Volvo pedestrian detection demo goes terribly, terribly wrong

[Roadkill]

You might not, but then you're probably not the average driver. I'm not suggesting anyone goes, 'ooh my car has airbags, let's go out and drive dangerously', but more that very few people these days know of anyone that's been killed or seriously injured in an RTC whereas in the past it would have been commonplace. This must have an impact, as must making mistakes or poor decisions and regularly getting away with it - psychologically, lack of positive punishment and all that. It's a sideshow because overall the objective of reducing KSIs amongst the population is much more important, but it doesn't do you much good if your particular experience of it is some idiot crashing into you because they were over-reliant on some system.

The problem here is the word 'must have.' It's certainly logical to suggest that people will take more risks whilst driving if they're protected from the consequences of them, but so far as I can see there isn't any meaningful evidence that people actually do. In the end a car accident is a very unpleasant experience - at best - regardless of what you're driving, and most people drive carefully to avoid having one. I don't think that's any less true now than it ever was.

I suppose we're getting back to the old argument that the best way to make people drive carefully would be to stick a big spike on the steering wheel, ready to impale the driver in the event of an accident. To which I always respond that we've been there. Exhibit A, the interior of a 1950s Jaguar XK120:

No seatbelts, no airbag and that nice big metal boss to ruin your ribcage when you're thrown against it. And yet, the road death rate now is less than half what it was when this old Jag was built.

 

[Roadkill]

automation will improve safety, that's whats happened in aviation. Problem with automation in aviation pilots have been de-skilled and the air france AF447 crashed due to poor manual flying skill, but overall automation has provided a net benefit.

I don't know a great deal about aviation so can't really comment, but can you actually put AF447 down to de-skilling, or was it just pilot error? There's a difference. FWIW I'm always suspicious of de-skilling arguments because they can conflate evolution and decline. Back in the nineteenth century a lot of ink was spilled over a supposed decline in the skills of British seamen. 'We have neither seamanship nor seamen now,' one old Admiral grumbled in the pages of The Times. With hindsight it's fairly clear that there was no real decline in skills: seamen were adapting to the then new technology of the steamship, and the older skills of handling a sailing ship were fading as they became less relevant. Similarly, with cars, I don't think the fact that drivers now don't have to double de-clutch or use the choke is any evidence that drivers are less skilled than they were, not least because although some aspects of the interface between human and machine have gone, others have emerged in their places, such as satnav, Bluetooth and various other electronic gubbins.

Over-reliance on technology - as mauvais puts it - is a slightly different argument that IMO does hold a bit more water. If you're used to operating with a particular piece of equipment and it's suddenly taken away then that can cause problems. The Southall Rail Crash in 1997 happened partly because the train's AWS wasn't working, the driver therefore had no aid to spotting signals and he missed one. On a less safety-related note, look how many people on the roads are lost - literally - without their satnavs!

 

[mauvais]

And yet, the road death rate now is less than half what it was when this old Jag was built.

Of course it is, in the face of much greater traffic density too, because KSI accidents aren't solely a function of the driver's attention & risk perception. Even if that were all that caused them, thus excluding the possibility of reducing them via driving standards etc, whether you die or not is primarily a product of vehicle and environmental engineering. And no, I'm not suggesting the big spike, because clearly the advances in safety have delivered benefits that with all the will in the world are highly unlikely to ever be achieved via the route of driver responsibility.

However because of this wide safety buffer, risk perception (and indeed reality) now is almost on a par with operating a washing machine, and if your car stops you veering out of lane, or falling asleep, or crashing into the back of someone, inevitably some people will delegate, and some will come unstuck.

 

[mauvais]

Over-reliance on technology - as mauvais puts it - is a slightly different argument that IMO does hold a bit more water. If you're used to operating with a particular piece of equipment and it's suddenly taken away then that can cause problems. The Southall Rail Crash in 1997 happened partly because the train's AWS wasn't working, the driver therefore had no aid to spotting signals and he missed one. On a less safety-related note, look how many people on the roads are lost - literally - without their satnavs!

Two aviation accidents spring to mind. There are probably many more.

One was the Airbus crash in Paris in 1988 - commonly thought to have been the aeroplane flying-by-wire itself into a forest, or at least ignoring pilot input, but really a 'watch this' moment where the pilot delegated to the computer but didn't understand what protections it would actually offer in what circumstances. A bit like running over your mates with a Volvo I guess.

The other is the recent Asiana crash. This one is more complicated but again seems to come down to incorrect delegation to automated systems, resulting in a failure to actually fly the aircraft. Is that deskilling or pilot error? I say it's both.

Again these things are a product of mixing manual & automated systems. Computers are more reliable than humans and regularly save lives in aviation, no doubt, and so we would rather have them even if the side effect is a less capable meatsack wielding the thing. However pilot error still kills many more people than computers do, but less regularly, pilot intervention can still save lives where systems would not, and society currently prefers to keep it that way around, since anonymous computers killing people is Very Bad. Same with cars.

 

[Roadkill]

However because of this wide safety buffer, risk perception (and indeed reality) now is almost on a par with operating a washing machine, and if your car stops you veering out of lane, or falling asleep, or crashing into the back of someone, inevitably some people will delegate, and some will come unstuck.

The problem here is that we're back to the same old ... well, problem, of this evidently not being the case in practice. As I said before, it's a completely logical and attractive theory that just doesn't seem to play out in real life.

 

[rubbershoes]

Whats the difference between a Volvo and a hedgehog................With a Volvo the pricks are on the inside

Isn't this normally said about Audis rather than Volvos?

And I speak as someone who drive an Audi till recently

 

[Citizen66]

Audi drivers are all hairdressers.

 

[Boycey]

it's his own fault for not being covered in lifepaint

 

[SikhWarrioR]

The problem here is the word 'must have.' It's certainly logical to suggest that people will take more risks whilst driving if they're protected from the consequences of them, but so far as I can see there isn't any meaningful evidence that people actually do. In the end a car accident is a very unpleasant experience - at best - regardless of what you're driving, and most people drive carefully to avoid having one. I don't think that's any less true now than it ever was.

I suppose we're getting back to the old argument that the best way to make people drive carefully would be to stick a big spike on the steering wheel, ready to impale the driver in the event of an accident. To which I always respond that we've been there. Exhibit A, the interior of a 1950s Jaguar XK120:

No seatbelts, no airbag and that nice big metal boss to ruin your ribcage when you're thrown against it. And yet, the road death rate now is less than half what it was when this old Jag was built.

Just like my 1952 Series One SWB Land Rover then, the one I use on an almost daily basis

 

[weltweit]

I used to be that if you wanted to know what safety features were likely to be fitted to normal passenger cars you would watch what was fitted to the Mercedes S Classe which was the first production vehicle to feature anti-lock braking and air bags. I believe the S Classe has automatic braking now so perhaps that might be next to filter down.

 

[Casually Red]

It's all fun and games now . Just wait till your heading for sainsburys in your driverless car . And then some bastard 15 year old hacks it's system , locks the doors and sends you to Middlesbrough . You'll not be laughing then .

Nosirreebob

 

[mhendo]

Some people even manage to run themselves over.

In that category, this has to be one of my all-time favorites:


The title is typically YouTube-misogynist, but the video is a classic. It must have hurt the poor woman pretty badly.

 

[Idris2002]

Like this! (very relevant to thread...)

Why didn't he just run in between ED209's legs?

 

[trabuquera]

human error

 

[Idris2002]

human error

Oh, the humanity.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

On a nearly related topic: Chrysler cars with Uconnect can be hacked, unlocked or crashed by hackers as the remote assist software has a security hole.

http://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ed-update-car-software-hackers-remote-control

 

[SpookyFrank]

What stupid cunt invented a car that you can drive using the internet? How could that not end badly?

 

[T & P]

Imagine a Microsoft-driven car. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[trabuquera]

^it could never cope with having too many windows open at once.

[ba-dum tish!]
/getscoat

 

[Cid]

In that category, this has to be one of my all-time favorites:


The title is typically YouTube-misogynist, but the video is a classic. It must have hurt the poor woman pretty badly.

She was on Fast n' Loud (Discovery channel series about Custom Cars, they have specials in which they watch videos on youtube - I always thought discovery channel was supposed to do actual documentaries, but there you go, and I watched a load so can't really laugh at them too much, anyway...) she seemed fairly relaxed about the whole thing and not stupid.

 

[Cid]

The problem here is that we're back to the same old ... well, problem, of this evidently not being the case in practice. As I said before, it's a completely logical and attractive theory that just doesn't seem to play out in real life.

I suppose it's an illusion of choice... If you're a victim of a computer malfunction you're a raw statistic, the literal 1 in a million chance of failure. With cars it's obvious, you have direct control over the vehicle, so obviously it follows that you have direct control over any accidents, you're an above average driver, never have accidents etc. Bit weird with rail and air... With airlines maybe there's an element of choosing one with a good safety record. You're still a statistic, but you're a statistic that could have been avoided if the pilot hadn't been somewhat troubled or a bit of a show off twat or just very tired. After all every known accident has occurred before your flight, so surely the airlines won't let it happen again.