2020 car tech may just stop most motorycle / car crashes

Discussion in 'The Perfect Line and Other Riding Myths' started by fullmetalscooter, Mar 15, 2012.

  1. fullmetalscooter

    fullmetalscooter Let me take this duck off

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Oddometer:
    3,258
    Location:
    BC
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/41239280/New_Smart_Car_Technology_Will_Prevent_Crashes

    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...ze-up-to-80-percent-of-crashes-139798693.html

    It seem like all the big car makers are all on board for placing some form of tech on all there cars and trucks by 2020 that well brake you car / truck if it senses a crash. That will warn drivers that they are drifting into another lane. See the list below. If and that's a big if even they says everyone's on board it s may just stop most death and motorcycle crashs because 75% of them are car drivers faults. Even if it cuts down on them 25% its going to save lives. If it happens I jump for joy but whom knows if it going to . No more people turning into your bike. Till then it's Kind of like The perfect line and other riding myths.


    Intersection assist.
    When you approach an intersection, it alerts you if another vehicle is traveling at such a speed on a cross street that it could run a red light or stop sign and hit your car in the side. This helps prevent common and often fatal T-bone accidents. Left-turn assist. When in an intersection, it alerts you if there's not enough time to make a left-hand turn because of oncoming vehicles. This can keep you from turning even when you can't see the oncoming car.
    Do-not-pass warning. When driving on a two-lane road, the system warns you when a vehicle coming in the opposite direction makes it unsafe to pass a slower-moving vehicle
    Advance warning of a vehicle braking ahead. The system emits an alert when a vehicle that's two or more cars ahead in the same lane—and possibly out of sight—hits the brakes unexpectedly. This can help prevent a rear-end collision when you're caught by surprise.
    Forward-collision warning. A warning will sound if the system detects that you're traveling at a speed that could cause you to hit a slower-moving vehicle in the rear. It will also give you advance warning of a stopped vehicle in your lane that you may not see because of a vehicle in front of you or because it's around a bend in the road.
    Blind-spot/lane-change warning. When traveling on a multilane road, this illuminates a warning light when a car is positioned in your blind spot. It also emits a loud beep if you activate your turn signal when it's unsafe to change lanes. V2X is more accurate than current blind-spot monitoring systems that use cameras or radar and can even warn you of a car that's accelerating into your blind zone, which conventional systems can't do.
    #1
  2. DAKEZ

    DAKEZ Long timer

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Oddometer:
    19,747
    Location:
    OR
    :baldy
    #2
  3. klaviator

    klaviator Long timer

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Oddometer:
    6,812
    Location:
    Huntsville, AL
    I'm sure it will work just great.............................just like those traffic light sensors:huh
    #3
  4. thumpty dumpty

    thumpty dumpty Adventurer

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    Oddometer:
    46
    Location:
    NW Montana
    Sweet, let's install devices in cars that will teach drivers to pay even less attention!
    #4
  5. daveinva

    daveinva Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2011
    Oddometer:
    597
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    I'm far, FAR from as technophobic as many fellow riders appear to be ("That stuff is awful/makes you lazy/terrible drivers").

    That said, there's something to be said for keeping driving (and riding) simple. Not in a purity sense-- no romantic here-- but in a distraction sense.

    Ever been in a cockpit before? (Ever seen a grown man naked?) For forty years they've been finding ways to *reduce* the number of intrusive buzzers, beepers, and blinks to make it easier for pilots to obtain situational awareness and safely fly. Meanwhile, look in the average new car and it's beginning to look like a fighter jet cockpit. Obviously, cars are going the wrong direction.

    I do love, use and appreciate a lot of new safety tech. I've written here before about how great I find blind spot monitoring systems as a *supplement*, not a replacement, to head checks before lane changes. They help keep me honest.

    But I also know I'm a safety-conscious driver, and sadly there are fewer and fewer of those out on the road. All this great tech will undoubtedly make safer drivers even safer, but through coddling it runs the risk of making lousy drivers even lousier. Which means that the tech likely ends up being a wash.

    I'm okay with that to a certain degree-- as long as it makes *me* safer, I can deal with others being idiots. But I sure as heck don't want to be forced by Uncle Sam to pay for everyone else to drive like idiots.
    #5
  6. Onederer

    Onederer Crunch Nugget

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Oddometer:
    889
    Location:
    At the bottom of your glass, staring back
    I think most of this technology is not for the sake of safety as much as profit for the companies making it. All of the electronics developed for this will need more rare earth elements, which China is already limiting since they are a major exporter of such. I feel this will only lead to more war as one country tries to take what another has.

    The intelligent thing to do would be a licensing system overhaul, focused on creating better drivers. Actual driving schools that would require no less than a intense week of behind the wheel training, after the initial book work. Instead of higher taxes, these schools could be paid for by the individual and people of low income could get grants, etc.

    Instead, our government is run by corporations now, which are driven by profit and not the well being of the nation. They like it when people don't look up and just go about their self centered world.

    Like it or not, automobiles are the most dangerous thing in peoples day to day lives but people are given licenses based on little more than a few questions and basic (can you put it in drive and work the brake and gas) driving test. It is all great for business, but is literally killing Americans every day.

    At this point, I can't imagine people will ever change on their own without being forced to, unless America once again has true leadership, someone the people will follow, but we have no leaders, only polyticians.

    Besides, all the cost will be put onto the automobile buyer anyway and the era of low wage countries is coming to an end, along with much higher oil prices. Anyone willing to pay $50,000 for a base model economy car then $15 a gallon for fuel? With that in mind, maybe we won't have to do anything, the higher cost will put more people on two wheeled vehicles, which in turn will force them to think a little more about safety or take them out of the equation.

    Really, I don't care too much. I'm stacking MRE's, water filters and ammo while apocalypse proofing my bicycle. There are already plenty-o-zombies to fight off. If I'm not right, at least I'm prepared.
    #6
  7. bimmerx2

    bimmerx2 Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2006
    Oddometer:
    993
    Location:
    DFW area of Texas
    I'm all for anything that takes on some of the responsibility for doing things that drivers should be doing but which they aren't doing. The argument that aids like this make drivers lazy or less skilled only makes sense if drivers are skilled to start with, which we all know to be untrue.

    It comes down to having two choices; cry about how all of those "other" drivers should be more skilled but knowing that will never happen, or let them be as bad as they already are and just make them less dangerous. Personally I don't get a lot of satisfaction from useless whining but I would love to not get run over so I'll go with the latter.
    #7
  8. klaviator

    klaviator Long timer

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Oddometer:
    6,812
    Location:
    Huntsville, AL
    One MAJOR problem with this system is that it only works between vehicles equipped with the proper devices. It would raise the cost of all new vehicles and not work with your older vehicle unless you spent the $$$ to retrofit it to your old vehicle.

    It would make drivers even worse than they are now. Once they got used to it, it would be a catastrophe if.....I mean when the system went out.

    I'm not sure any company will be anxious to market this system since the potential for lawsuits will by astronomical. If it is ever implemented it will be by a socialist government.

    If implemented, this will just be another case of industrial strength stupidity. Unfortunately there is an ample supply of ISS.:eek1
    #8
  9. slide

    slide A nation in despair

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2003
    Oddometer:
    21,122
    Location:
    NM, USA
    They'd probably POST the system so the entire vehicle would shut down and refuse to move if the system went down or tested bad.
    #9
  10. klaviator

    klaviator Long timer

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Oddometer:
    6,812
    Location:
    Huntsville, AL
    There are already people out there who couldn't find their way without GPS. Even with GPS, many people manage to get lost anyway.
    #10
  11. lemieuxmc

    lemieuxmc Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    Oddometer:
    3,360
    Location:
    East La Jolla... it's just Clairemont!!
    x2!
    #11
  12. LuciferMutt

    LuciferMutt Rides slow bike slow

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Oddometer:
    11,536
    Location:
    New(er) Mexico

    x3!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    #12
  13. dwoodward

    dwoodward Long timer

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Oddometer:
    5,939
    Location:
    Pacific NorthWet, Napa Valley North
    Neat... except your stats are completely ass-backwards.

    Oregon fatality stats for 2011 (via ODOT):
    19 - Single vehicle crash (rider, alone)
    13 - RIDER v. CAR, RIDER'S FAULT
    5 - CAR v. RIDER, CAR'S FAULT.
    1 - rider v. animal
    1 - "other"

    So first off, of the nearly half the the crashes out there, we're killing ourselves of our own free will, without outside assistance.

    Of the half that weren't riders doin' it for themselves, 65% were still the rider's fault, hitting a car they should have been able to miss.

    Not that removing the 12.5% would be bad, exept I don't believe it'd work (see how much ABS has reduced crashes? right.) My point, of course, is It's not them- it's us. Ride straight, pay attention, back off, learn how to brake / swerve.

    Safety Nazi, out.
    #13
  14. klaviator

    klaviator Long timer

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Oddometer:
    6,812
    Location:
    Huntsville, AL
    Trying to reduce accidents by improving people's riding/driving skills could be considered a form of discrimination against stupid people:deal. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets classified as a hate crime:huh

    It's much easier to just invent some new technology to solve all our problems.:baldy

    Shirley you should have known.

    .
    .
    .
    .
    PS, too make this new anti-collision system truly effective will we also be putting GPS tracking devices on Deer, Moose and other critters so we don't collide with them. How about immovable objects like trees and brick walls?
    #14
  15. Dan-M

    Dan-M Long timer

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Oddometer:
    1,176
    Location:
    Westbound
    Hey, if it reduces cars changing lanes into us when we are silly enough to dawdle in their blind spots then I'm all for it.

    Those that need all these aids to operate their car safely probably shouldn't be driving in the first place but that is just my opinion. I also know it must be hard to do a glance over the shoulder while driving with a cell phone to your ear, or when applying make up or while texting. Maybe this new technology will cover for them too.

    As Ted Simon said "now that everything has been made fool proof we are left with a society of fools"
    #15
  16. fullmetalscooter

    fullmetalscooter Let me take this duck off

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Oddometer:
    3,258
    Location:
    BC
    As with any tech price goes down with the number of units. 5 grand for a pc in 1982 with a 5 meg hardrive. Now 200 bucks. Will people get lazy shit yah if all you have to do to park is press a button. The only real reason I like this is because every time I ve been hit on a bike it's by someone turning without seeing me. Same goes for being hit will walking twice while crossing at stops signs. Most simple crashes might go bye bye because the car brake or warns you .
    #16
  17. gmiguy

    gmiguy You rode a what to where?

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Oddometer:
    1,336
    Location:
    Western NC
    I don't know if it's easier, but it appears to be pretty effective. Take a look at road fatality statistics over the last 60 years or so and you'll observe that they have been steadily falling, despite more cars on the road, more miles traveled per driver, and the proliferation of in-car entertainment systems and handheld electronics.

    That positive trend is due almost entirely to "the invention of new technology to solve problems".

    A similar but somewhat less dramatic trend also exists for overall accident rate (not just fatalities) on a per vehicle mile traveled basis.

    Do you have any references to indicate that more training or testing will result in a significant improvement in traffic safety? Not just anecdotes or comparisons to Germany, but real numbers for how much driver safety improves long-term with a given level of training?

    Historical crash and fatality statistics say that cars are very clearly going in the right direction.

    The "pure" car from the odl days with only a dashboard and an AM radio to divert the operator's attention was statistically much more dangerous than a distraction-laden modern car.

    What's your source for the claim that there are fewer safety-conscious drivers "out on the road"? Again, it's not supported by the accident or fatality rates.

    Historically, additional safety tech has not proven to be "a wash" - better tech makes driving significantly safe for everybody. Period.

    Your "coddling" theory is likewise not supported by data - a reduction in the fatality rate does not increase the overall crash rate.

    The efficacy of technology based solutions to road safety is supported by mountains of data from all over the world.

    You can raise some legitimate questions about the cost, or reliability, or even the morality of these systems.

    However, if you plan to claim that they don't actually work, you had better have some gold-standard data to back up your position.
    #17
  18. klaviator

    klaviator Long timer

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Oddometer:
    6,812
    Location:
    Huntsville, AL
    I'm not against all technology. Better tires, better brakes, better suspension, seatbelts, cars that better absorb impacts. Those are all positive improvements.

    ABS is probably an improvement but plenty of people are still slamming into each other. Today's cars just crash better.

    As for trying to improve overall driver training, it has not really been tried in this country (except for when driver training was first implemented) and probably never will so I doubt we will ever know if it works.

    As for the system this thread is about, it's completely different from all the technology used so far to reduce the fatality rate. I'm sure someday we'll see not only this system, but will eventually all of our vehicles will be driven by computers and we will only be passengers. For most of out society, they will probably be happy with this since they will be able to dedicate all their attention to texting, tweeting, playing video games, putting on makeup, etc. I just hope It doesn't happen while I'm still around.
    #18
  19. dwoodward

    dwoodward Long timer

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Oddometer:
    5,939
    Location:
    Pacific NorthWet, Napa Valley North
    Yes, to save lives of occupants after the crash happens. If you're paying attention, then you know damn well that, for example, ABS has effectively zero impact at preventing fatal crashes and only moderate success (single digit, IIRC) at reducing non-fatal crashes.

    The Long-Term Effect of ABS in Passenger Cars and LTVs
    <cite></cite>
    So- Numbers and references, please?

    I'm willing to credit wider, straighter roads, lower speed limits, and better handling cars more than active technology. Nothing will replace the analog meatware computer in the next eight years- nor should it, IMO.
    #19
  20. LuciferMutt

    LuciferMutt Rides slow bike slow

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Oddometer:
    11,536
    Location:
    New(er) Mexico
    I have no problem with passive technology that saves lives.

    I have a problem with active technology that is stepping towards driving the car FOR you. Cars that brake if you follow too closely. Cars that brake hard if they sense an impending accident. Cars that turn things on and off for you. Cars that park themselves, etc. History* has proven that people start relying too heavily on this technology and start driving more and more like asshats just because they no longer no any better or, more likely, don't care. "Oh I don't need to set a safe following distance; the car will do it for me! -- this will shortly turn into "Safe following distance, what the F is that? My car just decides how far behind I should be." "Oh I don't need to learn proper braking distances based on speed, the car will do it for me." -- turns into "braking disWHAT? My car just stops when there is some fool in the way! GTFO OF THE WAY FOOL!"



    *my own made up history :D
    #20