Ford Co-Pilot360 to be standard on entire lineup

Chameleon said:

More crap to possibly break.

Click to expand...

Agreed. My hesitation on all this stuff has nothing to do with Big Brother or Nanny State: it has to do with the cost to fix such things when they break.

I drive a 2011 Mercury Milan as my beater. The car has blind spot and a rear backup camera. I was rear ended in an accident, and a couple months after getting it all fixed the blind spot system broke. Normally I'd just say "alright I'll live without it," but because it was broken a nice little chime sounded in the car EVERY SINGLE MINUTE to remind me it was broken...I couldn't turn it off.

I brought it to Ford and they said "Yeah you can't turn it off because its a safety feature and it therefore needs to be fixed." So I asked what the quote on a replacement part was. For a 5 inch by 5 inch sensor that mounts in the bumper, they were $1060 each, and I needed two of them. I immediately asked if the impact from being rear ended could break them and the tech said "if these things are mounted off by a millimeter they eventually fail." Immediately I got on the phone with my insurance, told them the issue, and they ended up covering it. That was an extra $2,400 in parts in labor on top of $7,000 in body work on that car. I couldn't imagine footing that out of pocket for a feature I don't even really use (old habit, I always check my blind spot over the shoulders).

When it came time to buy my Mustang, I was so glad they had a car on the lot that didn't have blind spot detection. I just know for the amount of time I plan on keeping this car those sensors would eventually go.

What if I told you, that some of you people complaining that these systems are annoying because all they do is beep and jerk the wheel on you are the EXACT reason these systems exist. You are likely the shitty / annoying driver on the road that the rest of us have to deal with.

I've driven many cars with these features, and never found them to be overbearing, in fact I hardly knew they were there.

People complaining about advancements in technology from their cell phones...

EBBS03 said:

What if I told you, that some of you people complaining that these systems are annoying because all they do is beep and jerk the wheel on you are the EXACT reason these systems exist. You are likely the shitty / annoying driver on the road that the rest of us have to deal with.

I've driven many cars with these features, and never found them to be overbearing, in fact I hardly knew they were there.

People complaining about advancements in technology from their cell phones...

Click to expand...

I don't know about that. I've driven a few, and while they are pretty good, IMO they are not quite good enough. The lane keep/lane departure systems have a hard time with re-striped roads and construction zones. And since it seems that roads everywhere are in some state of repair, these are encountered a lot. I feel like even the best system from 2018 is going to seem like a joke by 2023.

Hack said:

I wonder who at Uber will be charged with manslaughter. I guess the team of people who did the programming should be the ones going to jail - more than likely this is their fault. I suppose the argument could be made that the government officials in AZ who allowed Uber to test on the streets are the real villains here.

Interesting to me how many times the fact that she wasn't in a crosswalk was mentioned in the article. The media really is pushing the autonomous cars. Would they have written the article the same way if it were a human being driving the car?

Click to expand...

I don't know about Phoenix (Tempe) where the Uber crash happened, but in Tucson, pedestrians get run over all the time, usually at night, almost always outside of crosswalks. In this case, as long as the driver isn't DUI and stops at the scene, the driver rarely gets blamed (from what I've seen, at least.) That might be the case with the Uber crash as well - although I'd expect better from an autonomous vehicle since they would presumably have infrared sensors on board.

mc68386 said:

I don't know about Phoenix (Tempe) where the Uber crash happened, but in Tucson, pedestrians get run over all the time, usually at night, almost always outside of crosswalks. In this case, as long as the driver isn't DUI and stops at the scene, the driver rarely gets blamed (from what I've seen, at least.) That might be the case with the Uber crash as well - although I'd expect better from an autonomous vehicle since they would presumably have infrared sensors on board.

Click to expand...

People hit pedestrians all the time?! :eyebulge: Wow, terrible. There's not even a weather/visibility/poor traction excuse in that area of the country.

EBBS03 said:

What if I told you, that some of you people complaining that these systems are annoying because all they do is beep and jerk the wheel on you are the EXACT reason these systems exist. You are likely the shitty / annoying driver on the road that the rest of us have to deal with.

Click to expand...

Holy jumping-to-conclusions, Batman!!!

I've driven many cars with these features, and never found them to be overbearing, in fact I hardly knew they were there.

Click to expand...

So maybe it's you who has become so distanced from the business of driving that you're only minimally aware of what the technology is trying to do for you or at least tell you that you should be doing something. This conclusion is no less reasonable than the one you made above. In fact, it might even be more reasonable since it is based directly on your own admission rather than extrapolated from observations concerning drivers other than those who are participating here in this discussion.

People complaining about advancements in technology from their cell phones...

Click to expand...

Another assumption on your part, albeit only implied. But flat-out wrong in this case (my phone isn't smart enough).


Norm

They are cramming so many features in cars these days, when 1 feature breaks, it'll bring a few others along with it.

I like the fact that cars are getting safer and more powerful at the same time, but not at the expense of my dime.

It isn't the initial purchase price that frightens me about a car, it's what breaks down the road.

How far is too far? Well... my '96 XJ Cherokee has manual door locks, manual windows, no speakers in the doors, and no abs. It's about as simplistic as you can get. Some would complain it's too simple. It'd be nice to have power windows and power door locks, even a back up camera. But how long do all these features last without some need for attention? If the XJ doesn't rust out, I'd bet its simplicity will keep it on the road quite awhile. People buy a car and then dump it after the loan is up. They don't keep it long enough to see all these components go bad.

I'm thinking leasing a car might be a good deal these days.

For me it’s not that I don’t want or like technology advances.. I really do and usually embrace them. My issue is fear. At this point, im afraid of turning my car over to itself while I read the paper, drink coffee or nap in the drivers seat. I don’t like giving up control I guess. Just like I hate rollercoasters, yet when I was taking flying lessons I had no trouble with areobatic maneuvers.. I was in control. So while I’m sure I will eventually adapt, at this point I’m man enough to admit that it is fear that motivates my uncertainty for autonomous driving.

Jeremy Clarkson asked the question whether the computer controlling the car will be programmed to prioritize the driver's life over people outside the car or not. Example: there are 3 people in the road and the option is to hit a brick wall in order to avoid them. Does the computer choose to kill the driver, since that is only one person vs. three pedestrians? If a child is in the road does the computer prioritize the child over the driver's life since the child has more life in front of him/her?

Ford is catching up with other manufacturers fast. Love them or hate them on a Mustang, they will be there.

Hack said:

Jeremy Clarkson asked the question whether the computer controlling the car will be programmed to prioritize the driver's life over people outside the car or not. Example: there are 3 people in the road and the option is to hit a brick wall in order to avoid them. Does the computer choose to kill the driver, since that is only one person vs. three pedestrians? If a child is in the road does the computer prioritize the child over the driver's life since the child has more life in front of him/her?

Click to expand...

Great questions, and scary to think about

Clink said:

Great questions, and scary to think about

Click to expand...

I let my instincts in the “agony of the moment” decide. I don’t give a flying fuck about a possible discount giving that up for my cost of insurance.

.

Hack said:

Jeremy Clarkson asked the question whether the computer controlling the car will be programmed to prioritize the driver's life over people outside the car or not. Example: there are 3 people in the road and the option is to hit a brick wall in order to avoid them. Does the computer choose to kill the driver, since that is only one person vs. three pedestrians? If a child is in the road does the computer prioritize the child over the driver's life since the child has more life in front of him/her?

Click to expand...

Computers and technology, in general, are advancing, but not that advanced lol. We, as humans, are flawed. No one is perfect or capable of being perfect. With that said, machines are also flawed because they were built by humans.

On top of that, computers aren't emotional by nature. Maybe one day emotions will be built in, but that day isn't any time soon. Computers also aren't really rational. Yes, they can pick choices based on a set of pre-determined choices, but what happens if the situation calls for something outside that scope? The issue is humans are capable of thinking outside the box, computers are not. If, else statements won't cut it.

Ebm said:

Computers and technology, in general, are advancing, but not that advanced lol. We, as humans, are flawed. No one is perfect or capable of being perfect. With that said, machines are also flawed because they were built by humans.

On top of that, computers aren't emotional by nature. Maybe one day emotions will be built in, but that day isn't any time soon. Computers also aren't really rational. Yes, they can pick choices based on a set of pre-determined choices, but what happens if the situation calls for something outside that scope? The issue is humans are capable of thinking outside the box, computers are not. If, else statements won't cut it.

Click to expand...

It's a programming issue, not a hardware issue. The currently available hardware is fully capable of making decisions like Jeremy described.

.

Hack said:

It's a programming issue, not a hardware issue. The currently available hardware is fully capable of making decisions like Jeremy described.

Click to expand...

Either, or. Software isn't any good without the hardware part and vice versa. The autonomous car thing is bringing up some real ethical issues like who is to blame?