Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Ford testing new collision avoidance system that takes over the steering to stop you from trying to run over that squirrel in the road who flipped you off   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 46
    More: Interesting, squirrels, Ford Motor Company, autonomous vehicle, IHS Automotive, collisions  
•       •       •

630 clicks; posted to Geek » on 10 Oct 2013 at 3:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



46 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-09 11:54:48 PM  
Put this system on a Pinto, you've got a suicide bomber.
 
2013-10-09 11:58:33 PM  
Have you told a Ford to mind its own f*cking business lately?
 
2013-10-10 12:08:14 AM  
i1.ytimg.com

Approves.
 
2013-10-10 12:41:33 AM  

bingethinker: Put this system on a Pinto, you've got a suicide bomber.


From TFA: if necessary, it applies the brakes, scans for a gap in the road ahead, and steers to avoid a crash.

Most useless bomber ever:
"It was heading right towards me! Then it swerved, and went off an exploded in that empty field!"
 
2013-10-10 01:18:16 AM  
Well, cars can already automatically stop if they sense you're about to run into something, parallel park by themselves, and nudge you back into your lane if you start to drift out of it, so this seems like a natural evolution of that kind of technology.
 
2013-10-10 01:55:55 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: so this seems like a natural evolution of that kind of technology.


Yes but now it's taking over at an ever so slightly more critical time, which makes it considerably more concerning. There are a shiatload of possible use cases and the logic will have to be really complex, which means bugs.
 
2013-10-10 02:03:39 AM  

vossiewulf: TuteTibiImperes: so this seems like a natural evolution of that kind of technology.

Yes but now it's taking over at an ever so slightly more critical time, which makes it considerably more concerning. There are a shiatload of possible use cases and the logic will have to be really complex, which means bugs.


True, but if it's like any of the similar technologies out there, you can just turn it off and never have to use it if you don't trust it.  Of course, if you do want to use it, you'd want to make sure it always works, so, it could possibly create a false sense of security.
 
2013-10-10 03:35:07 AM  
What happens to the guy with average reflexes who is driving behind the computer enhanced, avoidance controlled car when it slams on the brakes?

/or did I just run him into a straw man?
 
2013-10-10 03:42:56 AM  

mutterfark: What happens to the guy with average reflexes who is driving behind the computer enhanced, avoidance controlled car when it slams on the brakes?

/or did I just run him into a straw man?



this, I've wondered about sensing/detecting traffic behind , to the side, and in blindspots,  and how the matrix for judging the effects of a decision to brake/accelerate/swerve   are determined.
 
2013-10-10 03:51:13 AM  
the logic is undeniable

braithwaiteinnovationgroup.com
 
2013-10-10 05:02:13 AM  
I wouldnt buy a car that had this equipped, even if it had the option of being turned off I still wouldn't buy it.
 
2013-10-10 05:04:13 AM  

R-pac: I wouldnt buy a car that had this equipped, even if it had the option of being turned off I still wouldn't buy it.


guess you won't be buying any new cars in the future.  this shiat will just become ever-more-present.

enjoy your 2005 taurus.
 
2013-10-10 05:20:47 AM  

Leader O'Cola: R-pac: I wouldnt buy a car that had this equipped, even if it had the option of being turned off I still wouldn't buy it.

guess you won't be buying any new cars in the future.  this shiat will just become ever-more-present.

enjoy your 2005 taurus.


*frowns at your shenanigans*

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-10-10 05:25:06 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Have you told a Ford to mind its own f*cking business lately?


It wouldn't be needed if modern drivers weren't so terrible at driving.
 
2013-10-10 05:32:09 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: It wouldn't be needed if modern drivers weren't so terrible at driving.


barring physical disability, driving is basically a cognitive function output.

Given the state of politics and intellect in this country... . huh
 
2013-10-10 05:58:04 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Have you told a Ford to mind its own f*cking business lately?

It wouldn't be needed if modern drivers weren't so terrible at driving.


How do you think Henry Ford would feel if you could go back in time and tell him how many people the invention he popularized would kill?
 
2013-10-10 06:07:53 AM  
Maximum Homerdrive.
 
2013-10-10 07:06:11 AM  

mutterfark: What happens to the guy with average reflexes who is driving behind the computer enhanced, avoidance controlled car when it slams on the brakes?

/or did I just run him into a straw man?


The same thing if the guy with average reflexes who is driving behind a non-computer enhanced car, because the guy with average reflexes does not have psychic powers that warn him when a human is about to brake, but not a computer?

Ideally, nothing happens, because Average Man was driving at a safe distance in case the person in front of him suddenly applied the brakes for some reason.
 
2013-10-10 07:14:27 AM  

vossiewulf: TuteTibiImperes: so this seems like a natural evolution of that kind of technology.

Yes but now it's taking over at an ever so slightly more critical time, which makes it considerably more concerning. There are a shiatload of possible use cases and the logic will have to be really complex, which means bugs.


And even with all the bugs it will still outperform humans who are crap at the task and crash (literally) in their hundreds of thousands every day.
 
2013-10-10 07:47:39 AM  

xria: vossiewulf: TuteTibiImperes: so this seems like a natural evolution of that kind of technology.

Yes but now it's taking over at an ever so slightly more critical time, which makes it considerably more concerning. There are a shiatload of possible use cases and the logic will have to be really complex, which means bugs.

And even with all the bugs it will still outperform humans who are crap at the task and crash (literally) in their hundreds of thousands every day.


While lot of this. People expect robot cars to be completely infallible but the reality is that they are already better than the average human and could save thousands of lives every year.
 
2013-10-10 07:47:44 AM  

Felgraf: mutterfark: What happens to the guy with average reflexes who is driving behind the computer enhanced, avoidance controlled car when it slams on the brakes?

/or did I just run him into a straw man?

The same thing if the guy with average reflexes who is driving behind a non-computer enhanced car, because the guy with average reflexes does not have psychic powers that warn him when a human is about to brake, but not a computer?

Ideally, nothing happens, because Average Man was driving at a safe distance in case the person in front of him suddenly applied the brakes for some reason.


Yeah, but if I ride the guy's bumper in front of me, I get to draft on the dead air and go faster when I need to. Just like NASCAR!
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-10-10 08:18:11 AM  
This would make me much happier when driving with my sister, who often looks away from the road while tailgating.
 
2013-10-10 08:30:31 AM  
As someone who was very recently involved in  a motor vehicle crash I'm really getting a kick;

The night before last I hit a deer at high speed. When I saw the deer I had three choices;

1)kill or injure myself my wife and whoever was in the oncoming SUV
2)Put the car into the steep ditch, roll, possibly kill myself or my wife
3)hit a deer.

I had exactly 0 seconds to decide what to do but I think I decided well.  If this device would also make the same choices it would save lives. if it stupidly put my car into the ditch or oncoming traffic then it would be a problem.  The computer assisted braking and traction control helped me slow my car significantly before the impact without losing control of my vehicle. Computers are much better at this sort of thing than we can possibly be.
 
2013-10-10 09:00:49 AM  

vossiewulf: the logic will have to be really complex


Why? The car can "see" every object around you. You can't. The car can calculate the exact speed of all of those objects in relation to its own speed. You can't. The car can calculate the trajectory of them. You can't. The car can run through thousands of possible scenarios for various actions within milliseconds. You can't. The car can seize control of the steering and pedals and take an action within milliseconds. You can't. All it has to do is calculate all the possibilities and pick which one is least likely to cause an accident or, if an accident is inevitable, pick the one that produces the least impact force. All things you can't do in your head (or at least not without a considerable period of time to do and check the calculations). All of this can happen in milliseconds.

Sorry, folks. You're not a better drive than a computer. There's always the case of poor programming, but cars have always been subject to human-induced design flaws so that's not a new problem.

Automatic braking systems that override human input offer superior protection from collisions. It took about 2 decades of effort to get there. It's only a matter of time before steering input is the same.
 
2013-10-10 09:33:11 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Have you told a Ford to mind its own f*cking business lately?

It wouldn't be needed if modern drivers weren't so terrible at driving.


Fixed that for you.
 
2013-10-10 09:39:58 AM  

fusillade762: Dwight_Yeast: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Have you told a Ford to mind its own f*cking business lately?

It wouldn't be needed if modern drivers weren't so terrible at driving.

How do you think Henry Ford would feel if you could go back in time and tell him how many people the invention he popularized would kill?


The moving assembly line?
 
2013-10-10 09:47:42 AM  

Leader O'Cola: R-pac: I wouldnt buy a car that had this equipped, even if it had the option of being turned off I still wouldn't buy it.
guess you won't be buying any new cars in the future.  this shiat will just become ever-more-present.
enjoy your 2005 taurus.


Like I've actually made it up to a 2005 vehicle.

I'll steer my car myself, thanks.

/I can also lock the doors, look in the rearview mirror, and look at a roadmap, myself.
 
2013-10-10 10:17:08 AM  
How would this impact the standard Swoop and Squat insurance scam?
 
2013-10-10 10:22:26 AM  
And the difference between my driving error and Ford's system error is culpability and financial responsibility for the results. Even if you could design a binding user agreement that requires the driver to take responsibility for using the crash avoidance capability, potential victims beyond the driver (passengers, pedestrians, occupants of other vehicles, property owners) wouldn't be bound by it.
 
2013-10-10 10:43:19 AM  

shabu: And the difference between my driving error and Ford's system error is culpability and financial responsibility for the results


Would you be held financially responsible if the crash was caused by the wheel falling off due to a factory defect and you could prove it?

I mean... you would because you can't lawyer up like them... but in theory....
 
2013-10-10 10:52:20 AM  

skozlaw: vossiewulf: the logic will have to be really complex

Why? The car can "see" every object around you. You can't. The car can calculate the exact speed of all of those objects in relation to its own speed. You can't. The car can calculate the trajectory of them. You can't. The car can run through thousands of possible scenarios for various actions within milliseconds. You can't. The car can seize control of the steering and pedals and take an action within milliseconds. You can't. All it has to do is calculate all the possibilities and pick which one is least likely to cause an accident or, if an accident is inevitable, pick the one that produces the least impact force. All things you can't do in your head (or at least not without a considerable period of time to do and check the calculations). All of this can happen in milliseconds.


Yep.  It sure can.  So when you're headed toward the tarpaulin that's come loose from an oncoming semi, it sees that it's coming at you at 60mph, as well as the semi to your left.  The bridge abutment to your right is stationary.  Clearly the bridge abutment is the better choice because it will produce the least impact force, right?

All in milliseconds.

shabu: And the difference between my driving error and Ford's system error is culpability and financial responsibility for the results. Even if you could design a binding user agreement that requires the driver to take responsibility for using the crash avoidance capability, potential victims beyond the driver (passengers, pedestrians, occupants of other vehicles, property owners) wouldn't be bound by it.


And this.

Either the vehicle should have complete control in decision making, or no control.  Assisting the driver's inputs is one thing, deciding what to do every once in a while is less of a good idea.
 
2013-10-10 10:58:14 AM  
Probably save countless lives, but one time it will swerve and run over a baby that it did not detect and that will be the end of it.
 
2013-10-10 11:14:52 AM  
My Ford signals with "be careful" beeps if you get too close to another object, while backing up.  Very useful in parking lot, etc.  Like it better than the fancier systems I've seen with a rearview camera.  You watch the little "movie" on the dashboard, as well as the vehicle's mirrors?

No, thanks.  Too much like playing video games.  I suck at those, but have been driving since long before they first appeared.
 
2013-10-10 11:37:24 AM  
As a guy whose girlfriend once almost drove us off a mountain to avoid a suicidal possum, put me down as skeptical.
 
2013-10-10 02:12:40 PM  

Krieghund: bingethinker: Put this system on a Pinto, you've got a suicide bomber.

From TFA: if necessary, it applies the brakes, scans for a gap in the road ahead, and steers to avoid a crash.

Most useless bomber ever:
"It was heading right towards me! Then it swerved, and went off an exploded in that empty field!"


It was a joke, Francis. A lame one, I admit.
 
2013-10-10 03:16:13 PM  
Computers are totally useless in making "judgement" calls. If you're faced with an impending collision with a semi, the proper strategy is to aim for the wheels, avoiding the deadly "run-under". If an object comes off of an oncoming or leading vehicle, the car/ computer has no ability to tell if it's a sheet of plywood, a tarp, or a sheet of sheet metal, all vastly different hazards. The computer will treat each one the same, probably to your detriment.
 
2013-10-10 03:22:45 PM  
this will do away with my old idea of sillouetts on the side of my car like WW2 planes
a car, a van 2 squirrels, a train, a dog....
 
2013-10-10 03:32:32 PM  

skozlaw: The car can calculate the exact speed of all of those objects in relation to its own speed. You can't. The car can calculate the trajectory of them. You can't. The car can run through thousands of possible scenarios for various actions within milliseconds. You can't. The car can seize control of the steering and pedals and take an action within milliseconds. You can't. All it has to do is calculate all the possibilities and pick which one is least likely to cause an accident or, if an accident is inevitable, pick the one that produces the least impact force. All things you can't do in your head (or at least not without a considerable period of time to do and check the calculations). All of this can happen in milliseconds


Says someone who has apparently never thrown or caught a baseball. The human brain does crap like this all the time, just not at a conscious level.
 
2013-10-10 04:22:34 PM  

Wile_E_Canuck: Clearly the bridge abutment is the better choice because it will produce the least impact force, right?


No, not right since no part of that makes any sense on even a basic physical level. I know Hollywood likes to pretend that when something on a truck comes loose it is somehow propelled violently backwards into traffic through some sort of magical, unknown force, but that doesn't actually happen in real life.

If you wanted to derp about stupid shiat you should have complained that when the car automatically brakes for the tarp you'll get rear-ended. Because rear-end crashes from tailgaters never happen now, after all.

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: The human brain does crap like this all the time


Uh huh. The average human reaction time is well over 200ms. Here's an unfortunate professional athlete who learned that the hard way.

a.espncdn.com

Even ignoring that your brain cannot do those calculations with anywhere near the accuracy of a purpose-built computer, your nervous system can't act on them in anything remotely close to the time of that computer.

You were not purpose built to drive a car. You are a generic machine that can do many things fairly well, but anything that is a matter of pure mathematics, like driving a car, will always be done better by a computer.

Always.

/ why don't you go ask some Chess masters about hubris in the face of technology?
 
2013-10-10 04:47:17 PM  

skozlaw: Wile_E_Canuck: Clearly the bridge abutment is the better choice because it will produce the least impact force, right?

No, not right since no part of that makes any sense on even a basic physical level. I know Hollywood likes to pretend that when something on a truck comes loose it is somehow propelled violently backwards into traffic through some sort of magical, unknown force, but that doesn't actually happen in real life.


Oncoming semi.  Headed in the opposite direction from your vehicle.  Under a bridge.  Tarp releases at the back, still attached at the front of the bed being pulled along by the semi, and flops over into your lane.  Explain again what part of that doesn't physically work, or do I need to draw you a picture?

All the computer sees is 3 obstacles, two of which are heading toward you at 60mph, all 3 of which are unavoidable.  The bridge abutment has 60mph less closing speed.  Under your logic as layed out, it's going to choose the one of the 3 that has the slowest closing speed, which is clearly the wrong choice in this scenario.
 
2013-10-10 05:23:35 PM  

Wile_E_Canuck: skozlaw: Wile_E_Canuck: Clearly the bridge abutment is the better choice because it will produce the least impact force, right?

No, not right since no part of that makes any sense on even a basic physical level. I know Hollywood likes to pretend that when something on a truck comes loose it is somehow propelled violently backwards into traffic through some sort of magical, unknown force, but that doesn't actually happen in real life.

Oncoming semi.  Headed in the opposite direction from your vehicle.  Under a bridge.  Tarp releases at the back, still attached at the front of the bed being pulled along by the semi, and flops over into your lane.  Explain again what part of that doesn't physically work, or do I need to draw you a picture?

All the computer sees is 3 obstacles, two of which are heading toward you at 60mph, all 3 of which are unavoidable.  The bridge abutment has 60mph less closing speed.  Under your logic as layed out, it's going to choose the one of the 3 that has the slowest closing speed, which is clearly the wrong choice in this scenario.


Clearly the engineers should all quit their jobs because some random dude on the internet found the flaw in their idea based on a news article about it.  Details, research, who needs them right?
 
2013-10-10 05:47:50 PM  

Egoy3k: Clearly the engineers should all quit their jobs because some random dude on the internet found the flaw in their idea based on a news article about it.  Details, research, who needs them right?


No, not what I'm saying at all.  What I am saying is until the computer has the capacity to take into account all the variables in the situation and handle the vehicle safely without any human input, it's not a good idea to have it making the decision for you.
 
2013-10-11 07:28:14 AM  

Wile_E_Canuck: Egoy3k: Clearly the engineers should all quit their jobs because some random dude on the internet found the flaw in their idea based on a news article about it.  Details, research, who needs them right?

No, not what I'm saying at all.  What I am saying is until the computer has the capacity to take into account all the variables in the situation and handle the vehicle safely without any human input, it's not a good idea to have it making the decision for you.


How exactly do you know that it doesn't have the ability to detect the difference between a tarp and a concrete bridge abutment? You don't, you invented basic (and poor) logic based on your own musing then devised a situation in which it failed then claimed that the system is unsafe.
 
2013-10-11 07:59:29 AM  

Wile_E_Canuck: Explain again what part of that doesn't physically work


Oh, I get it. You think you're going to drive into a tarp being dragged along the interstate by a 14 ton truck at 65 mph and survive by anything short of the grace of god. And you think this cunning plan makes you smarter than the computer.

Okay, well, I hope you have as many lives as your cartoon namesake, because with dumb plans like that you'll need them.

Computers are not made of magic and pixie dust. They can be put in just as unsurvivable of situations as a human. It's the other 99.9% of the time that the outcome is better.

Now go back to whining about EFI and drive-by-wire systems you dingy old coot.
 
2013-10-11 09:42:47 AM  
I'd like to see a system that takes control of the brakes to keep a car from pulling out in front of motorcycles.

/damn cagers not paying attention
 
2013-10-11 10:44:06 AM  

skozlaw: Computers are not made of magic and pixie dust. They can be put in just as unsurvivable of situations as a human. It's the other 99.9% of the time that the outcome is better.


If it's actually better than the human, why is it not in full control of the vehicle?  How does it make sense that the computer can't deal with normal operation of the vehicle, but when a serious possibly multiple life threatening situation arises, suddenly it takes control away from the driver?
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report