Lane assist - does anyone actually like it?

[Dillers]

Yeah this has just gone round and round hasn’t it.

Each to their own, some like the driving aids some don’t, thread done now?😘

[SouthernComfort]

4 hours ago, fabdavrav said:

 

Trusting 100% the computers to fly the aircraft & apparently having no real way to shut it off (without messing up other controls), allowed faulty software (MCAS) to crash two Boeing 737-MAX aircraft killing 346 people between the two crashes listed below.

..........................................

 

Insurance Companies have already been having numerous legal wrangles with legislators, software writers, & car makers as to who will be libel for causing deaths of drivers/passengers or pedestrians when a vehicle in "self-driving" mode kills somebody.....or it takes such action to save the occupants of the vehicle that it kills a bystander.....

 

 

Yes, I think we're all aware of the 737 MAX saga. However, no one mentioned anything about relying 100% on the computer systems to fly an aircraft. Where did you get that from? The systems are there as pilot aids, all of whom use them throughout the flight. You won't find a commercial pilot who would want to fly without the systems, or advocate totally disabling them to fly rogue, even if it were possible. Equally none will pretend they can sit there and let the computers control literally everything, even if that were possible. Same with assistance features in the car, driver aids, not driver substitute.....there are occasions when a driver (or pilot) may experience an 'episode' or lose consciousness at the helm, that's when a bit of artificial assistance may well avert disaster. 

 

"Self driving mode" is a different thing again, no sane person would go near it at this stage of technology. Those vehicles currently featuring it shouldn't be on the road.

 

It would be nice if folks could just maintain some perspective.

[fabdavrav]

On 04/01/2024 at 22:50, SouthernComfort said:

Exactly - that's how I use mine. 

 

FWIW I find the amount of negative and cynical comments around assistance systems a bit disappointing. 6 things stick in my mind, and I look at it in this context:

 

- The systems in my car are there for the benefit of others on the road, not just me.

- If I were to lose consciousness behind the wheel, then LA and Auto Braking might lessen or even avoid possible disaster. Happened to a driver in my part of the world recently; heart attack, lost control, carnage. His earlier model car didn't have assistance systems much to the misfortune of others involved.

- I mentioned previously that a friend of mine had a momentary lapse due to fatigue and the LA system in her car DID come to the rescue.

- Modern assistance systems are just an updated safety contingency plan complementing seat belts, air bags and crumple zones. I'm happy to park my pride if it means modern tech will help out if I can't, even after 50 yrs of unblemished driving experience.

- The incidence of alcohol and/or drug impaired drivers on the road is a perennial problem. I just hope those idiots behind the wheel haven't turned their systems OFF... 

- Q. Would I be happy if the pilot of the A320 I'd just boarded announced that he preferred to fly 'old school' and turn the computers off?

 

As for Stop/Start, who cares? Lane Keeping Assist & Auto Braking, thank you!

 

 

26 minutes ago, SouthernComfort said:

Yes, I think we're all aware of the 737 MAX saga. However, no one mentioned anything about relying 100% on the computer systems to fly an aircraft. Where did you get that from? The systems are there as pilot aids, all of whom use them throughout the flight. You won't find a commercial pilot who would want to fly without the systems, or advocate totally disabling them to fly rogue, even if it were possible. Equally none will pretend they can sit there and let the computers control literally everything, even if that were possible. Same with assistance features in the car, driver aids, not driver substitute.....there are occasions when a driver (or pilot) may experience an 'episode' or lose consciousness at the helm, that's when a bit of artificial assistance may well avert disaster. 

 

"Self driving mode" is a different thing again, no sane person would go near it at this stage of technology. Those vehicles currently featuring it shouldn't be on the road.

 

It would be nice if folks could just maintain some perspective.

 

 

So after initially saying you're all for the lots of modern safety systems in cars & planes, you appear now not to trust them??....

 

"Self driving" modes in cars rely A LOT on the Lane assist cameras to distinguish where the car is on the road (i.e. contrast between black tarmac white painted lines). This is used with the GPS info, front radar info, & various other speed, steering angle & other existing car sensors.

 

Reliance on too many "driver aids" creates a FALSE sense of security & leads to a lax & sloppy driving environment. Some are good like ABS (sometimes, but a PITA in other situations), but many of the new "aids" interfere way too much in the driving time, & are in fact a distraction.

 

 

Edited 6 January by fabdavrav
clarity

[SouthernComfort]

4 hours ago, fabdavrav said:

 

 

 

So after initially saying you're all for the lots of modern safety systems in cars & planes, you appear now not to trust them??....

 

"Self driving" modes in cars rely A LOT on the Lane assist cameras to distinguish where the car is on the road (i.e. contrast between black tarmac white painted lines). This is used with the GPS info, front radar info, & various other speed, steering angle & other existing car sensors.

 

Reliance on too many "driver aids" creates a FALSE sense of security & leads to a lax & sloppy driving environment. Some are good like ABS (sometimes, but a PITA in other situations), but many of the new "aids" interfere way too much in the driving time, & are in fact a distraction.

 

 

Huh?? In addition to continually attempting to educate me on how things work (assuming I have no knowledge) you seem to insist on twisting what I'm saying. Please try to understand my context. Indeed I am "all for the modern safety systems in cars and aircraft". The car systems are there as an aid for the driver, I've never suggested that I rely on them to such a degree that I might become complacent as a driver, only that I embrace the tech for the purposes intended (I can actually walk and chew gum at the same time!). Should the systems ever be needed to mitigate the affects of a looming disaster (if I were to collapse at the wheel for example) of course I hope they'd do the job. If I intentionally disable the systems, then they have NO HOPE of doing the job. I leave (most of) mine on for that purpose. That's it.

What you or anyone else chooses to do are a personal choice. For the purpose of the discussion (go back the OP's opening question, in which he solicited feedback) I've simply shared what my choice is, and the reason for it.

 

 

[Ootohere]

Some people need help because they have not the common sense they were born with.   They do not know a run flat tyre has blown out so in comes TPMS.  They moan has no low screen wash warning. They ask why the low oil warning came on when the car had a service only 10,000 miles ago.  Ask why the coolant warning came on.  They ask why the Service indicator is telling them so many days til an Inspection and the car was only bought months ago and it had. Service.       They walk and drive among us and some stuff now on cars is to protect us from the not very bright or interested.  Keep them a bit safer might keep us.  But then they never bother reading the Owners manual.  Checking tyre pressures or if the lights work.  They expect a warning.  Like a red car showing they are too close.  Or a beep that they are reversing into something.  Or a warning the passengers seat belts are not on. 

[avi4tor]

Re: pilots and doing things "by the book".  Take a look at the aircraft that landed in The Hudson after a bird strike on take-off.  The pilot followed the rules and ended up landing on the water.  If he had ignored the rules he could have got back to the airfield. And yes, I have a pilot's licence.

 

And there was the Airbus that had an engine blowout on take off.  It needed to land immediately, but was too heavy due to excess fuel.  The computer said "not possible".  The pilot managed it anyway.

Edited 7 January by avi4tor

[avi4tor]

Not to mention the first Airbus flight where it was demonstrated to the airlines - the computer made sure it landed in a forest with disasterous consequences.

 

i would prefer to fly with a pilot who was prepared to ignore the computer (bearing in mind that the pilot is an employee, not an owner, and is severely restricted in what they can do).

[avi4tor]

Whatever device you are currently using to read this - just take a look at the list of updates.

 

You think they are all there for new features?  No, they are there to correct errors.  Do the software engineers ever say "That's it, we've cracked it, there need be no more updates". - Chance would be a fine thing.

 

The more complex the software, the more errors.  And you want to trust your life to it.  God help you.

[fabdavrav]

1 hour ago, avi4tor said:

Not to mention the first Airbus flight where it was demonstrated to the airlines - the computer made sure it landed in a forest with disasterous consequences.

 

i would prefer to fly with a pilot who was prepared to ignore the computer (bearing in mind that the pilot is an employee, not an owner, and is severely restricted in what they can do).

 

 

Agreed.....& back to what I said several posts ago...safety systems are all well & good, but they are ALL limited by the quantity & quality of the data they can see, & their programming, which can be flawed!...A well trained & competent person that can 100% override the computer & take back full manual control is the best solution. (or don't fit the stupid system in the first place!)

 

The trend in modern cars to fit far too many intrusive "safety systems" encourages people to ditch their brains before they get in ...& when the car gets into a situation that the computer flashes up on the dash "I can't cope, driver must take over"....the proverbial hits the fan as the driver has no idea what to do...

 

As far as I am concerned, if you have to have Lane assist & similar devices fitted to prevent loss of control of the car as you are worried you might lose consciousness etc. (as some have said)...then you really should not be behind the wheel ...& to quote others:- "throw away the keys & get a bus" ....is actually the safest option for yourself & other road uses, as you are a danger!!

 

Edited 7 January by fabdavrav

[Ootohere]

The systems are supposed to evolve into Self Driving Vehicles & the problems is EU & UK Commissioners without a clue ans allowing manufacturers and experts to decide what they want.

 

VW Group were the ones taking Software In-house an ballsing that up, as they have over decades with many systems that they procure or try to drive costs down and sometimes end up buying into the companies or taking over, or even driving into the wall.

 

Like some of their vehicles might drive you into a wall, ditch or oncoming vehicles.

 

They are so far behind thew curve just as Ford are who are now a partner.

They had Suzuki as a partner by trying to take them over and all that happened was Toyota lent Suzuki money to buy back the shares and then someone blew the whistle on VW & VW blamed minions for Defeat Devises & Bosch said, not us Gov we just design stuff and VW use it even if illegal or not fit for purpose.

 

Then the EU just srug and do as the German Government want. Let the tail wag the dog.   Or ESP keep them on the way to the future.

[SouthernComfort]

56 minutes ago, fabdavrav said:

 

 

Agreed.....& back to what I said several posts ago...safety systems are all well & good, but they are ALL limited by the quantity & quality of the data they can see, & their programming, which can be flawed!...A well trained & competent person that can 100% override the computer & take back full manual control is the best solution. (or don't fit the stupid system in the first place!)

 

The trend in modern cars to fit far too many intrusive "safety systems" encourages people to ditch their brains before they get in ...& when the car gets into a situation that the computer flashes up on the dash "I can't cope, driver must take over"....the proverbial hits the fan as the driver has no idea what to do...

 

As far as I am concerned, if you have to have Lane assist & similar devices fitted to prevent loss of control of the car as you are worried you might lose consciousness etc. (as some have said)...then you really should not be behind the wheel ...& to quote others:- "throw away the keys & get a bus" ....is actually the safest option for yourself & other road uses, as you are a danger!!

 

You may well be cavalier enough to mock the prospect of anyone losing capacity whilst behind the wheel. In the real world, heart attacks for example, come without warning, any age, any gender, any time, any place. Mate, I hope you never experience one, especially in a driving situation. But then again you won't be able to predict that. Following your philosophy maybe none of us should be on the road.

[Llwyngwernog]

So are we all stupid to use driver assistance systems ?

I see stupid people everywhere like those who smoke cigarettes 

[fabdavrav]

38 minutes ago, SouthernComfort said:

You may well be cavalier enough to mock the prospect of anyone losing capacity whilst behind the wheel. In the real world, heart attacks for example, come without warning, any age, any gender, any time, any place. Mate, I hope you never experience one, especially in a driving situation. But then again you won't be able to predict that. Following your philosophy maybe none of us should be on the road.

 

Heart attacks can happen to anyone...but your health or lack of, will pre-dispone you more or less to them..so you will have a good idea if you will suffer from them..& heart attacks are NOT the main cause of car accidents...

 

5 major causes of UK road traffic accidents and how to avoid them - Serious Injury law

 

Factors leading to road accidents in Great Britain | Statista

 

 

 

 

I've had & still have several health problems which have over the past circa 18yrs affected my ability to drive at one time or the other...If I don't feel fit enough to cope either physically of mentally I don't drive....maybe I'm just more aware of my limitations & of my health in general....being in control of a high speed weapon (car) which can & does kill is a reasonability!

 

You don't have to have health problems to be a danger to yourself & others when you get behind the wheel of the car....according to UK data apparently circa 38% of all UK accidents are caused by "driver failed to look properly"....then you have failure to "judge other persons speed" at 20%....etc....this is usually due to the MENTAL capacity of the driver at the time......are they AWAKE??...are they DISTRACTED?....

 

Example:-

When I'm fit & go mountaineering, the worst is when you all get back to the car after a long day in the hills...you will be tired, physically & mentally & you relax way too much (most mountaineering accidents are on the walk off)......I see many people get straight into their car & bomb it back home....I get changed into "driving" clothes, open the flask of coffee I had stowed in the car & have a sit down, have the coffee & some food. This might be a 30mins break but it mentally prepares me for what could be up to a 2hr long drive on twisty back roads in winter with snow etc.....& its way better than jumping straight into the car & relying on the "driver assist" systems!

 

 

[Warrior193]

5 hours ago, avi4tor said:

Re: pilots and doing things "by the book".  Take a look at the aircraft that landed in The Hudson after a bird strike on take-off.  The pilot followed the rules and ended up landing on the water.  If he had ignored the rules he could have got back to the airfield. And yes, I have a pilot's licence.

 

And there was the Airbus that had an engine blowout on take off.  It needed to land immediately, but was too heavy due to excess fuel.  The computer said "not possible".  The pilot managed it anyway.

I believe more pilots (and passengers) have died by ignoring usual procedure of continuing straight out after suffering power loss during departure, by attempting to return to runway, then stalling into the ground. 

[Ootohere]

Respect to Marilyn Carr from Dundee.  Born in 1941 without arms and not because of thalidomide.   She  lived life to the full using her feet and was a typist, drove a standard Mini using her feet before years later she had adaptions on vehicles. She married a pilot and also flew planes.  She was a supporter of Douglas Bader and his and other charities.  BLESMA among them.  Helping people get adaptions. But then many drive with disabilities, and some systems on cars when built can be set to assist.  Steering assistance or brake assistance increased or decreased being pretty usual. Years back it was maybe Mechanical pedal and steering adaptions or the lights / stalks where now it can be electrical / software that makes the difference.  

Edited 7 January by Rooted