Are new vehicles crossing the line?

This all has nothing to do with the tech it is the people in the car that should be focused on the road but aren't. Before all this there were just different ways to be distracted while driving. Having a screen on my dash is way less distracting than the lady next to me this morning doing her make up driving down the road. Besides before long car will drive themselves and we can take the weak link out of the equation the bad drivers.

my car auto button on climate control car takes car of rest

radio has presets

I did hit a curb last fall pulling into gas station wife's phone was screaming off course etc.

I remember hearing that with the advent / introduction of air bags & anti lock brakes that people tend to go faster due to the feeling of 'being safer'.. Since we have all these added safety features, people tend to take more risks.. At least, that's the theory.

We (as a society) seem to be in more of a rush these days too, with the average "work day" far exceeding the traditional 9-5 time frame. Work can now call at any time, and should be dealt with. It's no longer acceptable to have a parent home to look after the young-uns, nor allow them to come home via 'latch key" and so ensures the race to get to the day care, or call them to state being late. basically, we are trying to squeeze in as much as we can, and have even adopted multi-tasking at any available opportunity.

Also, having never been in a accident, "how bad can it be?!" or "it'll never happen to me" but once it does, habits will quickly change.

At a local school meeting, the parent; were complaining of drivers speeding thru a school zone. The cops came & "studied" the situation. their recommendation found that it was the parent's who were speeding thru the school zone. racing to get a parking space on the street, then racing off once their kids were dropped off. Of course, I find it amazing how many people drive their kids to & from school In my day, if mum or dad drove, there as a serious issue

My Mercedes tells me precisely which bulb is burned out. It was from the bulb era. Most have LEDs now...

crossfire said:

One thing with all the great stuff they put in a car why can't the car tell you when outside lights are burnt out? brake lights, signal lights,???

Click to expand...

I had an opportunity to talk to an individual has been doing traffic law for over 30 years. I asked him about all of this technology going into vehicles from cameras to radar. and where do the legal experts stand on these devices? His answer was an eye opener. He said, even if the car was in auto drive and the driver could just relax and not steer, or sleep if he likes, the driver, IS, still responsible for the vehicle's actions. WTF! I said how? He replied, the driver puts the vehicle in motion. You can not separate the vehicle from the person. Just like airline pilots.

I am so glad that I drive a 1993 Dodge Ram without all of this high tech stuff that they have now. How could anyone sleep with that cummins humming away, anyway?

dr wogz said:

I remember hearing that with the advent / introduction of air bags & anti lock brakes that people tend to go faster due to the feeling of 'being safer'.. Since we have all these added safety features, people tend to take more risks.. At least, that's the theory.

We (as a society) seem to be in more of a rush these days too, with the average "work day" far exceeding the traditional 9-5 time frame. Work can now call at any time, and should be dealt with. It's no longer acceptable to have a parent home to look after the young-uns, nor allow them to come home via 'latch key" and so ensures the race to get to the day care, or call them to state being late. basically, we are trying to squeeze in as much as we can, and have even adopted multi-tasking at any available opportunity.

Also, having never been in a accident, "how bad can it be?!" or "it'll never happen to me" but once it does, habits will quickly change.

At a local school meeting, the parent; were complaining of drivers speeding thru a school zone. The cops came & "studied" the situation. their recommendation found that it was the parent's who were speeding thru the school zone. racing to get a parking space on the street, then racing off once their kids were dropped off. Of course, I find it amazing how many people drive their kids to & from school In my day, if mum or dad drove, there as a serious issue

Click to expand...

Airbags are also what changed the recommended 10 and 2 hand positions to 9 and 3 iirc.

rharshberger said:

Airbags are also what changed the recommended 10 and 2 hand positions to 9 and 3 iirc.

Click to expand...

that's how I heard it. When the airbag deploys, the chances are that, with hands at 10 and 2, your forearms will break or sustain serious damage. At 9 and 3 the damage is supposed to be lessened. At least that's how I heard it.

Peartree said:

that's how I heard it. When the airbag deploys, the chances are that, with hands at 10 and 2, your forearms will break or sustain serious damage. At 9 and 3 the damage is supposed to be lessened. At least that's how I heard it.

Click to expand...

I understood it that the 10 & 2 and you arms are thrown up. The bag inflates, but is slightly obstructed,a dn inflates as a lower angle, therefroe you head is likely to hit something.

9 & 3 positions, you arms are thrown outward, and the bag inflates to cover th entire path you are likely to impact..

My biggest fear, is the bridge pad / nose pads on my glasses being driven into my ocular orbs..


I feel we all should have repeated testing, like pilot do, and have a 'new' hazard tossed at us to test reaction times. Like, you need to be re-tested every 5 years.

Here in Quebec / Canada, driver's license are classed; you are able to driver certain vehicles depending on what you are trained on. Trucks are broken into different classes; weigh, # axles, trailer.. As well as motor bikes; classes by engine size. (you learn on 'a bike' but your classification is based on the engine size when you take you test. I do seriously wish cars had their class broken down; cars under 2000lb, small pick-up & SUV, full size pick up trucks..

Our government was to introduce an added fee for SUVs. Mainly to try an d deter everyone getting one, and to add a bit of tax due to the larger size & weight (road wear), greater energy need (more pollution) and with the weight a greater impact / damage should an accident occur. Of course, it was quickly shot down due to public outrage, that we should be able to drive what we want, when & where we want..

I'm usually a lot more in favor of government intervention than most people on TRF, but I think that having legislative approval of all new tech in a car is a terrible idea. That's mostly because of the lead time to create a law. If you're regulating tech, it's probably a 3-5 year process to create a new law, allowing time for research by the legislative committee staff, public comment, input from manufacturers, etc. So everything would be 3-5 years behind the leading edge of research. Not to mention that they might get it wrong and it's often harder to change laws than create them. I much prefer the approach being taken for self-driving cars: manufacturers are given licenses to experiment, learn, and figure out what the rules should be and what features are needed.

My biggest pet peeve in current car design is much larger A and B pillars, I think due to side curtain airbags. I feel like they have much bigger blind spots that way. My cars are relatively old and/or relatively low trimline, so I don't have a lot of newfangled stuff in my own cars. I mostly see the other stuff in rentals.

A large part of the problem, as I see it, is all the technological advances in the newer vehicles. It used to be that you had to learn how to modulate you brakes to prevent a skid, now the anti-lock brakes do that for you, all you have to do is mash the pedal. But, we also have lane departure warnings, cruise control that will slow you down to the speed of the traffic in front of you, and some systems that will automatically do the braking for you.
The real problem here is that the skill of driving is being replaced by technology. In my view, this is a bad thing, we still need the stimulation and problem solving skills necessary to safely operate any vehicle.

Phil L.

Maxitout said:

The real problem here is that the skill of driving is being replaced by technology. In my view, this is a bad thing, we still need the stimulation and problem solving skills necessary to safely operate any vehicle.

Phil L.

Click to expand...

+1. If the computer makes a mistake, the "driver" isn't going to have the situational awareness to take over.

The thicker pillar sections are due to beefed up roof crush structure requirements. You pair that with windshields that are more raked for aerodynamic reasons, and the effect is a compound increase in horizontal section width. This is why the pillars all around have gotten bigger, though it does provide more packaging room for things like airbags, speakers, grab handles, etc. Most CUV/SUV vehicles now also have thicker rear pillars, often with some form of kink or diagonal shape at the base, that essentially gussets the pillar for further strength (like fin fillets!). This has the side effect of making it harder to see out of the rear too. My old '98 Explorer had great visability - the greenhouse was square, the B, C, & D pillars were essentially vertical and narrow. The windshield was fairly upright (its design was rooted in the '83 Ranger), and the pillars had minimal section width. My current '05 Grand Cherokee has much greater roof crush strength and roll over protection, but the A pillars are so wide that between that and the side mirror placement, I can loose a mid-sized sedan in the forward right view direction (like when you look right before pulling out of a driveway). Rearward visability is poorer too for the reasons described above, and because it has non-removable headrests on the second row (to reduce whiplash for rear passengers in a rear-end collision). All of these design changes server the greater good in that they make collisions and rollover events much more survivable. But they do so at the price of reducing visibility and almost necessitate the addition of the rear view cameras, blind spot monitors, and such. It is, as I said before, part of the viscous circle. It may not end until we have the "cannoli cars" from Demolition Man, or alloy air cars described by Neal Peart in "Red Barchetta" (or, more specifically, in the R&T story that he based the lyrics on).

I will point out that modern ABS systems are really entirely a good thing. Yes, you just mash the pedal and don't learn the pump the brakes or learn threshold braking, but a car's tires' peak grip is reached when the tire is held just off of full lock up, with about 10% slippage. I don't care how good you are, you will never be as effective at modulating the brakes (especially when panicked) as the ABS system, not to mention you retain steering control. Note that I say "modern ABS", as in vehicles with sophisticated calibration and recent development of hardware. Many older ABS systems were, in fact, crap. Especially like with old Explorer, that considered both rear wheels as one. But the effectiveness of today's ABS (and traction and stability control systems) is pretty undeniable. Its a bit like, though not as extreme as, the active fly-by-wire systems in a fighter jet - there's no way a human could maintain control over modern fighter without continuous computer intervention to trim the intended control inputs. The inherent design is unstable, and the FBW system keeps in manageable. However, with all of that said, I do feel that all of this should be an aide to the driver and not a replacement for.

Peartree said:

My engineering magazine puts out an annual issue on automotive tech.

So far, the weirdest thing I've seen is that in most states, a backup camera, by law, cannot be turned on if the car is in Drive but only turns on when in Reverse. I think it's meant to prevent people from being distracted, but many of these systems are sold to attach to a trailer. Trailers block any view through the rear-view mirror (duh) so having a camera on the back of the trailer that is always on and performs the same function as a mirror would seem to be a safety feature and not a distraction.

Nevertheless, they are illegal to use that way.

Click to expand...

Possibly not... I drive a Dodge promaster at work. The rearview "mirror" is a screen for a back facing camera.

EXPjawa said:

I will point out that modern ABS systems are really entirely a good thing. Yes, you just mash the pedal and don't learn the pump the brakes or learn threshold braking, but a car's tires' peak grip is reached when the tire is held just off of full lock up, with about 10% slippage. I don't care how good you are, you will never be as effective at modulating the brakes (especially when panicked) as the ABS system, not to mention you retain steering control. Note that I say "modern ABS", as in vehicles with sophisticated calibration and recent development of hardware. Many older ABS systems were, in fact, crap. Especially like with old Explorer, that considered both rear wheels as one. But the effectiveness of today's ABS (and traction and stability control systems) is pretty undeniable. Its a bit like, though not as extreme as, the active fly-by-wire systems in a fighter jet - there's no way a human could maintain control over modern fighter without continuous computer intervention to trim the intended control inputs. The inherent design is unstable, and the FBW system keeps in manageable. However, with all of that said, I do feel that all of this should be an aide to the driver and not a replacement for.

Click to expand...

Yes and No. Yes, ABS can do a much better job than nearly all humans, except that, as my brother says, "they're antiLOCK brakes, not a brain transplant" His experience is with repairing cars that crashed due to their drivers driving much to fast for icy roads. The usual complaint is "I don't understand why I crashed, there must be somthing wrong with the brakes because I couldn't stop"

dcullen said:

Yes and No. Yes, ABS can do a much better job than nearly all humans, except that, as my brother says, "they're antiLOCK brakes, not a brain transplant" His experience is with repairing cars that crashed due to their drivers driving much to fast for icy roads. The usual complaint is "I don't understand why I crashed, there must be somthing wrong with the brakes because I couldn't stop"

Click to expand...

"Here's Your Sign".......

Reading all of this I'm struck by the failure to recognize the over riding problem of vehicle safety in the U.S. It's political. Sorry, that's just the way it is. You'll never get the voting public to go along with German style driver qualification requirements if it threatens to make any change to their lifestyle.

dcullen said:

Yes and No. Yes, ABS can do a much better job than nearly all humans, except that, as my brother says, "they're antiLOCK brakes, not a brain transplant" His experience is with repairing cars that crashed due to their drivers driving much to fast for icy roads. The usual complaint is "I don't understand why I crashed, there must be somthing wrong with the brakes because I couldn't stop"

Click to expand...

As I said, the systems are a suplement to the driver, not a replacement. They do not replace making sound decisions for operation of the vehicle, they are not a replacement for common sense. ABS, just like AWD, do not make a car or driver unflappable, but they do help eek out the most available of braking (or acceleration traction) performance. And they are also not a good replacement for suitable tires. At the end of the day, as I said, these systems are absolutely beneficial, but they don't walk on water. The driver still needs to exercise sound judgement, and if they drive too fast on an icy road, that is still on the driver.

If you want safer you have to let technology into the car. Self driving cars are coming. There will be people who will never drive a car.

Here is what I see everyday during my commute. I drive about 30 miles one way into a big city with thousands of others.

A lot of drivers think that their time is more important than mine. Mercedes drivers don't care about anyone else. Prius drivers are the same as Mercedes drivers. A lot of people play with their phones when stopped or at the toll plaza when we are going really slow. Some people are just jackasses when they drive, they can't help it. We seem to get along better when our commute speed is 70 mph or higher. Some people are nervous when entering and exiting tunnels. There are a lot of trucks in the morning. I would love it if someone would give a shaka when they cut in, even a little wave would do. I give preference to BMW drivers because I am one to. Some people like to share their music. Some people are actually lost. Motorcyclists make bad decisions and like to blame cars.

Peter Olivola said:

Reading all of this I'm struck by the failure to recognize the over riding problem of vehicle safety in the U.S. It's political. Sorry, that's just the way it is. You'll never get the voting public to go along with German style driver qualification requirements if it threatens to make any change to their lifestyle.

Click to expand...

Word!

Ahhh,The Autobahn, yes. In that case, I would rob a bank and buy a 2017 Ford GT.
It wouldn't last long here in Michigan the way the roads heave in summer, and bust up in the winter.
And the salt used in winter attacks the concrete.
If you've ever put salt on concrete you know what I mean.
Pits it like putting a cutting torch to it.