red750 Posted August 17 Share Posted August 17 More fancy do-dads, more to breakdown/go wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_Atrick Posted August 17 Share Posted August 17 In terms of motor and battery, there is much less to break down. Otherwise they are much the same as ICE cars and yes, more to go wrong that can't be repaired at home 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgwilson Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 Yes my last car was new in 2012. Now there are heaps of new things that manufacturers have to comply with to receive a 5 star ANCAP rating. The SOS button on the roof electronic cluster is common now. How it works may differ by brand but with mine it sends a message to MG automatically forwarded to the contracted service agent in the area that they need to contact the car owner. The button provides the precise GPS location, owners details etc. If out of mobile coverage then you just have to wait till they get there. This is part of the 7 year warranty. I imagine there will be an annual fee after this time is up. Some of the systems take a bit of time to get used to and there were a couple that scared the crap out of me when I encountered them for the first time. For example I was reversing out of an angle park & the car just stopped instantly. I thought I'd hit something & got out to check but nothing. I realised it was the collision avoidance system that operates if it thinks I'm likely to hit a pedestrian, cyclist or another car. This system works for all 360 degrees & the 360 degree camera comes on automatically with the danger quadrant highlighted. It happened when I was driving past a school with lots of parked cars etc. I was doing less than the limit of 40kph & saw a woman walk out between 2 cars, turn towards me as if to go to the drivers door of her car. The system slammed on the brakes as it thought she might walk out in to my path. I'd already figured out she was just going to get in to her car but the system is obviously not programmed to consider that possibility and erred on the side of caution. Initially it annoyed me but in hindsight I think the system did the right thing. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 31 minutes ago, kgwilson said: The system slammed on the brakes as it thought she might walk out in to my path. And that's a major problem with the AI. It has been "trained" to react in that way to that particular situation. It has no experience in human pedestrian behaviour in the vicinity of a school at 3:00 pm, but you do. You were right. It was wrong. I wonder how the legal and insurance questions would be answered if you had been hit from behind. At that time and place one typically sees cars travelling very close together. It's wrong for drivers to do that, but it's a fact of life. An observant driver having the experience of driving at that place would also reach the same conclusion as you did, and expect you to keep moving, not suddenly stop. Under the traffic law, would you be held responsible as the driver of the vehicle that stopped in a situation where a "reasonable and prudent" person would not stop, or would the driver of the following vehicle be held responsible because the driver was travelling "too close to avoid an accident'? Insurance wise, could the insurer of he following vehicle sue the manufacturer of your vehicle for installing a control that failed? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red750 Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 Under normal circumstances, in a rear-ender, the rear vehicle is held responsible, Interesting question. 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post willedoo Posted August 18 Popular Post Share Posted August 18 I was always under the impression that no matter the cause, the car doing the rear-ending was always at fault. It doesn't matter how or how fast the car in front stops, the rear driver is supposed to be far enough behind to safely stop in time. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 That is correct most of the time, but there is the ability to plead "unintentional accident" in mitigation of a penalty for an offence of strict liability. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 Allow more room and be prepared to stop at any time. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_Atrick Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 (edited) Maybe the AI hasn't factored into its training driving at 3pm around a school, but I doubt it. I am thinking it accounts for, or is biased to inexperienced and general dipstick drivers rather than prudent and reasonable and therefore takes a conservative approach to the probable outcome. Also I would guess it's not a binary decision. It would have assessed what was going on behind it as well and considered the risk of a rear shunt v mowing down the pedestrian and braked accordingly. I have no idea of that car's systems but maybe it even considered swerving. AI is definitely nowhere near perfect, but as older cars are replaced by newer cars, they will start talking to each other and you will find they will be able to act in concert to avoid the primary and secondary risks.. Makes for a Russian hacker's disruption heaven. Edited August 18 by Jerry_Atrick 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 I thought about this a bit more, mainly in regards to the operation of the vehicle. Consider this. If a vehicle's braking system failed to operate to stop the vehicle, then it would be reasonable for a constable to issue a defect notice and order that the vehicle not be driven on a public road until the braking system was made functional. Now consider the situation where the operating system controlling the braking system caused the vehicle to stop for no valid reason, or as depicted above, for making an incorrect analysis of the input data. Would it be reasonable for a constable to issue a defect notice and order that the vehicle not be driven on a public road until the braking system was made functional? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomadpete Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 5 minutes ago, old man emu said: I thought about this a bit more, mainly in regards to the operation of the vehicle. Consider this. If a vehicle's braking system failed to operate to stop the vehicle, then it would be reasonable for a constable to issue a defect notice and order that the vehicle not be driven on a public road until the braking system was made functional. Now consider the situation where the operating system controlling the braking system caused the vehicle to stop for no valid reason, or as depicted above, for making an incorrect analysis of the input data. Would it be reasonable for a constable to issue a defect notice and order that the vehicle not be driven on a public road until the braking system was made functional? Take it to a court. Then there will be a precedent 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octave Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 Full study here : A REALWORLD EVALUATION OF AUTONOMOUS EMERGENCY BRAKING AND FORWARD COLLISION WARNING IN AUSTRALASIAN LIGHT VEHICLES MUARC report shows potential for Autonomous Emergency Braking to reduce road fatalities 29 March 2023 A real-world evaluation of Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) and Forward Collision Warnings (FCW) in light vehicles has found significant potential to reduce trauma incidents. The recently-released MUARC report used police-reported crash data in Australia and New Zealand between 2013 and 2017 to estimate crash and injury reductions associated with AEB and FCW. Almost one third of all light vehicle crashes occurring in Australia and New Zealand during that timeframe could, with a high degree of certainty, have the potential to be avoided or mitigated by AEB. Approximately two thirds of these crashes were in 60 km/h or lower speed zones. A further 29% of all light vehicle crashes in Australia and New Zealand during that time could, with a lower certainty, be avoided or mitigated by AEB. The technology also showed the potential to prevent or mitigate around 3% of light vehicle to pedestrian crashes (90% of which were in 60 km/h or lower speed zones) and approximately 10% of intersection crashes (93% of which were in low speed zones). Based on the 2017 fitment rate, the results showed that AEB was estimated to mitigate 0.08% of all fatal, 0.14% of all serious and 0.10% of all minor injuries in Australia. For New Zealand crash data, AEB was estimated to mitigate 0.18% of all fatal, 0.09% of all serious and 0.06% of all minor injuries. If there was 100% fitment of AEB in Australia, the technology would lead to an estimated reduction of 8% of fatalities, 12% of serious injuries and 12% of minor injuries. Annually, this translates to a reduction of 126 fatalities, 3,731 serious injuries and 11,017 minor injuries. Full fitment of AEB in New Zealand would lead to a reduction in total injuries being 8% for fatalities, 8% for serious injuries and 7% for minor injuries. AEB was found to be more effective at reducing intersection sensitive crashes and associated injuries in high-speed zones. The technology was less effective at reducing fatal and serious injuries in low-speed zones. FCW showed less benefits compared to AEB. There was no evidence of reductions in minor injuries, PDO crashes, pedestrian sensitive crashes and intersection crashes. Overall, the report highlights the significant potential benefits of having 100% fitment of AEB and FCW in the light passenger vehicle fleet in Australia and New Zealand. The benefits demonstrated in the report cannot be achieved without drivers choosing new vehicles that include this technology. Therefore, the report’s authors suggest there is a need for either a mandate or persuasive communication to consumers on the benefit of AEB and FCW. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 27 minutes ago, octave said: Full study here I'm not questioning what you've posted. I am just thinking about what would happen if the AEB worked when it shoudn't. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octave Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 1 minute ago, old man emu said: I am just thinking about what would happen if the AEB worked when it shoudn't. I am not sure, but I imagine the law will decide at some stage if/when this happens. There are many technologies that whilst they are overwhelmingly positive on rare occasions cause negative consequences. To me what happens in this scenario is something we have to work out (or perhaps we already have) because the cold hard fact is - fewer deaths and injuries. . 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 I often wonder how these systems will work in the case of animals such as 'roos jumping out in front of a vehicle. Slam on the brakes to come to a sudden and complete stop, and then get run over by the big truck following you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octave Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 2 minutes ago, onetrack said: I often wonder how these systems will work in the case of animals such as 'roos jumping out in front of a vehicle. Slam on the brakes to come to a sudden and complete stop, and then get run over by the big truck following you? I guess if it did this it would be taking to a human slamming on the brakes in a similar situation. Having spent 20 years driving home 100km from Canberra to my bush property in the dark I have had plenty of near incidents and a hit. It is always a split-second decision wheteht to try and go around it, stop or just hit it. The question is does technology have a higher probability of a good outcome rather than a human. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 1 hour ago, onetrack said: often wonder how these systems will work in the case of animals such as 'roos jumping out in front of a vehicle I have a friend who was working with Volvo on AEB. They brought a car to Australia to test it and it failed the 'roo test. The software was beaten by the unusual movement of kangaroos compared to other animals. That was a couple of years ago, so I don't know if they solved the problem. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red750 Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 In my opinion, a high percentage of car accidents are caused by some clown driving too fast for the conditions. When you see the CCTV vision of accidents obtained by the police, invariably it is some clown barreling through too fast, assuming that the road is clear and he can charge through intersections without fear of cross traffic. The number of vehicles that roll over or crash through fences is evidence of this. I have said before, I often watch Car Crash TV quite a bit, and while this is filmed mainly overseas, frequently in Russia, you will often see a traffic jam causing everything to slow down, until an idiot comes flying through at the speed limit or above, and either plows straight int stationary or slow moving vehicles, or swerves madly at the last minute and loses control totally.. This compilation is a typical example of the types of accidents depicted, and there are a lot of drivers in a hurry to end up in the cemetery. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 In that scenario ! . There's lots of possibles , could have's .potentials. Stop the city cars period. Then use that data to see the difference. Lots of positives . and full public transport . spacesailor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgwilson Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 Car crashes are NOT accidents. Almost all are caused by driver stupidity, inattentiveness, incapacity or neglect. Even those caused by mechanical failure are often due to poor or no maintenance. 50 years ago most of these would have resulted in fatalities. Seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, rollover cages etc have lowered the risk of the crash being fatal dramatically. These scenarios are precisely why authorities have had to come up with AEB & FCW systems. They may not be perfect but they are light years ahead of the idiots we have on our roads. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 Alcoholic, careless, and fatigued drivers would account for 85% of vehicle crashes, and lack of driver control skills would make up another 10%, with the remaining 5% attributable to issues such as medical or mental health issues. A small percentage of crashes are actually suicide. Every second crash I see reported, involves utter stupidity, carelessness, booze or drugs - such as running off a perfectly good (usually straight) road or highway, and into a tree or other obstruction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 Modern cars go so well they insulate you from the reality of the energy your vehicle has.. IF you slide sideways into a tree most likely it will kill you at highway speeds. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red750 Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 Around 8 or 9 months ago they installed shades over the carprk at or local Woolworhs parking lot. They were covered in shadecloth, which provided shade from the sun, but were not waterproof so you still get wet when it rains. I believe they should have done what has been done in other locations, most likely overseas, where they put solar panels over the shades, connected to charging stationts below, so you recharge while shopping. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 I agree - Woolworths have just built a new shopping centre at Perth Airport, they did the exact same thing! I cannot understand why they didn't install solar panels over the parked cars! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 9 hours ago, onetrack said: I cannot understand why they didn't install solar panels over the parked cars! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. That's why. There's no profit in it for Woolies. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now