At the beginning of May, I was involved in an accident for the first time in a thirty year driving career. A small deer ran across the M4 directly into my path and I struck it at about 65mph. The deer died almost instantly and the car suffered about £1200 worth of damage. On seeing the animal and realising that a collision was inevitable, I steered slightly towards the hard shoulder while braking. At the speed I was travelling, any more than slight steering – as well as traffic in the outer two lanes and behind me – would have been dangerous.
Now, it seems, Ford have come up with a car that knows better.
A car that takes control of the steering wheel when it detects the risk of a collision is being tested at a research facility in Germany.
Ford said the Obstacle Avoidance system first warned the driver of danger and then took charge if they did not react.
I realise that I have discussed this idea before, but frankly, no fucking way. When faced with a collision situation, I will take control of the vehicle, not a computer. And the last thing I want having made my split second decision based upon my assessment of what is happening – and what is about to happen, such as deciding which way an animal is likely to run – is some fucking computer wrenching the wheel from my grip and taking over. If all cars come with this technology in future, I’ll be switching to classic cars. Contrary to what Ford appear to think, some of us are, actually, competent drivers and can assess the situation and make the correct decisions.
Last year it introduced Lane Keeping Alert, a feature that vibrates the wheel – but does not take control – if it detects the driver is drifting out of a lane without using an indicator.
You don’t necessarily need an indicator. We indicate where it is necessary, and there is no need if no one is there to see it. Many people indicate to move left after overtaking. it is not necessary. And I do not want some idiotic computer nagging me about whether I should indicate. I am a competent driver, I am aware of my surroundings, I am perfectly capable of deciding whether an indication is necessary or not without being ticked off by the bloody car.
There may be resistance from some to the idea of a car taking control from its driver.
You don’t say. Mine is absolute.
Completely agreed. I stay away from modern cars as it is but I would never drive something like this.
It pisses me off when the car beeps to remind you about your seatbelt.
As A non care driver I can’t comment, as a passenger however I can, and as a passenger I would be terrified if in a possible collision situation the driver merely sat back folded his arms looked at me instead of the situation and said “Panic not the on board computer will save us” I would be opening the doors and leaping out no matter what the consequences, trust me.
I have seen these ideas touted on Top Gear, whilst they seem on the surface impressive in terms of engineering. I would still (If I am going to die horrifically in a road accident) rather it was at the hands of another human being rather than a microchip and a few bits of metal, the thought that the last words one could here is a robotic voice (like you hear in bank queues)” I am sorry for any inconvenience caused by our little accident and hope you realise that actually I have saved you” as I drift over to the other side in a tunnel of white light :S
“… last words one could here is a robotic voice…”
And if it’s running Microsoft software, we’re all doomed.
My Brother in law took me out in his new Mecedes. It stops if something’s in the way but more weirdly — he indicated and passed a small parking space. The car then checked if the space was big enough and —- look no hands — Parked itself!!!!
Scary to say the least.
Since I almost never (need to) parallel park, that would be useless for me, but what a cool gadget to have!
I always parallel park and as it is such a simple manoeuvre, I cannot see the point of a car doing it for me.
WHO is going to insure you for such a robot?
Imagine having to make a claim?
Me too.
They can stick all this cobblers up their collective arses, both dry and sideways..
My 17 year old car is in superb condition, had it 11 years, i look after it meticulously and hope it lasts me another 11, maybe i might even still be here to enjoy it.
They keep coming up with all sorts of wonderful ideas, this brilliant notion not the last by any means and another of my several lines in the sand that i aint crossing and they can get stuffed..i’m not having a piss pot electric parking brake either nor a can of goo instead of a spare wheel, and i’ll have a real ignition key that i turn and the car starts, sod me whats with all this push start stop bollocks and credit card ignition keys with NO keyholes in the doors or boot, remote central locking fails you’re buggered.
I want, and more to the point seeing as i’m paying for, it i bloody well will have, a brake pedal directly connected to the hydraulic brake line, and i’ll have a steering wheel directly connected to the wheels, not some bloody hopeful steer by wire effort that might decide in its infinite wisdom to drive up a tree when it has an electrical or computer glitch.
No Ford, or any other bugger who thinks they know best for me, you can stick your poncy computer controlled cloned crap where the sun don’t ever shine, i’ll keep my old car car ta very much, and when it dies i’ll buy a bloody Hilux or similar if thats the only vehicle still built on basic lines, if not i’ll be back on me push bike.
If it aint broke don’t bloody fix it.
Regards
Judd
My car doesn’t start on the ignition key, it has a sexy little knob on the dashboard that you pull! Morris 1000s were ahead of their time!
Another step to making drivers redundant. It’s easy really. Just convince enough humans computers are better drivers than humans, invent a quango or fake charity and bang whatever form of government is in place will ‘respond to people’s concerns’ and there you have it driverless cars.
The only fly in the ointment is governments cannot tax computers.
“…governments cannot tax computers…”
no:- but they will tax the owners/registered users/renters to high heaven.
As per usual.
Bastards!
Call me a cynic if you will, but I suspect that the announcement of this proposed Collision Avoidance technology is little more than a “softening up” exercise designed to get the public used to the idea of the much simpler (I imagine) and less expensive Automatic Speed Control technology, which is what the powers-that-be really want to bring in. They’ve mentioned this a few times, but each time it has been met (quite rightly in my view) with howls of concern from pretty much everyone at the idea of a car suddenly refusing to respond to the driver’s “instructions” and deciding to do its own thing.
So, having met with somewhat stubborn resistance to the direct approach, then maybe this is a way of preparing the public for automatic speed control. “Collision avoidance” technology is possibly being touted in order to “break the public in gently” to the idea of cars driving us, rather than us driving cars because it’s just oh-so-easy to link it to that old stalwart “for the sake of the cheeldren.” You can just see the TV clips now, can’t you? It won’t be a deer, or another car, or a gatepost that the car is shown slowing down or swerving to avoid – it’ll be some cutesy kiddie clutching a teddy bear and standing (rather oddly, in my view) right in the middle of the road, staring straight at the camera with its big, dewey, innocent eyes …
And of course, once the public has agreed in principle – as they will, because of those cute kids – that taking control away from us child-killing, heartless people and putting it into the hands of a caring, cuddly, child-protecting computer, then the mandatory implementation of the (relatively) simple technology of Automatic Speed Control will be a cinch, and this more complex (and expensive) collision-avoidance technology will be quietly stored away for another day.
But then, as I say, I am – these days – a total, dyed-in-the-wool cynic …
I think you’ve probably hit the nail on the head, Jax. They really, really want to have more control of our cars, particularly with regard to speed. And you are spot on about how they will use kiddies to guilt-trip people into accepting it.
Personally, I’m deeply suspicious of all new vehicles. Even basic things like electric windows – ever so convenient until they go wrong. And of course, they always give up when they’re open and it’s pissing with rain. And I bloody hate ABS. I know how to deal with skids and slides, and ABS completely cocks it up. And of course, it’s yet another thing to go wrong. I’ve actually driven classics (read clapped out old heaps) most of my life, and have always preferred their simplicity and ease of maintenance. Modern cars you have to take to the garage to change the bloody spark plugs! And you can forget doing any basic servicing these days, you can’t do anything without plugging it in to the diagnostic computer. It’s a joke. Wish I’d kept my old Austin Mini Cooper S now. Not only was it a pleasure to drive, but if it broke down, it was usually easy to fix.
Mostly agree with you – except for changing the ^*$£! bypass hose on a mini engine.
Arsehole of a job!
IIRC there was a special corrogated hose made, which could be fitted without lifting the cylinder head.
Yes there was:- I bought them in threes, as even when I soaked them in Swarfega to facilitate fitting, I could usually guarantee to split at least one of the little buggers before success!
Ha! Yes, the notorious by-pass hose! Four inches of pure evil! The last time I did it (many years ago), I bought one that was sort of concertina-like, the theory being that it could be compressed, inserted between the two pipes and then wiggled into position over the pipes. I have to admit it was easier, but still entailed much cursing during the process..
Obviously designed by a totally psychopathic misanthrope.
I couldn’t agree with you more. I bought a new Mazda and it is a lovely car to drive however like other manufacturers they have put in a system which advises you what gear the car should be in to improve fuel efficiency, great you might think anything that makes life easy, the only problem is it insists that you should be in a higher gear than the driving conditions allow, for example 3rd instead of 2nd around a roundabout and speed does not seem to be the determining factor when it makes its decision.
I am however very keen on the auto settings for lights and wipers which mean i rarely have to worry about them.
I will however refuse a car that trys to take that split decision away.
“You don’t necessarily need an indicator. We indicate where it is necessary, and there is no need if no one is there to see it.”
Agree totally, but….
…in my patch, it’s rare – very rare! – to see someone indicate when needed. So, for me, it’s be a blessing, though it’ll take longer than I’ve got (probably) for such newer cars to filter down to the population.
Still, baby steps.
Or we could just stop awarding driving licenses to people who fail the basics?
“and there is no need if no one is there to see it.”
Indeed.
It used to be (still is?) something that was taught on the Advanced test, and I still do it – it’s not so much that signalling when there’s nobody there causes any problems (it doesn’t), the point is that having that habit means you check to see if anyone is there. It’s a good safety habit.
Too much damn electronics on cars as it is; heaven help us when these kinds of systems get to five or six years old (or are of French manufacture) and start to suffer random unpredictable failures. People will die.
Correct. As an advanced rider/driver, I always consider whether it is necessary based upon prevailing conditions. I do not consider the bloody car shaking its wheel a prevailing condition.
Well, I am sure once Ford’s legal department point out how much time, and money, Ford Worldwide will be spending in Court defending claims against them because their accident avoidance system either did not work (because the accident happened anyway) or caused an accident that the Human thinks he could have avoided if he had been in charge, the idea will fade quite away.
My accident would be a case in point. I steered slightly left – in the direction the animal was running in. I did this deliberately, knowing that a collision was unavoidable, so hitting it square on would result in a quick kill and steering right which was on the face of it clear, would cause a pile-up as following traffic would have had to take avoiding action.
Agreed, they keep on at me to upgrade my Company car, but the new ones have this function that turns off the engine when you come to a stop. I don’t like the sound of that and the ones I’ve seen there’s always a lag when they pull away.
what if I’m stopped at lights and can see in the rear view someone barrelling up behind not going to stop , with the engine running I can pop the clutch and drive out of danger , the lag could just be the time needed for a Polish lorry to anally rape my car .
For the same reason you describe Longrider, I’ve always been wary of Airbuses , since I saw a TV show which said that the flight computer can overrule the pilot if it feels they are putting too much strain on the wings , but what if it’s an avoidance manoeuvre, do they have to flick a switch first
Just been reading a similar thread at another forum. Several negative comments about automatic engine stopping, both when stationary, or if opening the door (to get out and open a gate, for instance). The latest Audi’s came out of this particularly badly, although 2 people mentioned some software and an adapter which allows you to access the diagnostics via the OBD(?) port, and make a number of changes.
Many others poo – pooed the idea of these wonderful bits of technology in places like the Australian outback, where a breakdown can literally be a life and death matter. I was told by an Aussie many years ago that the Land Rover Discovery was not popular because it used a (vulnerable to stone damage) toothed belt for the camshaft drive, rather than the fully enclosed chain on a Landcruiser. That alone could immobilise the vehicle, never mind the raft of electronics on current models.
I don’t think my ’91 Panda will make it that far, so apart from the (easily changed) electronic distributor, there are no other high tech interventions likely to catch me out…
@ Pavlov’s Cat – yes that’s typical of modern “Fly by Wire” systems, and is meant to smooth out sudden control inputs and avoid over stressing the airframe. Some over-ride is possible but highly discouraged due the cost of inspections and repairs. The philosophy now seems to be let the automation do all the work – coupled with lots of planning before take off. In theory this should mean nothing CAN go wrong… But it is leading to a generation of pilots with poor “hands on” skills, and is what will happen to cars if the same systems become commonplace.
My biggest concern with Airbus controls is the non – linked side sticks. The flight management computers output the SUM of the independent inputs, and if the 2 pilots try and do opposite things the net result is little or no response. Either can override the other by pushing a button, but this should be agreed first. Boeing’s 777 is FBW, but has conventional mechanically linked columns, even though they are not directly connected to any control surfaces.