Toyota's new accident avoidance system will take control of the car.

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
Peronally, I think there is more than one way you can look at cars. One is the transportation view and in that a system like Toyota wants to introduce might make perfect sense. To take this thought some years down the line - yes, I would have my Autopilot drive me to work ... no problem there.
Another view is of course to see the car as a recreational device, a toy if you will. A Computer taking control away from the driver makes no sense in that aspect.
I think I would like to have the choice between both. Take the car for a manual spin if I feel like it, or hand over control to a computer while I post on faceoogle what massive a jerk I am ...
Basically the below sums up my thoughts.
I think the issue here is "take control of the car" in event of possible accident, as in it does it against your will, not in a set on autopilot way. That is less of a convenience and more a "you are too stupid to know what is best we will do it for you" thing instead.
My issue here is that I don't trust the car to do what *I* think is the better option. For instance while a common way to escape an accident is to brake, in many situations I actually accelerate because there are people behind me that WILL rear end me if I stomp on the brake, courtesy of EBC's Yellow Stuff.

There is also a concern with sensors failing, sure MOST of the unintended acceleration issues with Toyota cars were BS but there were still SOME real ones that were due to faulty electronics. Now if your TBW freaks out you can easily switch to neutral and floor the brakes but what about the car randomly swirving left at 70?

I don't mind self driving cars as much as many other car enthusiasts as that would allow more people to use car's for transportation and would lessen traffic on the main roads. However true self driving car network would require all cars to be in constant contact with each to "anticipate" actions of the other cars and be able to proactively speed up/slow down/move over to compensate. No one would stop me from driving for recreation, hell they might start having go-karts like racetracks for real cars in that situation.
 

katwalk

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
10,342
Car(s)
2003 VW Beetle, 2017 Abarth Fiat 500c
Quick poll: what percentage of motorists do you recon would need a device to "know what?s best for them in a critical situation"?

I recon, quite a lot ... somewhere above 70% ... and why not let them have it if they want it?
Those people should not be driving and they need to teach things properly. Instead of hours of "observing" they need to teach accident avoidance. The other issue is the government isn't unlike toyota and it wouldn't surprise me if they made this crap mandatory on every car and not able to be shut off.
 

Jman975

New Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2011
Messages
8
Location
Richmond, VA
Car(s)
'00 Lexus GS 300
We all know that doesn't work....

I know, I wish it did though.

The kind of person who likes this technology and buys a car because of it shouldn't even be allowed to drive in the first place!

Amen. If the government would stop requiring all this electronic nanny stuff when driving, maybe people would stop sucking at it. Yet another hopeless dream of mine.
 

Pedrocas

9gag reposting troll
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
6,173
Location
Set?bal, Portugal
Car(s)
Citroen ZX 1.4i Tonic
What's new about this system? Didn't Toyota had an accident avoidance system already that made the cars speed up so to escape any possible accidents?
 

thevictor390

Teen Wankeler
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
11,894
Location
Massachusetts
Car(s)
'17 Mazda MX-5 RF, '89 Toyota Blizzard SX5
I really don't trust a system that takes control of the car, it could go wrong in so many ways. Really simple example: successfully avoided pedestrian A, but wait, there's pedestrian B on the other side.....

And Toyota is REALLY opening themselves up to lawsuits in that kind of situation.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
I really don't trust a system that takes control of the car, it could go wrong in so many ways. Really simple example: successfully avoided pedestrian A, but wait, there's pedestrian B on the other side.....

And Toyota is REALLY opening themselves up to lawsuits in that kind of situation.
Not to mention that many could blame accidents they caused on it...
 

YF19pilot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
2,768
Location
Massillon, OH
Car(s)
2006 Honda Civic Coupe
They technically are. They made this.

Well, MIT graduates. There's a UCAV company floating around that's made up of a lot of people from my Alma Mater, but I wouldn't say my school actually builds aircraft. Though, a college buddy of mine is hoping this takes off (no pun intended): http://www.samsonmotorworks.com/

Otherwise, I'm not liking this idea of 'accident avoidance'. There's too much that can go wrong, and even more if the culture goes down the slippery slope that is "just let the car do it for you" when it comes to driving on the road. We already get people (like my cousin who just turned 18) who rely on GPS so much they'll drive into a clearly visible and marked ditch in broad daylight because the GPS tells them there's a road there. Or this anecdote my mom always tells me about some poor home owners who have a big sign in their driveway that says "Google Maps is wrong, this is not a Park Entrance" and yet people still go up their driveway in spite of it.
 

GraemeH

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
2,976
Location
Scotland, UK
Car(s)
Toyota Corolla, Lexus IS200, BMW E39 5 Series.
So here's something; people can prioritize what to hit and what not to. If you're in a situation where you can swerve left or right, left you hit a an unoccupied car, right and you hit a car with some nice sweet children in it, you make a choice and you know hitting one thing is better than the other.

So here's a more complicated situation; swerve left and hit a car with Hitler in it, swerve right and his the car with some children in it. Now, even if you do invent a computer and radar that can tell how many people are occupying the cars, still only a human can make the value judgement to make the right choice.
 

Buktu

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
2,371
Location
Denmark
Car(s)
Suzuki Swift 1.3 2006
In case of an accident, would you seriously have the time to decide which direction to swerve? I a situation like that, it's gut instinct, not a calculated decision.

If I'm totally honest, there are a lot of people out there whom I do not trust with a car, yet you can't stop them from driving. On what basis? That they suck? Yes, more education and training, making everyone brilliant drivers would obviously be the best solution, but we have to be realistic.

I welcome advances in technology like this. I have no idea if it'll work or not, but it's great that they try.

Though I have to say that this middle road is dangerous, as many of you have pointed out. It'd be better to just get fully automatic systems. Human error is what fucks us up in the first place. It's interesting to see when we will acquire the trust in computers that is needed for something like that. Personally, I can't wait till I can text my car to come get me when I'm drunk.

And if none of this make any sense, it's 3.30am and I am TIRED. Don't quite know where I was going with this post... :p
 

Ford Prefect

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
1,872
Location
Bavaria
Car(s)
MINI, E30, GT86
The much simpler solution (in theory) would of course be for governments the world over to stop handing drivers licenses to anyone smart enough to spell his own name.
 

SpitfireMK461

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
2,682
Location
Northern Virginia
Car(s)
2013 Mini Cooper S
I believe the idea of this is to allow the car to react faster than any human could. Hopefully it is designed so that if the driver is already taking evasive maneuvers, it won't cut in. But when the [I assume] myriad of sensors notices something bad, they will know about the various obstacles surrounding the vehicle and decide how best to remove the car from danger. No matter who you are, there will sometimes be cases where you cannot react fast enough, but a computer will see it coming.

Again, hopefully it is a truly emergency cut in that gives the driver a chance in less immediate situations. Really, though, no one can pass judgment until more info is available.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
If the computer can't figure out what to do, does it flash "YOU ARE SCREWED" on the center display panel? :p
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
In case of an accident, would you seriously have the time to decide which direction to swerve? I a situation like that, it's gut instinct, not a calculated decision.
That is what separates good drivers from bad ones, a good driver can and will make a calculated decision at least in a situation that such a system could help prevent. If someone t-bones you running a red at 60 or rear ends you because they are doing 120 while you are a traffic light neither that system nor the driver will be able to do jack.
 

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
18,206
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
I hope this works better than their last system that took control of your accelerator.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
That is what separates good drivers from bad ones, a good driver can and will make a calculated decision at least in a situation that such a system could help prevent. If someone t-bones you running a red at 60 or rear ends you because they are doing 120 while you are a traffic light neither that system nor the driver will be able to do jack.

Come to think of this, this actually might be a good thing, especially for the Lexus ES and RX models. When the (typically middle aged female) driver freaks out and claps her hands over her face (as discussed here), the car might have a chance of steering itself out of harm's way instead of acting like the unguided missile it would otherwise have become and plowing into something.

I'm not certain that any system they produce, bugs or not, would be as bad as many ES or RX drivers.
 

AiR

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
11,985
Location
Suecia
Car(s)
Bulgogi Knedliky 1.6 GDI (Hyundai i30)
Fuck that!
If it works, it keeps you from crashing into someone else. If it doesnt work, you crash into someone else. What's the problem?

I think the issue here is "take control of the car" in event of possible accident, as in it does it against your will, not in a set on autopilot way. That is less of a convenience and more a "you are too stupid to know what is best we will do it for you" thing instead.
Not against your will. You bought a car with this technology, thus it is your will. And meatbags are too stupid to know whats' best, just look at all the girls and dutch contestants on TV-shows who let go of the steeering wheel, put their hands up to their faces and floor the accelerator in a stressfull situation. Computers are fully logical things, humans are not.

Once, a person with this system will be set in a similar situation... see below.

:lol:

The kind of person who likes this technology and buys a car because of it shouldn't even be allowed to drive in the first place!
Since the invention of ABS, less people have died on our roads. Traction control took that number down further. Auto braking even further. Accident avoidance through cameras is another small step. But the real revolution will be interlinked cars who talk to one another and make decisons based on what is happening around them. That'll be the true jump towards zero dead.

If we, like you suggest, may only drive cars without any computerized intervention systems, then accidents and fatalities will go up. Or you'll need to raise the driver training (which you should by the way, yours is pathetic ;)) to impossibly high standards (and even then, highly trained and experienced pilots do CFIT's now and again) which means nobody will get anywhere because only the Elite may drive.
 
Last edited:

Lekky

Do you feel lekky, punk?
Joined
Sep 20, 2010
Messages
552
Location
Gold Coast, Australia
Car(s)
06' Suzuki Swift
Not what I was expecting when I saw half the name on the home page.
 
Top