HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
  |  REGISTER  |  LOGIN  |  HELP
<<  <  Page 2/2
Charles Murray
User Rank
Blogger
Re: AI
Charles Murray   12/3/2012 6:57:14 PM
NO RATINGS
definitely not a play on words, GTOlover. By the way, I like your GTO icon.

ttemple
User Rank
Platinum
I like black boxes
ttemple   12/3/2012 3:46:28 PM
NO RATINGS
I personally like Anti Lock brakes, and traction control, which both somewhat fall under the category of "black boxes" taking control.  I think the actuarial data on antilock brakes would prove that the average driver is better of with them than without.  If you drive on snow and ice you come to befriend traction control if you use it.  I feel much safer on ice with traction control and antilocks.  I attempt to drive in a way that doesn't cause them to work, but I take comfort in the fact that when I push a little too hard, the electronics kick in and correct.

Allison makes automatic transmissions for trucks now, and I'm sure that most "skilled" drivers would bad mouth the automatic over the "control" that a clutch (supposedly) gives them.  Allison does pull-offs with experienced drivers using manual transmissions, pulling against inexperienced drivers with automatic transmissions, and the experienced driver with a clutch never wins against the automatic.

I understand the reservations about the black box thing, but in time the technology usually proves itself worthwhile.

Another example is the "launch" electronics in formula cars.  Drivers first resisted it, but relented when the guys using the launch control were driving up their tailpipes on every start.

As for enabling idiots to get behind the wheel, we already do that. So you might as well make the car smart enough to drive, because many of the people we give licences to aren't.

William K.
User Rank
Platinum
Safety through MORE electronics?
William K.   12/3/2012 3:45:16 PM
NO RATINGS
It is an interesting assertion that somehow cars are becoming safer because of all of those unreliable electronic systems being added. They are unreliable because the primary design target is minimum cost to produce them, all other considerations are secondary. Even worse, the systems all are set up to protect the very most unskilled and ill-prepared drivers, which means that they will be constantly fighting against the experienced drivers, who probably are at least half of all drivers. On top of that problem, none of the vehicle safety features that I have come across is able to handle exceptions. The ABS system assures excessive stopping distance on loose gravel and when there are leaves or sand blown onto the road surface, and the stability control system assures that a very quick swerve to avoid something will not be done the way the driver intends it to be done. They will probably protect a 17 year old beginner driver, and possibly the 90 year old grandmother, that is true. BUT most drivers are not in either one of those groups.

UNFORTUNATELY we are no longer allowed any choice about which systems we will have operating in our cars. So a whole lot of us will be fighting with systems designed soley to protect that portion of folks who perhaps should not be driving at all. Is this a benefit for society?

JimT@Future-Product-Innovations
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Programmers deciding safety
JimT@Future-Product-Innovations   12/3/2012 1:49:06 PM
NO RATINGS
You know, there is a slippery slope on this topic.  While there's no argument that electronics advancements have increased safety in vehicles over the years, (airbags & curtains, proximity sensors, back-up cameras and Bluetooth hands-free audio as a few examples) there are other electronic innovations that I simply just do not support; such as automatic braking in high end sedans currently.  This type of "Safety" feature I think is more of a problem than a solution, lulling the distracted driver into a sense of security.  And the Ford Focus that can parallel-park all by itself-?  Fantastic technology, but it allows the incapable operator to climb behind the wheel. I can't support it.

Meanwhile, it was refreshing to see that the Delphi CTO had a short list of electronics advancement being developed that sounded more valuable to safety and performance than these two marketing gimmicks of auto-brake and auto-park.

GTOlover
User Rank
Platinum
Re: AI
GTOlover   12/3/2012 1:31:34 PM
NO RATINGS
Ghost in the Machine? Self realization of the machines?

I like the last line, "open up many doors and windows", does this imply that the car will 'sense' the owner and open the door. Open the windows as the occupant approaches drive-thru venues. Or is this just a play on words? Funny either way!

mrdon
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Programmers deciding safety
mrdon   12/3/2012 12:55:57 PM
NO RATINGS
TJ McDermott, I agree. When it comes to vehicle safety, I like to be in control as to some software running on a black box. I believe one key to vehicle safety is to pay attention to the road while driving.

TJ McDermott
User Rank
Blogger
Programmers deciding safety
TJ McDermott   12/2/2012 5:11:24 PM
NO RATINGS
 

I'm not ready to let a programmer decide what course of action to decide vehicle safety.  The operator in charge should always have the final decision.

The Airbus crash at the 1988 Paris airshow makes this point clearly.  The pilot and flight control computer got into disagreement as to what the plane should do:

 

http://youtu.be/-cv2ud1339E

 

 

jmiller
User Rank
Platinum
AI
jmiller   11/30/2012 10:30:18 PM
NO RATINGS
I wonder if they will also start to use artificial intelligent software that will start to learn different drivers and how they drive and where their weaknesses are.  It's all very exciting.  Good article.

<<  <  Page 2/2


Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
A bold, gold, open-air coupe may not be the ticket to automotive nirvana for every consumer, but Lexus’ LF-C2 concept car certainly turned heads at the recent Los Angeles Auto Show. What’s more, it may provide a glimpse of the luxury automaker’s future.
Perhaps you didn't know that there are a variety of classes, both live and archived, offered via the Design News Continuing Education Center (CEC) sponsored by Digi-Key? The best part – they are free!
Engineer comic Don McMillan explains the fun engineers have with team-building exercises. Can you relate?
The complexity of diesel engines means optimizing their performance requires a large amount of experimentation. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a very useful and intuitive tool in this, and cold flow analysis using CFD is an ideal approach to study the flow characteristics without going into the details of chemical reactions occurring during the combustion.
The damage to Sony from the cyber attack seems to have been heightened by failure to follow two basic security rules.
More:Blogs|News
Design News Webinar Series
12/11/2014 8:00 a.m. California / 11:00 a.m. New York
12/10/2014 8:00 a.m. California / 11:00 a.m. New York
11/19/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
11/6/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Jan 12 - 16, Programmable Logic - How do they do that?
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  67


Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service