also make people dumber and less capable of taking care of themselves without machines to do work for them.
I have said it before and will say it again: This is not a goo
Is modern aggriculture making us worse hunters? (Score:2)
Yepp, absolutely. I'd say it's a tradeoff. I expect modern hunting bows and detailed books on mammal anatomy will make up for it should I ever need or want to go hunting.
Ditto with cars. If a robot is better at handling a modern car at modern speeds, by all means let the robot do it. Forbid manual driving then. That would make our roads safer for sure.
other way around (Score:2)
it's actually the other way around.
modern cars are so smooth and offer no sense of speed, at the same time governments are lowering the speed limits everywhere.
the result is that driving in your care becomes a snoozefest, it is extremely boring, certainly on the highway for example.
so we actually NEED those aids to prevent even more accidents from happening.
Re: (Score:2)
I have similar observations - the more comfortable a car becomes the easier it is to fall into the trap and increase the speed. An old noisy quirky car not so much.
Misogyny radar false triggering? (Score:2)
He didnâ(TM)t say his wifeâ(TM)s name, how can it humiliate her? Second, he was anonymously describing a true incident to make a point about driver assistance tech making somebody worse at something. Not sure what was to be gained by pouncing on that. It doesnâ(TM)t help anyone when people lack you block freedom of expressing oneâ(TM)s opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I've been saying for years that I'm better than everybody else!" -Old man yells at cloud!
Re: been saying it for years (Score:2)
My driving greatly improved when I stopped using a GPS. Who would have thought that having to pay attention to road signs and lane markings would have such an effect?
With the long distance driving, I was alway a little uncomfortable driving around without really knowing where I was going. But I also donâ(TM)t miss the days of spending hours figuring out and memorising a route, and relying on notes brief enough to read whilst driving safely, and then having to stop and replan from a motoring atlas if
Re: (Score:2)
You don't say? Cruise control has been commercially available in cars since the 1950s and they still can't get it right.
Sure they can. This isn't the 1950s when all it did was squeeze the throttle cable. All it needed was a few sensors to detect traffic ahead and adjust for it, problem solved.
Re: Riding horses (Score:2)
You just have not seen the mayhem caused by driver assist tech for horses.