Yeah, but that level of incompetence is dangerous regardless. These sorts of systems can go some way to mitigate that and the worst case scenario in a failure is a resumption of normal incompetence.
Once you get up to the point where the driver can safely disengage from driving in normal use- driverless car basically- then yeah, failure becomes a concern. But driving aids always leave the driver in charge
But driving aids always leave the driver in charge
But they make a driver more complacent too. I can't think of a better example than active cruise control to be honest. Do you seriously cover the brake pedal every time it kicks in on the off-chance it might fail and hand the responsibility back to you?
But they make a driver more complacent too. I can't think of a better example than active cruise control to be honest. Do you seriously cover the brake pedal every time it kicks in on the off-chance it might fail and hand the responsibility back to you?
All this must have been factored in to the risk assessment for the tech. If it's available in the US they must be pretty happy that it is very much balanced towards safety given the risk of litigation.
But as these systems become more sophisticated and driving requires less driver input - is that the end of driving for enjoyment and so the market for performance cars? In the end will Governments start making this stuff compulsory and un-switch-off-able if it genuinely and materially reduces the risk of accidents?
There seems to be a real dichotomy of opinions here.
Wouldn't it be easier for every woman, old person and sanctimonious person to have a power limited car that's restricted to 70mph? The rest of us can have sufficient power to ensure we aren't frustrated by them?
I don't often speed - but I do like power. But then I just drive an ickle Focus Estate (ST3).
But driving aids always leave the driver in charge
I've pondered on this before, a lot of new drivers have never driven a car without power steering, brake servo, or without ABS, or without traction control, stability control etc.
They may be left 'in charge', but in a case of a failure of those aids left in charge of a vehicle which is handles so differently from what they're used to it might as well be something they've never driven before.
It's all well and good if you have, and you can the fall back on previous learned experience, but I remember having to have a quite bizarre discussion with my GF the first time she drove my hilux about the fact that it didn't have ABS so to be aware of it if she needed to stop in an emergency, and that a boot-full of go pedal on a wet roundabout when it was in RWD mode was not a great idea. I also had to explain about the difflocks and when NOT to use them for fear of winding the transmission up, she thought she should stick it in 4WD all the time because it would have more grip and therefore be safer.
She'd also never skidded a car, or properly lost traction and was consequently terrified of having to drive in ice and snow, she at least had the awareness to realise she might have problems. Many don't, and I really don't think driver training in this country goes far enough, getting to the bare minimum standard necessary to pass the test is step 1, but to most it's treated as the end goal.
Aids are fine and dandy when they are working, and should rightly be used, but there does still need to be awareness of the fact that it IS an aid and mustn't lead to complacency.
I'm not sure what my actual point is exactly but just throwing my thoughts out there.
[url= http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2013/07/12/01016-20130712ARTFIG00357-les-regulateurs-de-vitesse-attenuent-la-vigilance-des-conducteurs.php ]Strasbourg University tested drivers in a simulator and found the cruise control made them less vigilant.[/url]
French statistics show that whilst the overall accident rate is going down the accidents due to people falling asleep and making errors whilst distracted is increasing.
All this must have been factored in to the risk assessment for the tech. If it's available in the US they must be pretty happy that it is very much balanced towards safety given the risk of litigation.
There are no end of lawsuits in the US due to malfunctioning cruise controls. There have been some large manufacturer recalls over it too. I'm not saying cruise control is inherently dangerous (I use it myself) just that if you extrapolate these "simple" driver aids into a largely automated vehicle then the whole industry will need to change in terms of regulation, servicing etc.
As a result I don't think mass car driving automation will happen any time soon. Makes a good story for the likes of Google though.
It seems obvious that you need a powerful car to safely overtake. If I want to overtake 10 or 12 cars and a tractor on a country road, at night, in the rain with a bend coming up I wouldn't want to do that with less that 400bhp.Seems completely sane to me.
I wouldn't want to do that in any car to be honest so nice troll but not really a valid example. However with good visibility ahead, the right road conditions, with sufficient distance before bend/junction ahead etc (allowing for someone fast coming the other way) then 400hp does allow you to safely exploit overtaking opportunities (sometimes multiple) that would leave too much room for error in a lesser powered car.
I'm guessing this is exactly the dilemma Molgrips faces. An opportunity that might be marginal for his Passat could be completely safe in a much higher powered car (or for a driver who's given himself a greater degree of forward visibility because he's hanging back slightly from a tightly bunched group of cars ahead).
Lets not feed the troll hey.
It's good when it's working, but what about when it fails and you're not ready for it?
Identifying system failure will be one of the first things taken away from the operator and connected to the web. It will be on a car near you very soon.
TBH I think you'd have to be phenomenally stupid to be so unattentive- it's not like you can switch off while driving on active cruise, you're still managing everything bar speed.
It may be an urban myth, but I remember a tale from a few years ago about a bloke in the US who tried to sue Winnebago after his careered off the road. He'd stuck cruise control on and then nipped in the back to make a brew.
it's curious that with skydiving, everyone's happy to admit there's a danger and quite happily accepts they have to follow specific procedures to manage that danger.
Interesting analogy, not least because it's wrong.
In skydiving, whenever there's an accident there's an incident report (it has a catchy name which I can't immediately remember). Back when I used to hurl myself out of perfectly good aeroplanes I got into the habit of reading them as learning from others' mistakes struck me as a Really Good Idea.
Skydiving has a piece of safety kit called an AAD - an Automatic Activation Device. Simplistically, it detects whether you're below a certain altitude above a certain velocity, (ie, near the ground and not under canopy) and deploys your reserve. It's unpopular in some circles as it's not without drawbacks; complications due to misfires (you really don't want your reserve out if you've just deployed your main) and thrill-seekers choosing to intentionally pull lower than the AAD would have fired.
Every one of the incident reports has a little tick box, "would an AAD have saved the parachutist's life?" and in almost every fatality case the answer is "yes."
So yes everyone knows there's a risk, however not everyone follows recommended procedures to mitigate that, occasionally with tragic results. There used to be a poster at our DZ, "take not thine altitude in vain, for lo the ground shall rise up and smite thee" which is a quasi-biblical way of saying "don't be a dick."
Identifying system failure will be one of the first things taken away from the operator and connected to the web. It will be on a car near you very soon.
It's already here, I saw it on a report on it a couple of years ago. Cadillac? Maybe. Chap was stopped at the roadside, a mechanic from the dealer turned up, said "your car's told us there's a fault," fixed it, when on his way.
Identifying system failure will be one of the first things taken away from the operator and connected to the web. It will be on a car near you very soon.
Great, so you can get on the web from your hospital bed to see what went wrong.
It's not about balls-out BHP, it's about balance and the ability of the chassis and the brakes to handle the power. My brother works as a chassis and powertrain engineer in Detroit (he it was who engineered and built Hummer 11) and on a recent trip to the UK he hired a VW Passat Tdi estate. He was massively impressed with the car, saying it was not exciting to drive but was the most balanced car he had ever driven. I reckon he'd have said the same if he had driven a Mondeo or several other modern European executive cars.
Are we doing this again, really ? We just had 9 pages of it..... 🙄
I like having a bit of oomph under my right foot. It's more fun.
Whether it's just a quick, pointless bit of accelerating or overtaking quickly, I enjoy it.
Good enough reason for me to want an above average powered car.
I'm guessing this is exactly the dilemma Molgrips faces. An opportunity that might be marginal for his Passat could be completely safe in a much higher powered car
Of course - but I'll just relax and go when it is safe.
or for a driver who's given himself a greater degree of forward visibility because he's hanging back slightly from a tightly bunched group of cars ahead
I've no idea where this idea came from that I stay too close to the car I want to overtake. I've never said I do that, none of you have seen me do it. FFS I used to overtake in a 950cc Fiesta, you had to hang back in that thing to get a run up.
So yes everyone knows there's a risk, however not everyone follows recommended procedures to mitigate that, occasionally with tragic results. There used to be a poster at our DZ, "take not thine altitude in vain, for lo the ground shall rise up and smite thee" which is a quasi-biblical way of saying "don't be a dick."
I think we're on the same place here - there's no general acceptance of 'don't be a dick' in driving culture.
AAD was an optional piece of kit, at least when I was jumping (2000-2002). When I say known and accepted procedures I mean more things like packing your parachute the same way every time to minimise the risk of a malfunction, checking each other's reserve pin just before you got into the plane etc, tightly managed exit order, spotting etc - no-one ever complained about needing to do those things or accused anyone of being sanctimonious when they insisted on doing it.
Almost the polar opposite of attitudes to speed limits, highway code, red lights etc
It's already here, I saw it on a report on it a couple of years ago. Cadillac? Maybe. Chap was stopped at the roadside, a mechanic from the dealer turned up, said "your car's told us there's a fault," fixed it, when on his way.
That's it, its offered in a few new cars and can be retrofitted by using a OBD device, the value is in the analysis of the vehicles fault codes to correctly predict failure before it effects the vehicle and then get that message to the driver.
I would expect not having it will be the exception very soon.
modern driving enthusiasts are too ridiculous for UK roads
moshimonster - Member
But they make a driver more complacent too. I can't think of a better example than active cruise control to be honest. Do you seriously cover the brake pedal every time it kicks in on the off-chance it might fail and hand the responsibility back to you?
You should always be in control of the car. That doesn't mean covering the pedal, though, just being ready to act if you need to. Nothing to do with failures really, there's other reasons that you might want to brake independentaly of acc, just as when you're driving normally there's other reasons to vary speed other than maintaining a gap
ABS is totally a better example, because it can fail invisibly then not be there in an emergency or other hard braking situation. Is your ABS working? I assume mine is, no warning lights or fault codes but I've not used it for a looooong time. ACC can't fail without being immediately obvious.
Cougar - ModeratorIt's already here, I saw it on a report on it a couple of years ago. Cadillac? Maybe. Chap was stopped at the roadside, a mechanic from the dealer turned up, said "your car's told us there's a fault," fixed it, when on his way.
I have a man from Ford follow me around, it's more efficient
People generally tend to enjoy doing stuff [b]that they for some reason think[/b] they're good at - so this might explain it to some degree.
FTFY
molgrips
FFS I used to overtake in a 950cc Fiesta, you had to hang back in that thing to get a run up.
Yup, that sounds safer than say, having an adequately powerful car for example. And seems in no way at odds with
molgripsbut I'll just relax and go when it is safe.
It's not at odds, no. I overtook when it was safe. It just took more planning. See the Clio example earlier.
Simply overtaking slowly isn't an issue if there's enough road.
It's easier with a pokier car, but you're right; overtaking is all about forward planning.
I'm guessing this is exactly the dilemma Molgrips faces. An opportunity that might be marginal for his Passat could be completely safe in a much higher powered carOf course - but I'll just relax and go when it is safe.
But isn't this at odds with what you've previously complained about, I.e. when some selfish **** overtakes from behind and doesn't wait his place in the overtaking queue? You didn't seem relaxed last time this was discussed!
No, it is at odds and it's at odds with the highway code too.
Imagine of that fiesta had more power, say for example a heady 115 bhp like a mk1 golf gti, which you claim is too powerful for the road.
It's easier with a pokier car, but you're right; overtaking is all about forward planning.
As long as someone isn't bombing up the ouside of the queue in their cockmobile...
.. and we're back full circle!
...back to the imaginary queue 🙁
Seems like everyone should just buy an MX5 like mine.
Fun, not that fast and very little automatic systems on it
Far too powerful.
I happily drove a 65bhp Aygo from Manchester to Nr.Frankfurt. I happily overtook cars on Snakepass in the later C1, also 65bhp engine.
We dont NEED fast cars but it makes insecure men feel good so hey.
[i]you're[/i] too powerful
yourguitarhero - MemberSeems like everyone should just buy an MX5 like mine.
Fun, not that fast and very little automatic systems on it
I think it has insufficient wheelbarrow docking space
Power is gooooood. thing is bhp is BRAKE horse power so actually the engine brakes the speed quicker while a smaller less engine with less compression will brake slower 🙂 just saying!
Back to the OP - I think the precept that cars aren't faster is incorrect, if you look at 0-60 times (car mag measured) rather than claimed power to weight ratios then cars are much faster than they were in the 70s.
Top speeds and acceleration at speed is less to do with power to weight ratio too as drag starts to come into it. And as most mags don't even bother trying to measure top speeds (except in the odd closed road marketing exercise from Bugatti etc.) these days, I think that says it all.
But, somehow, less people (still too many of course) are getting killed and seriously injured on the roads per year than in the 70s. Must be doing something right.
philjunior - MemberBack to the OP - I think the precept that cars aren't faster is incorrect, if you look at 0-60 times (car mag measured) rather than claimed power to weight ratios then cars are much faster than they were in the 70s.
Well since it's going to be hard to get performance figures for a base spec Golf I looked at the GTI again. 0-60 in the late 70's claimed at 8.1 seconds, the current golf GTI does it in 6.5 seconds. So in 30+ years that's 1.6 second decrease or a 25% increase in 0-60 performance. Less than 1% increase every year.
Less drivers are getting killed and injured due to seat belts, crumple zones, air bags, better road infrastructure, speed cameras, less drink driving... . Now look at pedestrian and cyclist deaths and bear in mind that fewer people walk and cycle.
What's changed is not so much the "peak" power to weight ratio if you compare modern cars to old ones, but the "fatness" and accessability of the power at ALL engine speeds. With the advent of all these modern turbo cars, pretty much even crappy cars have 200Nm at about 2000rpm, thats something like 50Nm more than say a golf Gti Mk1 had at PEAK torque! As a result, and with the added traction, and better cabin NVH, people can travel a lot faster in the real world that they realise if they are not concentrated on driving.
And they really, really aren't concentrating on driving.......
Exactly. Not concentrating is dangerous in itself but can also result in too much speed ESPECIALLY in a plush modern car. You noticed it in the old days because you started having to rise your voice over the engine...
At least with speed there is a big dial in front of you showing it in an absolute sense. If cars has attentionometers and there were attention cameras on roadsides, then great - install those instead.
maxtorque - MemberWhat's changed is not so much the "peak" power to weight ratio if you compare modern cars to old ones, but the "fatness" and accessability of the power at ALL engine speeds
Absolutely. Useable power across the rev range is greatly improved, so cars are more driveable. Of course that's supplemented by abs brakes, improved handling, tyres, traction control. But my point is, they haven't morphed into flame spitting, child murdering super cars. The average car is still less than 100bhp per tonne.
Whilst BHP per tonne doesn't indicate drive-ability or torque it's a key metric of how fast a car can be. Some people would argue it's the only true measure of performance.
Its the advances in NVH that maxtorque mention really make the difference. In the 80's in pretty much any car 70mph on a bumpy B road felt really fast. Especially in smaller cars like minis, metros, 205's , Golfs, Astras and Escorts.
Modern cars have so much more sound deadening materials used in construction to mask road noise and quieter tyres. Suspension has improved alot, and with it ride and handling quality.
The luxo barge market is still better , take a newer Insignia and compare to an old Carlton for example. Or a new Mondeo against an old Seirra.
Add in better seats , better interiors that deaden road rumble, electronic toys to help you if it goes abit wrong, better headlights and all of a sudden its very easy to barrel along at 75 - 80 and feel perfectly safe and secure .
In some ways having a nice big fat powerband will make the car safer as it's more predictable. IF you have a narrow powerband and the same power (to weight) you're far more likely to put your foot down out of the powerband, hit it, wheelspin/understeer/spin off the road depending on driven wheels. If you have a nice wide spread of power you'd have to be properly stupid to do that.
After a big Leffe, several Guinness and now Jameson I'm not sure I'm ina postion to disagree with you, but I disagree if I think I'm understanding what I think you're saying. If peak power is right at the redline then you have to rev the nuts off a car to get it to go quickly, but if you've got peak power lower in the rev range you can brake traction or lose control more easily.
They're too refined - not too powerful.
Edit: Sorry, didn't see how long this is! Peaky power bands feel faster - a massively boosty power delivery makes a car feel a lot quicker. Definitely agree with the safety concern - especially for people who expect an old school power delivery. Doesn't apply to driving gods though, obviously 😀
