Ford is testing a car that takes control of the steering wheel away from the driver if it believes they are failing to take the action necessary to avoid a crash. www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24464480 Now obviously, there are countless thousands on the road who are not competent. The only reason they don't hit more things than they do is pure luck and the fact that even in busy streets there is still more empty space than metal. But what of drivers who take their driving seriously, and are perfectly happy that they would at any moment be competent to take the necessary action to try to avoid a crash? Why should we have the possibility of the car taking over and making a worse decision? If someone is convicted of a poor driving offence then maybe they should have a licence condition that they are only allowed to drive cars which can mitigate against dumb driving, and that might help, but this should never be fitted as standard. People who need it shouldn't be driving in the first place. And yes that is a lot of people, but I resent being lumped compulsorily in with them.

Ford is testing a car that takes control of the steering wheel away from the driver if it believes they are failing to take the action necessary to avoid a crash. www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24464480 Now obviously, there are countless thousands on the road who are not competent. The only reason they don't hit more things than they do is pure luck and the fact that even in busy streets there is still more empty space than metal. But what of drivers who take their driving seriously, and are perfectly happy that they would at any moment be competent to take the necessary action to try to avoid a crash? Why should we have the possibility of the car taking over and making a worse decision? If someone is convicted of a poor driving offence then maybe they should have a licence condition that they are only allowed to drive cars which can mitigate against dumb driving, and that might help, but this should never be fitted as standard. People who need it shouldn't be driving in the first place. And yes that is a lot of people, but I resent being lumped compulsorily in with them.

The steering bit sounds a bit dodgy, the last thing you want is you car veering out of the way of a pedestrian straight into oncoming traffic - and then the pedestrian walks off and leaves you trying to explain how you steered straight into four cars coming the other way.

The principle of braking automatically isn't a bad one though especially if its limited to low speeds, say less then 30mph and could save a lot of pedestrians and cyclists from their own stupidity.

I've just got one of the new Golfs that has a radar at the front, which serves 2 uses.

a) it will adjust your speed when cruise control is set, so if you're slowly creeping up on the car in front it will slow you down to maintain the preset gap. It took a little getting used to, but I quite like it now (certainly more than cruise control that just stayed at the speed you set irrespective of anything else.

b) it will (in theory) apply the brakes at low speeds, if you get to close to the car in front, irrespective of if cruise is on or not. I've not yet had cause to see if that works, and I'm not keen on just trying it to see how it works.

I'd have thought that the car would be programmed to stop in the quickest possible time to avoid hitting anything. I can't think of a scenario where driving into oncoming traffic is deemed as the best course of action.



If they implement this technology, then limiting cars to the limits is very close behind. And going down to 20mph whenever there's any ped's on the path is soon behind that. And soon behind that the pedestrians own the road because they can just step out on to the road whenever they like and have the car stop while they chuckle.

I think the group of people who are most in favour of this tech would be South African car jackers. At the moment if they step on to the road to try and take a vehicle they're risking getting run over. With this technology they just need to step in front of the car at the right time and the car stops for them .

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"Ford is testing a car that takes control of the steering wheel away from the driver if it believes they are failing to take the action necessary to avoid a crash. www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24464480 Now obviously, there are countless thousands on the road who are not competent. The only reason they don't hit more things than they do is pure luck and the fact that even in busy streets there is still more empty space than metal. But what of drivers who take their driving seriously, and are perfectly happy that they would at any moment be competent to take the necessary action to try to avoid a crash? Why should we have the possibility of the car taking over and making a worse decision? If someone is convicted of a poor driving offence then maybe they should have a licence condition that they are only allowed to drive cars which can mitigate against dumb driving, and that might help, but this should never be fitted as standard. People who need it shouldn't be driving in the first place. And yes that is a lot of people, but I resent being lumped compulsorily in with them.'" At the moment all we have is your claim that you're a great driver and above this type of thing. If your last 100,000 miles had been driven using this system and the logs were completely clear then your claim to be this good would be verified. A bad driver would probably have a flashing light near the reg number alerting the police that they need to stop this div and see what an awful driver they are. But at the moment you and your claim of good driving have the same weight as the serial idiot who has nearly caused a dozen crashes in the last couple of years but only survived on the roads because other people have managed to stop in time before collisions. Why would this be a slight to your driving when really it is protecting you because when the serial idiot and you do get in an accident and claim innocence the system will be able to conclusively prove that it was his fault and not yours.

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"Ford is testing a car that takes control of the steering wheel away from the driver if it believes they are failing to take the action necessary to avoid a crash. www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24464480 Now obviously, there are countless thousands on the road who are not competent. The only reason they don't hit more things than they do is pure luck and the fact that even in busy streets there is still more empty space than metal. But what of drivers who take their driving seriously, and are perfectly happy that they would at any moment be competent to take the necessary action to try to avoid a crash? Why should we have the possibility of the car taking over and making a worse decision? If someone is convicted of a poor driving offence then maybe they should have a licence condition that they are only allowed to drive cars which can mitigate against dumb driving, and that might help, but this should never be fitted as standard. People who need it shouldn't be driving in the first place. And yes that is a lot of people, but I resent being lumped compulsorily in with them.'" At the moment all we have is your claim that you're a great driver and above this type of thing. If your last 100,000 miles had been driven using this system and the logs were completely clear then your claim to be this good would be verified. A bad driver would probably have a flashing light near the reg number alerting the police that they need to stop this div and see what an awful driver they are. But at the moment you and your claim of good driving have the same weight as the serial idiot who has nearly caused a dozen crashes in the last couple of years but only survived on the roads because other people have managed to stop in time before collisions. Why would this be a slight to your driving when really it is protecting you because when the serial idiot and you do get in an accident and claim innocence the system will be able to conclusively prove that it was his fault and not yours.

Looking forward to hearing how we differentiate those who 'take their driving seriously' from those who don't.

And I'm looking forward to you being able to understand that particular point.

And what was it you wanted?


Not at all. I might just have been lucky. Or I might have driven my last 100,000 miles (and the rest) without hitting anything yet without any such system. I don't need to "verify" that I haven't hit anyone - the insurance databases already know.


Pretty much my point, I would be being compulsorily treated just the same as the serial idiots; that is what I am refusing to accept.


If I got in an accident with the serial idiot then it would prove that the compulsory system which was meant to prevent such things was utterly useless as well as unfair since by definition it hadn't worked. And given we crashed despite it, may well have actually caused the crash.

Just to divert attention slightly - is there such a thing as a shared pool of knowledge on all insured drivers in the UK ?

And if so why do they ask you to self declare your convictions and accidents on every insurance application and then hold that above your head as a tool with which to invalidate your insurance at any point in future if you haven't been entirely truthful - or is that the whole point ?

And if they do have access to your claim/conviction history, why don't they deny your insurance right at the point of application rather than take the money and keep the evidence as a Get Out Of Jail Free card for themselves should you ever wish to claim ?

When I rule the world etc etc etc...

Canute and luddites spring to mind .....

I say this is a serious driver that has only ever had accidents owing to idiots on the road (i.e. any other road users and pedestrians ... I suppose you could include various idiotic inanimate objects as well).
The sooner the robots truly take over the better ... and these are steps along the way ... the seeds were implanted in our brains long ago ... oh yes!
Resistance is futile you stupid humans! .... <fades out to hysterical, maniacal laughter>

There is a school of thought that says that the more you build in safety features into cars to protect the driver from any eventuality, the more careless that driver will become - literally care, less, they will not care for their safety (because that is now guaranteed) so why should they care for the world outside of their windscreen ?

That same school of thought also carries the theory that back in the olden days things were a lot safer on the roads because there were no safety devices in cars, in fact most cars used to be death traps.

*Puts flat cap on and draws on his pipe*

Now when ah wor nobbut a lad the first vehicles I drove after passing my test were the Mk1 Ford Escort vans that the company had, vans with seatbelts that no-one used unless they wanted to be labelled a big pufta, vans with steel dashboards that would offer complete resistance if you hit them, steering wheels and steering columns that would not collapse if you hit them, and windscreens that would shatter like normal glass and cut you to ribbons as you passed through them - basically in an accident you were as protected as an egg in a tumble dryer.

Did that make us drive more safely ?

No, it just killed more of us.

Humans are stupid.

I already have this feature, if I'm within ten miles of the Owlcoates M&S a voice next to me beloows directions until I'm in the car park...

<robot control voice>
''It's good to see we already have you in our pocket earthling.''

My car is fitted with the same, adaptive cruise control and automatic braking.
The latter DOES work! A few weeks back I was driving at 30mph in a built up area when an eejit pedestrian decided it would be a good idea to cross the road from behind a parked car without looking (Sorry, he WAS looking, but at his 'phone

)
I went to brake, but the car beat me to it.. the seat belts tensioned and brakes applied a split second before I could react!) The car stopped in time.
I do feel much safer now, but my only concern is will I in future take driving awareness less seriously knowing full well that the car should react? Thats the worry.
As to going the whole hog, and let it also do the steering, I'm not sure? However, having used the current speed control and braking technology, I'd certainly be more open to that idea now than I would have been previously.

You say this as if it were a bad thing, at least the higher number of deaths on the road provided greater potential numbers of organs for donation. Health and safety gone mad.

the question is whether you would be absolved from blame should your vehicle not take the right corrective action.

If you drive into someone because the automatic braking doesnt work, is the driver liable for the insurance claim or the car manufacturer??

Yes, always has been various databases but these have become more and more 'joined up'


I am pretty cynical about insurers and wouldn't be surprised if there was a red flag "in case of claim" on a policy where something was undeclared. However, they don't have access to DVLA conviction records, and they would I think argue that they can't reasonably do an in-depth investigation of every prospective new policyholder without huge expense, and should be entitled on someone wanting to enter into a contract to tell the truth voluntarily.

I am sure that for anyone with an accidents or claims record, they must have easy pre-policy access to what details are available for you, you address and the vehicle reg.no., if they wanted to use it.

Two separate things. As the driver, it's up to you, you screw up, you pay the penalty. If you fail to take reasonable action to avoid a collision that your average reasonable driver would have avoided, then usually that is driving without due care and attention.

However, you might I suppose then have a claim against the car manufacturer who sold you something on the basis that if you failed to take action to avoid a collision, then it would, but it hadn't. It would be an interesting argument. Maybe the manufacturer could argue that they were primarily liable for the defective auto-steering; but should pay you nothing as you were 100% contributorily negligent!

Was a case reported this week of a man being awarded $14m in USA where car went off road and side airbag (which was not a compulsory fitting) failed to deploy. Though tbf he was a passenger so couldn't be guilty of contrib. It does show though (as if we didn't know) that technology if fitted will (with 100% certainty) from time to time fail. But your passive airbag going off, or failing to, is one thing; your car suddenly and violently steering you in a different direction is quite another.

On Tuesday a [url=http://www.bigclassaction.com/lawsuit/toyota-prius-pre-collision-system-class-action.phpclass action was begun in USA[/url against Toyota claiming that this feature in the Prius doesn't do what it says on the tin

I'd like to see a "motorway driving" mode, whereby control is taken by the car, allowing people safely to have a coffee, read, eat, put on make-up, brush their hair, chat on the phone, send texts ... you know, all the stuff they already do.

In town centres, I'd simply ban all private wheeled vehicles that are capable of being used at a faster-than-walking-pace (i.e. wheelchairs and prams would be OK), and only allow deliveries between strict hours.

On housing estates and suburbs, I'd have limits at 20mph or even 10 mph in some places.

Taxis would be subject to the same rules as private cars, instead of being allowed wherever buses can go.

... and that's just for starters ...

I thought the objection to this system could turn you into said idiot by avoiding one accident and causing another?

A genuine "must see" for anyone interested in the contribution of scientists, doctors and engineers to car safety is last night's edition of Horizon. Impact! A Horizon guide to car crashes. It's available on BBC iPlayer, BBC Channel 4. Fascinating how these people have worked together to continually deskill the driver