Ford’s BlueCruise assisted-driving technology - Problems?

[Bellow]

The way I see it, the car has sensors that react very quickly, while human drivers use predictive behaviours instead : for example, before an exit on the motorway, you'll keep an eye out for cars on your right trying to cut across two lanes to make the exit, that's experience that compensates for the slower response time of humans.

The car doesn't need to predict what other drivers might do, because it will react in time to prevent a collision.

It can only do that within the level of available grip. If the 'cut across' is very late then there might not be the grip available but had the cut across car been observed earlier and avoidance began sooner, the available grip might be sufficient to avoid collision.
Reduced observation and relying on perceived skill is what gets so many inexperienced drivers into trouble.

 

[markjay]

It can only do that within the level of available grip. If the 'cut across' is very late then there might not be the grip available but had the cut across car been observed earlier and avoidance began sooner, the available grip might be sufficient to avoid collision.
Reduced observation and relying on perceived skill is what gets so many inexperienced drivers into trouble.

The same applies to watching out for cars initially taking the exit then last minute cutting from the slip road back into the motorway, BTW.

I think that there will always be situations where a human drivers who can predict the behaviour of other drivers based on experience will be able to avoid a crash that the computer will not.

However, overall, computer driven card will be safer than human drivers because they can detect more and react much faster.

In a way it's a bit like with seatbelt - there will always be individual cases where someone be
ing thrown out of the car may survive while those inside didn't (e.g. car caught fire or ended up going over a cliff etc), but over overall, wearing seatbelts is the safer option by far, statistically speaking.

 

[DrNick]

Play the odds. Drive with the computer but keep looking out the window.

It’s people that cause most crashes. When everything is autonomous there will be no more crashes. It will take a while but until we get there, the unpredictable mix of computers and people will make life exciting (but less exciting than if it remained all people!)
There will be less crashes between computers and people than people and people by any comparable metric, whichever way you spin it.
Fortunately it’s not Windows that is powering these cars. If it was the car would’ve crashed before it even got out of the drive!

 

[Flyinspanner]

Sweepstake on date of first crash?

 

[Flyinspanner]

It would be ironic if it was into a similar autonomous Ford….
who would the insurers blame

 

[Bellow]

I think that there will always be situations where a human drivers who can predict the behaviour of other drivers based on experience will be able to avoid a crash that the computer will not.

However, overall, computer driven card will be safer than human drivers because they can detect more and react much faster.

Slightly contradictory statements but I get what you are saying. The reality is we move to autonomous driving rather than improve the standard of human driving.

Play the odds. Drive with the computer but keep looking out the window.

Agreed. But if I'm driving with the same level of vigilance as when I'm under full control - I'd be as well be in full control. I can't 'relax' and be vigilant. It's one or the other and I know which has kept me alive thus far.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Funny how a few people have commented on systems like this failing and are predicting its first failure and eventual RTA. (Which they will pounce on.)

But what about the 1,000’s of daily crashes on our roads cause by human error?

I’d trust the car more than a human.

 

[baxlin]

You should be able to adjust that to maintain a bigger gap, and therefore prompt the car to adjust it’s speed sooner,

I can, yes, and do, but it’s instinctive to want to be in control, I find.

 

[markjay]

Slightly contradictory statements but I get what you are saying. The reality is we move to autonomous driving rather than improve the standard of human driving.


Agreed. But if I'm driving with the same level of vigilance as when I'm under full control - I'd be as well be in full control. I can't 'relax' and be vigilant. It's one or the other and I know which has kept me alive thus far.

There may not be a need to improve the human driver, is the computer takes over.

Additionally, once cars start talking to each other (digitally), they'll simply know where each car is and avoid collisions electronically (though obviously there'll still be pedestrians, animals, and other objects to avoid).

 

[Bellow]

There may not be a need to improve the human driver, is the computer takes over.

Except the autonomous car cannot stop or see the kamikaze 2-lane lung for the exit. Or stop another autonomous car from executing it as it will not for legal/liability reasons deny the driver's input.

Additionally, once cars start talking to each other (digitally), they'll simply know where each car is and avoid collisions electronically (though obviously there'll still be pedestrians, animals, and other objects to avoid).

To avoid collision all the autonomous car can do is brake and steer within the confines of the road. It cannot assess whether leaving the road is a viable option or a death sentence (hay stack or off the edge of a mountain). I can.

 

[markjay]

Except the autonomous car cannot stop or see the kamikaze 2-lane lung for the exit. Or stop another autonomous car from executing it as it will not for legal/liability reasons deny the driver's input.

To avoid collision all the autonomous car can do is brake and steer within the confines of the road. It cannot assess whether leaving the road is a viable option or a death sentence (hay stack or off the edge of a mountain). I can.

In the (distant) future, it is likely that cars will manage their location and speeds while avoiding other cars on their digital between. Objects not on the same grid (older cars, animals, etc) will need to be avoided as they are now, using a combination of radar and cameras.

 

[Bellow]

In the (distant) future, it is likely that cars will manage their location and speeds while avoiding other cars on their digital between. Objects not on the same grid (older cars, animals, etc) will need to be avoided as they are now, using a combination of radar and cameras.

I can see safety in the scenario where all cars are autonomous. But still don't believe they will be safer than a good driver. For sure the fallibility of a human will be absent but so will that last element of judgement in an unforeseen situation. Eg, where a skilled driver can accelerate out of the hazard where otherwise all that is possible is a collision at a lower speed. I just don't see autonomous cars being permitted that option when say, after said acceleration avoidance of oncoming traffic is required. A skilled driver can pull that off in extremis but an autonomous car granted the same permission? Nah. Not in today's (and tomorrow's) risk averse environment.

 

[DrNick]

Slightly contradictory statements but I get what you are saying. The reality is we move to autonomous driving rather than improve the standard of human driving.


Agreed. But if I'm driving with the same level of vigilance as when I'm under full control - I'd be as well be in full control. I can't 'relax' and be vigilant. It's one or the other and I know which has kept me alive thus far.

It’s entirely possible to relax and be vigilant. I drove down to the South of France last week on pilot assist (as Volvo calls their system) and I had to concentrate a lot less than when driving without it. In adverse weather conditions it makes a huge difference. It’s by far the best feature of the car when travelling long distances on proper roads. And in stop start. The bits in between-it’s a work in progress.

 

[markjay]

I can see safety in the scenario where all cars are autonomous. But still don't believe they will be safer than a good driver. For sure the fallibility of a human will be absent but so will that last element of judgement in an unforeseen situation. Eg, where a skilled driver can accelerate out of the hazard where otherwise all that is possible is a collision at a lower speed. I just don't see autonomous cars being permitted that option when say, after said acceleration avoidance of oncoming traffic is required. A skilled driver can pull that off in extremis but an autonomous car granted the same permission? Nah. Not in today's (and tomorrow's) risk averse environment.

I don't disagree, however, I still think that autonomous cars will be safer overall.

Yes, they will on occasion be involved in crashes that a human driver would have avoided, but more frequently they will avoid crashed that human drivers wouldn't have avoided. So that should result in a net decrease in road fatalities and injuries.

Of, course, there's no data to support this prediction, but this is what I think will happen.