How To Make The Obvious Sound Scary
from the say-what-now? dept
We've had plenty of stories about how people over-relying on computers have made some pretty big mistakes. It's pretty natural. People expect computers to be right. It's obviously good to not blindly trust computers, but is it really so silly to expect an automation system to do what it's supposed to do? The Raw Feed points us to a fairly sensational claim that adaptive cruise control systems, designed to help drivers avoid accidents, can dull the driver's senses in a real emergency situation -- making it sound as though these "safety" systems can make driving more dangerous. However, the details point out how ridiculous this claim really is. What the researchers did was make the adaptive cruise control fail. Any driver, obviously, is expecting that it would work -- so why is it surprising, in any way, that they would react late? They expected the system to work, and it didn't. That's not "dulling the driver's senses," it's a system failure. The real issue is making sure that (a) these systems rarely fail or (b) when they do fail, the drivers are clearly and quickly alerted to that fact, so that they can override it with their own controls.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
Remember the demo that turned into a three-merc-pileup because the system wouldn't work in the warehouse where they were demoing it...? seems to me the same system is just as likely to fail when you're going through a tunnel, or an underpass, or snow / hailstorms, or who-knows-what else. Can the system reliably predict conditions where it's going to fail like this? I don't think so.
I'd love a system like this, but I would never rely on it! I'd keep driving the car just as if the system wasn't installed, and hopefully the one or two times I'm distracted and _could_ have had an accident this thing will kick in and save my ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
However, such redundant systems do raise the cost dramatically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Besides, there are reasons we drive versus taking a bus, cab, train, etc. and that's so we can remain in control of what we do and where we go. If someone doesn't want to take responsibility for their driving at all times, they should use another form of transportation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Belgium
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cruise control
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
However, many people invoke cruise-control for the wrong reason. Personally, I activate it because holding my foot on the gas hurts on a long trip. Unfortunately, other people activate it because they expect a long, monotonous trip and want to relax. You simply can't activate cruise control to relax, as that's going to kill someone. Driving requires your full attention, with or without cruise control.
Having said that, and knowing that people WILL use cruise control for the wrong reasons, adaptive cruise control is a good thing. However, the original article's point about it "dulling the driver's senses" is a good one, if a little off the mark. As Mike mentions, the issue is not alertness, but reaction time due to the driver not expecting failure. The driver can be fully alert and looking for danger, but in order to detect failure of the adaptive cruise control system, the driver must witness it not slowing down, which will rob even the best driver of valuable reaction time.
I have mixed opinions. Given responsible drivers, redundant systems, and quality monitoring and alerting, it's a step forward. But given lazy drivers who use it when they would be best served by choosing not to drive at all, it's an accident waiting to happen.
I may not have passed the law that Belgium did were I in charge, but I won't argue with it either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The right reason?
Anything can be abused, though. It's not auto-pilot, and it won't react to an emergency situation--you'll have to apply your own brakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The right reason?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
psychology
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thats like saying...
disable someone's brakes and when they crash, say "see, they were driving too fast and assuming the brakes would stop them."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
She was dumped for being a moron soon after...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about auto-steering?
So what happens if you're driving down one of those back roads where it's not maintained well and the lines are barely visible? Also, are they blinded by headlights from oncoming cars? Can they change lanes for you?
Just curious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]