As I write this I've just driven home in a brand new, 2010 Volvo XC60 featuring the new "City Safety" system. This is a system that will completely stop the new Volvo crossover's forward motion, independent of driver input, if you are traveling at less than 20 mph and show no sign of stopping yourself before hitting a solid object (wall, fence or another vehicle). The idea is that even the best of us can have a lapse in judgment or attention, but the car will turn an otherwise costly at best (and potentially deadly at worst) low-speed collision into a non-event. I've tried the system out, and it does indeed work. It can't discern a pedestrian- or motorcycle-sized object, yet, but Volvo says a later version of City Safety will.
This experience comes three weeks after driving a Bentley Continental GTC Speed from Napa to Los Angeles. The Bentley features adapative cruise control, allowing it to match the speed of vehicles in front of it regardless of the speed set in cruise control. These systems have been around for a couple years, but it took that 400-mile jaunt for me to fully realize the extent of its powers. Basically, you can set the speed at just about any velocity (say, 85 mph) and then use surrounding traffic to modulate your speed -- all without ever hitting the brake or gas pedal. Once you get confident in the system's ability (it took me about 100 miles of freeway driving) you realize how much easier it makes long-distant travel. Basically, you just have to steer -- at least until Bentley or someone else comes up with a fully-automatic lane-guidance system. Then you won't have to do anything.
Finally, this afternoon I saw a press release for the new Mobileye Accident Avoidance System. This is an aftermarket modification that can be added to any vehicle for approximately $1,000. Once installed it provides much of the same features listed above, including forward collision warnings and lane departure warnings.
It's clear we're rapidly moving into a world where cars will not only possess advanced radar systems (effectively letting them "see" as well or better than the driver), but they will also make decisions for the driver based on these systems.
Today's question: Is this technology making us better or worse drivers?
My feelings are pretty predictable on this matter. I like the idea of reducing the amount of death and destruction on our roadways, but designing cars for the least talented drivers among us seems like a slippery slope. Clearly nobody needs a collision warning system or smart cruise control or lane departure alerts. If you get into a situation where these items are saving you from an accident you probably screwed up somewhere along the way.
I guess the first real driving aid was ABS, and I remember that when it started to appear in modern cars the crash rates for ABS-equipped vehicles actually went up. Why? After several studies it was determined that two issues were causing these accidents. First, people didn't know how to use ABS, and often lifted their foot off the brake pedal when it began pulsating. Second, it was clear a certain number of of people where driving more recklessly because they figured ABS would save them from any possible accident situation (a similar mentality continues to put SUVs on their roofs during inclement weather...).
This makes me wonder how many new and interesting traffic accidents will occur when people start assuming their cars know when to brake and/or turn to avoid a collision. It may sound crazy, but you know once this technology becomes ubiquitous many drivers will adopt that exact attitude.
Furthermore, while it's possible I've watched one too many Battlestart Galactica/Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles episodes, I find I'm getting less comfortable with the idea of machines that are supposed to be smarter than man. What happens when these systems decide all cars are a threat, not just the ones representing a collision? They could decide our driving fates in a microsecond.
Or maybe this new technology will provide the driving nirvana we're all after. What do you think?
By billt9
on April 14, 2009
06:18 AM
People will be distracted when they drive.
For example after working 30 hours straight, or finishing a presentation under a tight deadline, you're going to drive like half your brain has been vaporized.
Tech is there to help in those situations.
Something like a Boeing F/A-18 has a lot of safety tech aids. That's because the pilot operates in many stressful distracting conditions. You can have the most well trained pilot, and he'll still be under distracting stress at times. That's what safety aid techs are for.
There should be a law that a senior car salesman must walk the car buyer through the quick operating guide of the vehicle at vehicle sale.
It's all about education, for the buyer to understand the proper use of the tech.
This would also boost dealer new car profits as they are selling a mandatory consult.
By billt9
on April 14, 2009
06:21 AM
Will NOT introducing safety aids cause Bad Drivers to stop driving?
No. Withholding safety aids will NOT cause bad drivers to stop driving.
Therefore your argument that we shouldn't have safety aids make no sense. As you can't get the Bad Drivers off the streets.
Having the safety aids will limit the harm caused by the Bad Drivers.
What will your proposal of withholding safety aids do? The Bad Drivers will still be there.
You just hope they go away quicker by dying faster? haha.
Well when they die, they will have taken out someone with them anyways. So we simply have more harm each year, if there were no safety aids.
By dougtheeng
on April 14, 2009
07:32 AM
As long as the features can be turned off (or on, in some cases) I'm fine with these advances. However, I can't imagine myself ever using something like 'city braking'.
By pushrod
on April 14, 2009
08:03 AM
I believe the question is "does this make for MORE bad drivers", not does it continue to keep bad drivers out there on the road. Karl never said that removing the technology would also remove the bad drivers. The premise is: do these new features make an already good or competent driver worse, not better.
People who drive poorly have always been on the road and will continue to be on the road. This technology may help reduce the odds of a collision, or at least reduce the severity. It won't make them better drivers, and taking it away won't cause them to stop driving.
I wouldn't be surprised to see that people who, while otherwise attentive and reasonable drivers, become worse over time. They may start to rely more on the safety devices, and less on their own abilities, and rely on them incorrectly, assuming they work in a particular way when in fact they don't (cruise control isn't autopilot, 4WD/AWD isn't immune to the coefficient of friction and Newton's various laws).
I think billt9 did touch on a crucial point: training. I don't think most people really know how these technologies work, what their limitations are and problem areas to avoid (how many people still drive with their left hand at 2 o'clock, making their forearm a skull-crushing projectile if the airbag deploys underneath it?). How to deliver that training, beyond a simple walkthrough, and even some testing pose larger questions.
Its ironic that these technologies, which in part are trying to make it easier for the driver, make it more complex because you need to know more about them, how they work, what they can do and what they can't do. Life was much simpler when the most sophisticated safety devices were the seatbelt, your attention span and your reaction times :-).
By heffling
on April 14, 2009
08:55 AM
The question as posted in the title is "Are Driving Aids and Technology Really Helping Us?"
My belief is that the new safety technologies tend to make drivers perform more towards the average.
Poor drivers will see an improved performance, where performance is measured by number of crashes, as the safety features will help reduce the number of accidents that will occur.
Good drivers (at least some) will see a decrease in performance, as they come to depend on safety features more and their own judgement less.
What needs to be determine to make a comparrison is two things:
1) How much change in performance is caused by use of the safety features (both up and down)?
2) How many affected poor and good drivers are there?
These are debatable points.
The only measurable point that we have is number of accidents. If the number of accidents goes down over a specified time period (say a year) for vehicles equiped with such technologies, then I would say the safety technologies are likely doing their job. If the number goes up, then obviously the new technologies are failing to perform as intended.
By jstandefer
on April 14, 2009
09:17 AM
I certainly think technology like this will make some drivers feel that they can be less attentive and/or more reckless. However, I do like the idea of the vehicle behind me having something like Volvo's City Safety. You always hear stories about drivers who rear-ended someone when traffic stopped just as they took their eyes off the road for just a second or two to fiddle with the radio, insert a CD, change albums on their iPod, change a navigation setting, put their drink in the cupholder, etc.
With all of these distractions in the car, it's hard to argue against a system like City Safety. I'm sure you found, as I did, in the City Safety demo that you really had to fight your urge to brake before the XC60 did it for you. It truly waits for you to intervene until the last millisecond before it takes over, and if you really don't like it, it can be disabled. A good driver will probably never see the system in action...
Stories like the Terminator series and Battlestar Galactica (my gods, one of the best frackin' series ever!) certainly do make you think twice about the technology. However, tech like this is really more in-line with I, Robot. Rather than machines rebelling and seeing humans as a threat, I can see technology eventually restricting humans to protect them from themselves.
As said previously, nothing replaces good old-fashioned training AND common sense. I've seen training give people an over-confidence in themselves and then go out and get hurt or hurt someone else. There's that common sense factor and, unfortunately for us, that trait isn't guaranteed in the gene pool.
By edarya
on April 14, 2009
09:52 AM
Would people then blame the failure of automotive technologies for the accidents that the vehicle operators fail to avoid or blatantly cause? How likely is it for the new techs to induce a false sense of safety and driving prowess in drivers, especially among new drivers? Driving enthusiasts who take care to know how to drive well know when they see poor drivers on the road. How many of those poor drivers think they drive well or safely because of the cars' capability as opposed to the drivers'. If the new techs could be shown to help some drivers to avoid accidents as they are designed to do, would the new techs be mandated by the government as required in vehicles sold in the US thereby increasing costs and complexity of the vehicles?
By carlisimo
on April 14, 2009
10:07 AM
The only risk I see is that people will misunderstand the driving aid and expect it to do more than it actually does. How many people will forget about the 20mph limit on City Safety? How many people know that while ABS lets you brake and turn, it won't prevent spin-outs caused by braking and turning hard at the same time?
The new driving aids will make focused, well aware drivers better. With bad drivers, it'll be a wash; sometimes it'll save them, other times they'll suffer unintended consequences. It's like in Formula 1... viewers thought the elimination of tractional control would be a big deal, but it wasn't. The best drivers used it to their advantage and were better than the rest whether they had TC or not. The mid-pack drivers are still pretty good just to be in F1, and still manage to survive most dry races without losing control. Mediocre drivers managed to crash out with or without it... maybe not so often back when they had it, but TC never made them good.
By jstandefer
on April 14, 2009
10:42 AM
edarya wrote: "How many of those poor drivers think they drive well or safely because of the cars' capability as opposed to the drivers'."
Sadly, most of those drivers probably think they do drive well or safely regardless of what tech their car has!
By tiruvan
on April 14, 2009
10:51 AM
As long as it comes with an "auto" on/off switch technologies are always welcome.
Driving enthusiasts like us who read this blog can use it in "off" mode and enjoy the driving dynamics.
Other less fortunate ones (sarcasm here) who don't like driving at all but are forced to "put up" with us due to inefficient/unavailable public transportation can drive in "auto" mode all along while doing something more important (like eating a sandwich or putting on make-up etc.)
But then again comes the whole question of reliability. While I am sure Japanese will get this right more than anyone else I don't think I would trust an American make so much (can you hear 1487 getting ready to comment?). The Germans of course will over do it until it gets unreliable.
When it comes to cars I am more interested in knowing who made it right rather than who made it first.
By jstandefer
on April 14, 2009
11:06 AM
tiruvan: Would you like to come over and lecture my Sony home theater receiver? Please tell it that it is supposed to be reliable because it's Japanese. Maybe that will straigten it up and I won't have to replace it!
What would power cars in full "auto" mode? Unix? Linux? MacOS (iCar OS)? Windows? All of them are very good and reliable operating systems from Japan. Oh wait, I mean Europe. Oops... America.
By altimadude00
on April 14, 2009
12:25 PM
"it was clear a certain number of of people where driving more recklessly because they figured ABS would save them from any possible accident situation"
This is sadly true. The same can be said for seat belt usage. I don't need my seat belt because the airbag will save me in a crash.
I was thinking about this very issue driving home the other day, and the problem I cam up with is that it has become very easy to drive any car on the road fast. People think 60 MPH is slow.
I did a MPG experiment driving to my parents house for Easter and was traveling at the posted speed limit (70 MPH). I was surprised at how many people were going 80, 90 MPH and blowing me off the road. Most of these vehicles were SUVs. Not only were they sucking fuel, but having that much mass hurling down the road (especially in bad weather) is extremely dangerous.
So it all comes down to the driver's feeling of whether they feel as if they're driving safely, even if to other people they're not.
By tiruvan
on April 14, 2009
12:50 PM
"Would you like to come over and lecture my Sony home theater receiver? Please tell it that it is supposed to be reliable because it's Japanese. Maybe that will straigten it up and I won't have to replace it!"
jstandefer,
Read my sentence again. I said "the Japanese will get this right more than anyone else". I did not say they will get it right 100% of the time. It's just my opinion based solely on my experience and knowledge.
Sell the Sony and get something from Radioshack (make sure it says "Made in USA")
By mrryte
on April 14, 2009
01:05 PM
"If you get into a situation where these items are saving you from an accident you probably screwed up somewhere along the way."
...like NOT PAYING FULL ATTENTION TO THE TASK AT HAND OF OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE.
The driver that is fully aware of his surroundings will have no use for this gizmo.
The problem is that these electronannies will only further encourage complacency and inattentiveness; thus offsetting their supposed benefits. The driver will have an extra (false) sense of security while talking, texting, doing their nails, playing with their pet, eating, reading and heaven knows what else they should NOT be doing behind the wheel. :-/
By jstandefer
on April 14, 2009
01:46 PM
"Sell the Sony and get something from Radioshack (make sure it says "Made in USA")"
I'm pretty sure when I pull the receiver out, it will have "Heche en Mexico" on the back like so many other Japanese products these days. I'll gladly take a "Made in USA" label over a "Heche en Mexico" label any day. I'll probably go with a Bose system... not because it's made in the USA (although that is an added bonus), but because I find it provides the best combination of quality and value. In the driveway, I have one Swedish, one American, and two Japanese vehicles. I don't shop by flags, and I certainly don't exclude products because of where they're made. But if it comes down to not being able to decide between two products, I will choose the American-made product if one of the two is.
By the_big_al
on April 15, 2009
12:20 AM
Here's my take: I'm all for being a safe and responsible driver, but when you start instituting a whole bunch of electronic nannies on a vehicle that are designed to make it "safer", I think that it really takes away from what you are supposed to be doing in a vehicle - driving. True, some people see the vehicle as only a mode to get them from point A to point B and want to be as undemanding as possible, or see driving as a "chore" that has to be done to get somewhere, but I see driving as an experience and all these electronic gizmos take away from that experience.
Don't get me wrong, I love cruise control and auto headlights and the keyfob. I'll even admit that remote vehicle starting is also cool and would opt for it on a new vehicle I was purchasing. But start throwing in adaptive cruise control, auto braking, intrusive stability control and the like and it will eventually lull a driver into a sense that he doesn't have to do anything except get in the car and say "go" and he won't know what to do in case of a real emergency when all those electronic gizmos do fail. Or he gets into a vehicle that doesn't have any of those and no longer knows how to drive. It's the same way with the standard transmission. Back in the day, everyone, even your grandma could drive a clutch operated vehicle. Nowadays, it seems that only grandma knows what a clutch is. Soon our kids will get in a car that has a steering wheel and go "what's this?? What do I do with this thing? Play basketball while driving?"
Anyway, what I am trying to say I guess is that a few electronics designed to keep a driver from getting to out-of-control is okay-even good. Things like ABS, traction control, hill descent control are things that aid a skillful driver in fully enjoying the performance capabilities of a car. Or they help you get from point A to point B with out lulling you into complete sense of false security in that you still have to pay attention to how you are driving. If you don't want to do that, then you need to take public transportation and take yourself off the road and leave the roads to those of us who actually enjoy driving...
By chavis10
on April 15, 2009
07:47 AM
Anxious to drive a car with active cruise control. I'll be making a 7500 mile round trip to the west coast this summer so it would sure come in handy but I doubt I'll experience any traffic west of Chicago until I reach the Pacific coast. Standard cruise control is a nice idea but hard to use in areas with high volume (such as here on the congested interstates on the East Coast) so active cruise seems to be an improvement in that regard. The only time I can effectively use cruise in this area is if I travel at night. Further south the roads open up so it's okay but because Americans don't understand Stay Right Pass Left I could definitely see the benefit for active cruise so I wouldn't have to continuously use the "Cancel" and "Resume" functions of stand crusie control systems.
By blueguydotcom
on April 15, 2009
08:26 AM
I freely admit with an automatic tranny I lose interest in driving. There's so little to do it's maddening. Lane departure (which I do on purpose on many corners/on-ramps) systems aren't for me, Cruise? I only use it to avoid speeding egregiously - I have a tendency to creep over 90 without cruise.
Nope, don't like the nannies, don't fully trust any electronic device and my son better know how to drive a stick.
By chavis10
on April 15, 2009
09:42 AM
blue- the Euro brands (which the exception of Toyota) are the main ones pushing all of this stuff. How do you feel about that? Pretty soon, even the 3 series will have some of the this stuff. The 7 already has four wheel steering so you know it will trickle down in a few years.
I think the refreshed S class can even compensate for wind gust and keep you in your lane with no steering input. The Lexus LS has a calibrated throttle pedal that doesn't require additional force to keep speed up an incline- even with cruise control OFF.
By blueguydotcom
on April 15, 2009
07:10 PM
Chavis i think it's a mistake. :0
By autoboy16
on April 15, 2009
07:11 PM
In my opinion, all these devices are making us worse drivers. Mostly, things like the BLIS, self parking cars, and steeringwheels that vibrate when you cross the line without signaling are just plain silly. Drivers have been fine without that stuff for decades! If you need your car to tell you that you are crossing the median while you are driving in a straight line, you do not need to be driving.
Other devices such as Heads up Display, Saab's Night Panel, Back-up cameras and parking sensors, Side Airbags, and the thing some cars have where you tap the signal stalk one time and it blinks three times automatically are great devices that makes it more convenient to drive. These devices make it less of a hassle to perform some actions.
Also, to some extent, I think I want to place some blame on the Automatic Transmission too. Sure, its good for drivers that drive with disabled, sore, or missing limbs is understandable. But that young driver that puts the car in Drive and does nothing but steer the car (which is getting worse daily) should be driving a manual car. Manual almost forces you to pay attention to driving, which is what you are supposed to be doing in the first place.
By tiruvan
on April 16, 2009
07:31 AM
"I don't shop by flags, and I certainly don't exclude products because of where they're made. But if it comes down to not being able to decide between two products, I will choose the American-made product if one of the two is."
Me too jstandefer ... me too.