Car tech? Does it also help riders?

[TnNinjaGirl]

Originally Posted by csmith12

I believe some amount of that stuff is (details unknown). Like the tire pressure sensors. That are almost constantly wrong and besides, I will run the tire pressure as I see fit thank you very much. I don't need my truck shutting down because I let a few lbs of air out for additional traction. Shot in foot...

This. I turn the traction control off in my car except for very in-climate weather. I can wreck just find by myself thank you very much.

[Sirref]

Originally Posted by TnNinjaGirl

So that's why America is so pissy lately

yep, less of a british influence will do that. I'd say america is so pissy lately more because of the sheer amount of bullshit that the media is feeding people, sensationalizing things that shouldn't even be stories. But I'd rather not get too far off topic and turn this thread into a political/media debate, so I'll stop there.

[allanoue]

Sensors in cars is not the issue. Computer speed is what it is all about. Right now our brains can interpret sensory input a few hundred times faster then the fastest computers. 10 years ago it was hundreds of thousands of times faster.
We are not far from when the average car will be much faster then the best race car drivers. By 2030 or 2040, if you want to have fun driving go to a track but don't be slowing me down when I am on public roads. because you want to be in control.

Manufacturers are already working on networking cars. If a car 6 cars ahead slows down, your car will know and react. Intersections with no traffic signals instead your car will negotiate with the other cars cumming into the intersection and speed up or slow down as decided, maybe allow people to pay others to yield or get payed for yielding.

[TnNinjaGirl]

Originally Posted by allanoue

By 2030 or 2040, if you want to have fun driving go to a track but don't be slowing me down when I am on public roads. because you want to be in control.

I'm afraid of that

[greenaero]

Some auto tech advances are good but unfortunately can still be defeated by the ignorance and incompetence of of some drivers. A good example is when anti-lock braking systems became prevalent in autos but researchers found no decrease in fatal/serious high speed collisions. The researchers found that when drivers felt the brake pedal vibrate as the ABS was operating that it scared them and they let up on the brake pedal, preventing the maximal braking that the ABS was designed to perform and allowing a collision that couls have avoided by proper use and understanding of the ABS.
Unfortunately many so-called advances are just crutches for the unskilled and incompetent. sigh

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by TnNinjaGirl

I'm afraid of that

I look forward to it.


My adaptive cruse control uses color cameras and recognizes bikes and pedestrians. It was very disconcerting at first. It is far from perfect and requires supervision and to help me to do that it tells me if it sees something in front of me and if I see something and it does not (happens once or twice a week) I take appropriate action.

[csmith12]

Originally Posted by allanoue

if I see something and it does not (happens once or twice a week)

Can you tell me/us more about that please?

[allanoue]

I have a icon on my dash that lights up when it sees something in my lane up to 100 feet away. I have followed people in parking lots, the car easily matching speeds with people walking, and I have followed motorcycles, the car easily matching speed with them.

Every now and again I will overtake a car and the icon will not turn on or beep. I take over and then reengage the system and all is well. It will also turn off in very heavy rain or when driving directly into a low blinding sun or if too much salt gets on the windshield. It is a 2014 I got last July so I am sure I will run into more scenarios were it will fail.

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by greenaero

Some auto tech advances are good but unfortunately can still be defeated by the ignorance and incompetence of of some drivers. A good example is when anti-lock braking systems became prevalent in autos but researchers found no decrease in fatal/serious high speed collisions. The researchers found that when drivers felt the brake pedal vibrate as the ABS was operating that it scared them and they let up on the brake pedal, preventing the maximal braking that the ABS was designed to perform and allowing a collision that couls have avoided by proper use and understanding of the ABS.
Unfortunately many so-called advances are just crutches for the unskilled and incompetent. sigh

The coalition avoidance system will slam on the ABS if it thinks I am not on the brakes hard enough, also disconcerting because I am willing to get closer then it is.

Tip: It is important to turn off the coalition avoidance system when going though automatic car washes lol

[allanoue]

[choneofakind]

Originally Posted by greenaero

The researchers found that when drivers felt the brake pedal vibrate as the ABS was operating that it scared them and they let up on the brake pedal, preventing the maximal braking that the ABS was designed to perform and allowing a collision that could have avoided by proper use and understanding of the ABS.

Unfortunately many so-called advances are just crutches for the unskilled and incompetent. sigh

You can stop faster with manual modulation of the pedal than with older, simpler ABS. Back off to disengage the ABS, then reapply until the wheels just start making noise. The difference is ABS is foolproof and can allow a 50% driver to easily perform a 90% perfect skill. Same can be said for traction control. JS. A little driver skill goes a long way.

The more 'tech' we introduce into cars, the more reliant drivers become on it. I think you'd be amazed how awfully unskilled and untrained most road users (motorcycles, cars, trucks, bicycles, etc) really are. I agree totally with your last sentence. People rely on electronics that they should be using as an emergency safety net instead of a daily aid. They get careless because of it and forget the responsibility of driving safely.

[TnNinjaGirl]

Originally Posted by choneofakind

The more 'tech' we introduce into cars, the more reliant drivers become on it. I think you'd be amazed how awfully unskilled and untrained most road users (motorcycles, cars, trucks, bicycles, etc) really are. I agree totally with your last sentence. People rely on electronics that they should be using as an emergency safety net instead of a daily aid. They get careless because of it and forget the responsibility of driving safely.

We've made it so easy. I'm still amazed people can wreck a Honda Accord or Toyota Camry, etc...

I learned to drive on a 1979 MG Midget. The clutch would regularly go out and the syncros were trashed. So.. double clutch (if at all) and a car about the size of the bed of a pickup truck.


My favorite is when I used to work at a Toyota dealership in the service department. I can't count how many calls I had about the check engine light and the VSC lights being on. the number one question "will I die if I go to drive with the VSC light flashing." For real people? None of them understood they used to drive cars that didn't even have VSC and were wildly out of control going in a straight line. I think the problem is that most people didn't actually know what that technology was.

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by choneofakind

You can stop faster with manual modulation of the pedal than with older, simpler ABS. Back off to disengage the ABS, then reapply until the wheels just start making noise. The difference is ABS is foolproof and can allow a 50% driver to easily perform a 90% perfect skill. Same can be said for traction control. JS. A little driver skill goes a long way.

The more 'tech' we introduce into cars, the more reliant drivers become on it. I think you'd be amazed how awfully unskilled and untrained most road users (motorcycles, cars, trucks, bicycles, etc) really are. I agree totally with your last sentence. People rely on electronics that they should be using as an emergency safety net instead of a daily aid. They get careless because of it and forget the responsibility of driving safely.

I agree with what you are saying. It will dummy down a lot of otherwise good drivers but I believe, and in the case of ABS, insurance rates agree, in the aggregate we are all safer. Jury is still out on collision avoidance systems.

[allanoue]

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/02/feds-v2v/

[csmith12]

Interesting... but the more I read into this, I feel they are solving the wrong problem.

[allanoue]

What? Make more intelligent drivers(people).

[csmith12]

Originally Posted by allanoue

What? Make more intelligent drivers(people).

Yea, our would... dumbed down to an iq of 40.

[Sirref]

Originally Posted by csmith12

Yea, our would... dumbed down to an iq of 40.

Agreed, I've had this long standing belief that simply getting rid of auto-transmission cars would more or less eliminate a lot of driver distraction (with the exception of highway driving) since they would actually have to pay attention to what they're doing with the throttle and what gear they're in. To be fair once you can do it there's little difference cruising around (if anything it's better to drive at all times) so the problem wouldn't completely disappear.

[allanoue]

Igor adapted a Predictive Emergency Braking System (PEBS) onto the bike, granting it access to the bike's throttle and brakes, and the system is supposed to react when you don't.

Molot's intelligence relies on HD cameras, proximity sensors, gyroscopes, and two radars, and all these are used to determine whether the casual ride is about to transform in a hazardous scenario.


from:
http://www.autoevolution.com/news/20...und-77293.html

[choneofakind]

Al: so it scares you when what you have on your car gets transferred to a motorcycle? Is that not what your car does when you activate it's super-fancy-Subaru-auto-braking mode (the name is escaping me right now)

Ben: Trust me when I say that you can still attempt eat, text, distract yourself, etc while driving any car. No matter what style transmission you're operating.

I think it's awesome that we're able to make a control system to accurately determine when an accident is imminent and attempt to stop said accident. Just from taking Control Systems, I understand how complex and involved that system model is. I'm not fond of any of these systems intervening on any of the vehicles I operate. It's a slippery slope that ends in killing off driver competency and ending the enjoyment of driving. Eventually, the damn things are going to drive themselves and your vehicles will all feel like the waiting room at your dentist. I think I'll pass.

[Sirref]

Yea I know it's possible as I've eaten while cruising down the highway in 5th gear, if you're traveling at a constant velocity then it's no different than driving an auto. Texting though is the devil. ****'s so distracting to the point where I just don't do it and ignore my phone unless I'm at a red. I could see how other people would gladly text/drive even with a stick though. I hold the belief mostly because it forces you to pay just a little bit more attention which can only help riders.

[choneofakind]

...or it's so natural that it's ingrained in you and don't have to think about it. Shifting is brainless.

[Sirref]

There's that too, still requires a hand to shift with. Really my argument isn't the most solid for that reason as I myself have driven and shifted just fine with one hand on numerous occasions out of sheer laziness and not needing to hold the steering wheel all the time when I'm cruising around.

[Aggrotech]

Id much prefer all manual cars over cars that allow the driver to be even more brainless than usual. Most people prefer automatics because manuals are too much work. make mandatory manual cars and its that much harder to text, put on make up, stuff ur face ect.

Not only that but it'd be great to see how many cars break down due to the drivers stupidity.

[Insan3guy]

I don't really like the idea of having more crap inside cars interfering with what I'm doing, but I think we're going in the right general direction - self driving cars. I would trust a computer to drive in a straight line much more than, say, a 16-year-old who can't put their phone away

[choneofakind]

Everyone hates on the 16 year old drivers, but we all had to start somewhere. Don't lie, who absolutely LOVED driving when they were 16?!?

...so let's not hate on them, they're just having fun. Let's blame their parents for sucking at teaching them to keep their heads out of their asses and their phone off while driving.

[flitecontrol]

Teenager's brains aren't fully developed, especially the part that handles decision making. That's why they tend to make poor decisions at times. There's a reason insurance rates go down after a certain age; decision making improves.

It's not something parents or even the teenager can control, it's just takes time. Of course, good parenting helps, but that doesn't always mean the kids are going to make the best decisions.

[agentbad]

If a computer wants to save me from a distracted cager that's fine with me. It would be even better if these features were mandatory in the near future like the backup camera is going to be. The tech has the potential to save a lot of lives riders and cagers alike.

Originally Posted by flitecontrol

Teenager's brains aren't fully developed, especially the part that handles decision making. That's why they tend to make poor decisions at times. There's a reason insurance rates go down after a certain age; decision making improves.

It's not something parents or even the teenager can control, it's just takes time. Of course, good parenting helps, but that doesn't always mean the kids are going to make the best decisions.

Decision making for sure but reaction time is going to be better then someone middle aged. Also this is highly subjective and it varies wildly from person to person.

[Ducati999]

I have read thru the entire posts above and there are a great many points and counter points. Everyone here is a bike enthusiast and loves their sport. We must remember that the rest of the world/USA does not share our passion.

The insurance companies have billions of dollars (which the laws make us give them) and they will use that money to lobby politicians (read briefcases of cash) to get laws passed to require this technology in the name of safety. They will also put out lots of ads on TV, Magazines and anything else to convince your mom, grandmom and others that we all need this to keep the children safe. Once the laws are on the books the manufacturers will only sell vehicles with the AUTO drive only feature and the rest of the vehicles including your beloved motor cycle will become outlawed in the name of safety/progress.
The issue of bad weather will be solved the same way it is now. when you drive around in areas where ice/snow is common you see signs on the highway which say "ice possible/slippery conditions REDUCE SPEED" they will simply reduce speed to a predetermined safe limit. Your auto ride home will just take 4 hours at least you will be able to watch the simpsons or what ever on your dash/phone. There is no escaping the future of our nanny state. Our country will not make better drivers they will simply make driving safer which can only be done (without calling a bad driver a bad driver) by removing the people. Remember they gave a $1,000,000 to a lady who put a cup of hot coffee between her legs and got burned!!! You may kick and scream against this but your children will accept it because it is all they know there is no before for them just this is how it is now.

As far as manual transmissions go, there will be fewer and fewer in the near future and they will be totally gone before most of the people who read this will be gone. Even motorcycles will be automatic. Don't believe me check out MOTO GP and you will see them starting to move towards "Seamless shift". The other reason manual shift will be history is that electric vehicles are the future. There is a finite amount of oil on this planet and the sun is free. Electricity is easily made from solar power we just need a few more advances and then an all wheel drive vehicle with motors at each wheel controlled by a computer will move us all.

For the record, I am against this but we must realize we are as the mighty Brontosaurus and will be extinct when the conditions are right. I believe that each person should be responsible for their own actions and driving/riding is a privilege and if you cant do it right then ask for a ride don't risk my life and others because you got a 71% on the driving test!!

The only thing that is certain is that people make mistakes and even the best driver/rider can have a bad day and crash. Computers don't blink and never stop doing what they are programmed to do (unless they break) so they would be safer in control of a vehicle than the average human. With this said we need to ask is this "what else can be done besides giving up all control and putting a computer in charge"? Do we really want to be a society of people arriving at our destinations without any input other than just telling the car "go to Starbucks"? I cannot see any other option at this point. I guess the future will have no unsafe thing at all. Say good bye to your guns, motorcycles and anything else they can label unsafe.

[choneofakind]

@Ducati999

1) I'm pretty sure MotoGP still uses the clutch on downshifts. Correct me if I'm wrong.

2) a few more advances? you're kidding right?
Tesla Motors, Zero Motorcycles, BRAMMO, Mission Motors, etc etc etc. It's all there. The issue isn't all the technology any more, the issue is the consumers, the infrastructure, and the cost. Look into the work Tesla is doing to get more charging stations.

3) You're forgetting that while computers are consistent, they need to be programmed. There's bugs in code. The equations used to model the vehicle dynamics have to be perfect to include everything. However, models of motion are only valid for specific ranges, so no model will ever be 100% error free. Ever. There's so much involved. My point is a computer is only as perfect as the programming it's following. Everything has to be accounted for. That means lots of testing and lots of money.

4) Hot coffee lady. There's a lot more to that than just "I spilled coffee, I want money because I'm being a brat" like you're making it out to be. She burnt herself significantly in a stationary car in the parking lot after going through the drive-thru and buying coffee. She initially asked McDonald's for nothing more than coverage of her medical bills. They offered here something obscenely low, like $400. So she and her lawyer went back and figured out how many complaints had been filed with McD's for burns due to coffee and found it to be very common. The jury then agreed that the coffee was too hot and Mcd's knew about it and did not change. Aka, they were serving a statistically dangerous product knowingly and refused to change. I'm still not sure where the court came up with the really high payout that they did, but it was cut down significantly to about $400,000 by the judge. Look it up. Don't forget that it wasn't just a little burn, it was all of her thighs, lower abdomen, buttocks, etc. That's a significant amount of burn area. But it wasn't about one person's burns, it was about a dangerous product with a known history of injury and McDonald's refusing to change. She was just the one who finally took it to court because she was the worst injured. Let's keep that in perspective.

For the record, before her accident, they served coffee at 180+ degrees. For reference, water boils at 212.

[Ducati999]

Originally Posted by choneofakind

@Ducati999

1) I'm pretty sure MotoGP still uses the clutch on downshifts. Correct me if I'm wrong.

2) a few more advances? you're kidding right?
Tesla Motors, Zero Motorcycles, BRAMMO, Mission Motors, etc etc etc. It's all there. The issue isn't all the technology any more, the issue is the consumers, the infrastructure, and the cost. Look into the work Tesla is doing to get more charging stations.

3) You're forgetting that while computers are consistent, they need to be programmed. There's bugs in code. The equations used to model the vehicle dynamics have to be perfect to include everything. However, models of motion are only valid for specific ranges, so no model will ever be 100% error free. Ever. There's so much involved. My point is a computer is only as perfect as the programming it's following. Everything has to be accounted for. That means lots of testing and lots of money.

4) Hot coffee lady. There's a lot more to that than just "I spilled coffee, I want money because I'm being a brat" like you're making it out to be. She burnt herself significantly in a stationary car in the parking lot after going through the drive-thru and buying coffee. She initially asked McDonald's for nothing more than coverage of her medical bills. They offered here something obscenely low, like $400. So she and her lawyer went back and figured out how many complaints had been filed with McD's for burns due to coffee and found it to be very common. The jury then agreed that the coffee was too hot and Mcd's knew about it and did not change. Aka, they were serving a statistically dangerous product knowingly and refused to change. I'm still not sure where the court came up with the really high payout that they did, but it was cut down significantly to about $400,000 by the judge. Look it up. Don't forget that it wasn't just a little burn, it was all of her thighs, lower abdomen, buttocks, etc. That's a significant amount of burn area. But it wasn't about one person's burns, it was about a dangerous product with a known history of injury and McDonald's refusing to change. She was just the one who finally took it to court because she was the worst injured. Let's keep that in perspective.

For the record, before her accident, they served coffee at 180+ degrees. For reference, water boils at 212.

CHONEOFAKIND, first off I would like to say this is a very good recant on my post, well written and thought out. Having said that I would like to debate a few of the issues a little further.

#1: I believe you are right that Moto GP is still currently using the clutch only during down shifts but the future of their high tech transmissions is to go auto on the clutch. I looked for the article I read which I got the info from but have not yet located it so I stand unsupported but electronics are changing everything and it is not a big stretch to see the shifting has gone auto and the down shifting will soon follow.

#2 Batteries: The vehicles today have only one thing keeping them form being totally practical to replace petrol engines. Battery life/range: the range of most electric vehicles is around 250 miles max and the advances I was speaking of would be a quick recharge. There is too much down time between charges for someone to drive till almost dead then stop and wait 2-12 hours to fully recharge their battery. There are a few ideas including battery exchange stations and a NANO battery fluid exchange program which look promising but they are not yet there for the common consumer. This is what I was talking about along with possible advances in solar power recharging. There are working hibreds which extend the range with gas motors but the battery only cars still need more range.

#3 I agree that computers do have bugs but did you see the GOOGLE car which has logged over 200,000 miles without an accident? I am sure they have engineres constantly reworking the software but don't you think this is for a reason? They are going to make cars fully autonomus and I believe it will be in our lifetime. There is ever increasing traffic jams and drivers are more and more distracted so this is the only solution. The government is already working on this for the military and it will be for the rest of us soon enough. The cars already park themselves, maintain lanes, reduce speed and apply brakes there is little left for them to do other than take over full control. The other reason the government wants the car to drive is they will be able to track you easier because your car will have to log on just to move and there will be no more police chases.

#4 possibly not the best example I could have used! I was trying to show how one person does something stupid and we all have to change for their mistake. I guess lighters would be a better example. Someone let their kid out of their sight and the kid find a lighter. The kid burns the house down and we all get lighters with latches/safety switches. Same goes for medication, don't make the parent keep the pills away from the kids just make it safe! Again not a great analogy but you should get my point.

I think we both see the future about the same you just don't see vehicles as 100% auto and I do. Lets agree to disagree. I personally will not give up my bikes unless I have no other choice. I just fear that, IN THE NAME OF SAFETY, this will be the future!!!!

Ride often and Ride safe I hope we get to meet so we can discuss this face to face some day! I will buy the beer

[dcj13]

Originally Posted by Ducati999

#2 Batteries: The vehicles today have only one thing keeping them form being totally practical to replace petrol engines. Battery life/range:

Excellent discussion! And I only perused the most recent half dozen or so posts.

I beilive that two things keep batteries from being totally practical: range (as you discussed as "life/range"); and battery life from the standpoint of reliability and number of charge cycles.

The reliability/number-of-charge-cycles just isn't great enough for me to spend the money to get an electric vehicle. But I am looking forward to the day...

[Ducati999]

The statement above is my point about necessary advances for electric cars to become a replacement for gas motors. Taking a trip across country would require several long stops after only 400 or so miles to do a full recharge. Once they have a way to Recharge as quickly as you can refuel then the petrol motor will soon be a memory except for a few retro folks like those who have carbs on their cars now

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by Ducati999

The statement above is my point about necessary advances for electric cars to become a replacement for gas motors. Taking a trip across country would require several long stops after only 400 or so miles to do a full recharge. Once they have a way to Recharge as quickly as you can refuel then the petrol motor will soon be a memory except for a few retro folks like those who have carbs on their cars now

If you make the batteries easily replaceable, you would pull into a charging station pull out your discharged battery replaced with a charged one. Then your old battery can recharge for the next guy. In and out just like gas. Just need the infrastructure.

[rasta]

I'm sure you've all seen the cars these days that have blind spot monitoring, where the car will let the driver know someone is in their blind spot if they begin to change lanes. Does anyone know how well this technology picks up motorcyclists? Similar to how stoplights have trouble detecting riders, these new blind spot monitoring systems might have the same problem. My worry is that this technology will give drivers a false sense of security, causing them to become less likely to actually look over their shoulders.

[rojoracing53]

Just carry on like no one can see you and its all the same as it ever was. I don't trust stability control, abs, traction control or blind spot sensors but there no cure for stupid so we do what me must for those less fortunate to have been born with no sense.

[alex.s]

there are two basic types. the first type used cameras to try to determine the speed of the thing approaching the mirror. the second type which seems to be the standard now (until google car with lidar is widely available) is timed radar echos. basically it's like a cop's radar gun but at a different frequency so it doesn't mess with their guns. they project it at a wide angle from the side mirrors and then listen for an electromagnetic echo. from a distance, it would have issue detecting a motorcycle, just like wide angle radar guns have trouble detecting bikes because they are tuned for cars. but at the distance where you are close enough for it to be an issue for you on a bike, it should have no problem detecting you in most cases.

the infiniti is cool because it has active intervention stuff so if you try to cut someone off it hits the outside brakes and pulls you back into your lane

[rasta]

Wow car tech is pretty amazing. I guess they realized humans are dumbasses so we need to protect ourselves from ourselves

[csmith12]

Related thread here.

Hold up... You posted in that thread. Did you miss allanoue's posts about his cars tech abilities to pick up riders and such?

[ForceofWill]

My '12 Explorer has it. Its radar and sees bikes just fine. Good for the wife.