Reverse Park Assist

[Rickycardo]

I don't think he is ranting about the technology as much as he is believing that drivers are losing their driving skill (and hence responsibility for their vehicle) and letting the tech do all the work. My Taurus has Park Assist, it will parallel park itself with just a few inputs from me. That technology shouldn't trump my responsibility to learn to parallel park by myself. After all, if I use the Park Assist and hit another car, whose fault is it. Mine or Ford's?
We make the same arguments with the Manual/Auto debate. At one time every car built was a stick. Driving a stick requires skill that must be learned. Technology gave us the automatic transmission with all it's curses and blessings. How would you feel if the government had stepped in and mandated that ALL cars sold in the US came with automatic transmissions? The same resistance can be said by many people about several tech advances in todays cars. Many see those mandates, and the willingness of the people to accept them, as a dilution of society's ability to reason for one's self and take responsibility for our own actions. Driving a car requires intelligence and skill. And it should. Many believe it should require skill, training and practice. Adding things such as reverse assist or parallel parking technologies to cars often tends to make drivers less skilled in driving rather than adding to their capabilities. I like technology in my car. It aids me and enhances my capabilities. But it's still my job to learn how to properly handle my performance car and to practice those skills.
Off my soapbox for now. :cheers:

Sponsored

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

I don't think he is ranting about the technology as much as he is believing that drivers are losing their driving skill (and hence responsibility for their vehicle) and letting the tech do all the work. My Taurus has Park Assist, it will parallel park itself with just a few inputs from me. That technology shouldn't trump my responsibility to learn to parallel park by myself. After all, if I use the Park Assist and hit another car, whose fault is it. Mine or Ford's?
We make the same arguments with the Manual/Auto debate. At one time every car built was a stick. Driving a stick requires skill that must be learned. Technology gave us the automatic transmission with all it's curses and blessings. How would you feel if the government had stepped in and mandated that ALL cars sold in the US came with automatic transmissions? The same resistance can be said by many people about several tech advances in todays cars. Many see those mandates, and the willingness of the people to accept them, as a dilution of society's ability to reason for one's self and take responsibility for our own actions. Driving a car requires intelligence and skill. And it should. Many believe it should require skill, training and practice. Adding things such as reverse assist or parallel parking technologies to cars often tends to make drivers less skilled in driving rather than adding to their capabilities. I like technology in my car. It aids me and enhances my capabilities. But it's still my job to learn how to properly handle my performance car and to practice those skills.
Off my soapbox for now. :cheers:

I'll give you the converse.

I'm an excellent parallel parker. On average, I parallel park more than I pull into parking spots (and I haven't parked in a driveway since... I mean, it's been at least ten years, I'm sure). But, I also parallel park like a New Yorker, since I am one... which means that you slooooowly inch your way backwards until you bump the car behind you, and sloooooowly inch your way forwards until you bump the car in front of you. That's always been the only way to do it when you're trying to parallel park in a space that's only 24 inches longer than your car. And I've been doing that for 20 years, and I'm really good at it... but now, I have reverse parking sensors and a backup camera. And I don't HAVE to bump the car in back of me, because I can see exactly where its nose is. And so those electronic aids have taken a skill that I'd already perfected and made it significantly better.

And if you tell me that parallel parking using bumping isn't parallel parking, I'll ask you why every single car I see has a Bumper Bully and BumpShox. And what else you're supposed to do without cameras when every single parking spot looks like this:

 

[14MustangV6]

Sorry! My 2 cent now.
All this gadgets are only good "down South". The last couple of days, all my sensors are covered in snow and ice. The camera - yep I clean it to see a little bit - but after driving to the supermarket or to work - useless. Backside of the car is mostly always covered in snow after a short right - beeping when I back up all the time. Graphic of the car shows all red in the back. The CTA still works - somehow. :shrug:

Now you know why I didn't get the ACC package.

This is easily solved by clearing all of the snow off of your car, which you really should be doing anyway...

 

[Norm Peterson]

Norm railing against technology again... I mean are you OK with CAD and robotic manufacturing? Why are you subsidizing a company that doesn't hand make automobiles?

Because I don't care how the car is designed/fabricated/assembled as long as it works the way I want it to. IOW, whatever technology is employed before I buy it is completely irrelevant.

You have the same hangup I have to question about the Amish. It's not like they don't use technology, they just stop at one particular point in time as 'acceptable'. Why is 1970s tech acceptable to you but not 2015? Why is power steering OK but rear parking sensors not? I guess I just don't understand your paranoia or arbitrary distinction between one item and the next.

I'm afraid your understanding of my opinions is too simplistic. First off, I spent most of my career as an engineer - so "make things as simple as possible but no simpler" isn't too far off the mark. Yeah, I probably am a bit stubborn and independent-minded, but that's not the same as being stuck in one of the sorrier chapters in automotive history like you're trying to make me out to be a fugitive from.

You want details? Actually, I like EFI. Even swapped a carb'ed 355 CID SBC over to aftermarket multiport EFI (laptop programmed). Bet you didn't see that coming.

I deal with power-assisted steering, mainly out of necessity because 3500+ lb cars with 7° caster and 255 - 285 wide front tires on wheels 9.5" wide and wider would involve more effort and slower steering than would be reasonable otherwise. But I have driven (and owned) cars without PS and would again if anybody made one light enough (and affordable enough). I do not like the electronic interferences that can be built into EPAS in the name of "making driving easier" for those who don't particularly care to be driving in the first place (hint: google "active nibble control" and "drift-pull compensation" and track down what happened to EPAS-equipped S197s when the front control arm bushings were swapped out for something firmer). Being able to change the steering wheel "feel" begs the question of "why???".

I'm very much an "I'll do it myself" kind of guy, and the actual details of driving can be fun if you're willing to let them be fun. I really don't want a car that tries to do all manner of things for me - not even the shifting part (note: we haven't owned an AT car in over 40 years). Doing all those things, from shifting to doing my own inertial navigation on occasion really is part of the fun.

I really hope you aren't fooled into thinking that things like BLIS, rear cameras, adaptive cruise control, and object detection are going to make future drivers inherently more aware behind the wheel, or that hill assist, traction control, automated braking, or stability control will make them better drivers by definition. Hell, even ABS gets it wrong from time to time. Lack of practice just isn't going to improve peoples' situational awareness or their skill set.


Norm

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

I really hope you aren't fooled into thinking that things like BLIS, rear cameras, adaptive cruise control, and object detection are going to make future drivers inherently more aware behind the wheel, or that hill assist, traction control, or stability control will make them better drivers by definition. Hell, even ABS gets it wrong from time to time. Lack of practice just isn't going to improve peoples' situational awareness or their skill set.

I honestly couldn't care less if it makes people better drivers or not. Which would you rather have -- more highly skilled drivers with more accidents and driving fatalities, or less highly skilled drivers with fewer accidents and driving fatalities? Stability control saves lives. Period. I honestly don't care if it makes people into worse drivers -- it makes no difference whatsoever ever to me. It saves lives.

 

[Norm Peterson]

I agree with this completely. If it weren't for technology we wouldn't be nearly as safe in our cars as we are today. As far as the Amish analogy, it fits perfectly. What he grew up with (e.g. 'how he was raised') only makes sense to him within the boundaries of his experiences. The world progresses, technology changes and we all move on.

However, I'm not convinced he believes all of this and that he doesn't provoke purposefully. By all logical and forum fact-based reasoning presented by him, he should be driving a 1979 Dodge Aspen

It wasn't all that many years ago that I was driving a 1979 Chevy Malibu (that ultimately became quite un-stock and not too shabby at autocross).

I could still jump into a 1970-ish 240Z and drive it daily without ever being concerned about all the nannies and other technologies it never had.


Norm

 

[Norm Peterson]

I honestly couldn't care less if it makes people better drivers or not. Which would you rather have -- more highly skilled drivers with more accidents and driving fatalities, or less highly skilled drivers with fewer accidents and driving fatalities? Stability control saves lives. Period. I honestly don't care if it makes people into worse drivers -- it makes no difference whatsoever ever to me. It saves lives.

When I look at the combined record of myself and my wife over the past 40 years . . . the only way for us to have fewer accidents and such would be if negative numbers for those parameters could somehow be logically possible. Maybe that does make us both way above average (or incredibly luckier on a consistent basis), but neither of us goes out onto the road thinking like that.

I'll tell you something I see happening that don't like, and that's being startled by any of these high tech "solutions" to bad driving. Chances are that they'll occur right around the worst possible times for me to be distracted even momentarily. I could tell you a true story from somewhere in the late 1960's as illustration if you'd like (I remember lots of little things like that one, which in one way or another have probably made me a better driver).


I see no need to define what driving assistances I might need by the assistances needed by our lowest common denominator licensed drivers.


Norm

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

I see no need to define what driving assistances I might need by the assistances needed by our lowest common denominator licensed drivers.

And that, right there, is your problem. If you feel like your needs are special and are not being met by the general run of vehicles, then you're free to go out and buy a bespoke car or a kit car lacking all of the whatever-you-don't-wants.

But whether you see a "need" for it or not, the NHTSA looks at statistics over tens of millions of drivers. And if something shows a statistically significant impact on reducing accidents and fatalities without imposing a disproportionately large cost, then they're going to mandate implementation of that. Period. Because we live in a civilized society. And society has chosen to value the safety of its members as a whole -- very much including what you'd deem "our lowest common denominator licensed drivers" -- over whether you get startled when your ABS kicks in.

Every year between 1966 and 1973, there were over 25 traffic fatalities for every 100,000 people in the United States. By 2011, there were 10.4. Cutting the automobile death rate by 60% is MORE than worth whatever inconvenience you might feel. The world is larger than yourself. Society is larger than yourself.

 

[Slade]

Not that Norm needs the backup, but I get what he's saying. It's absolutely terrifying the number of people that say, "I'm a great driver" and can't drive in a parking lot without people scattering for their lives. Even worse are the folks who (without any instruction whatsoever) think they're just as skilled as the "pros" on youtube.

For me the real terror is that the tech that's being tested on us now is geared towards the very real and very near reality that soon, we will all be required to sit in auto driving cars "for our own safety." Tech for better handling, better engine management, better quality control...fabulous. The commercial where the guy is thinking about work, his poodle girlfriend, did he turn off the coffee pot, and then the car "saves" him because he's an idiot driver...makes me weep.

Me, I'd rather have more training, education, and experience before anyone can get their license. I used to think that it'd be good for population control and safety if everyone had to ride a motorcycle for 3 years before they could graduate to a car.

Saving lives is great...saving the lives of mindless drones???

Let the assault begin....

 

[Slade]

Man, it must suck to wake up every morning being so angry at how the world operates.

Do you think that no cars should have traction control or stability control because you wouldn't use them? Or is that some 'different' type of electronic nanny that you approve of?

When I see clowns in traffic I think:

1) You don't have the equipment.
2) You don't have the skill/training.
3) You don't have the judgement.

TC is great, but how many people are counting on that to save their ass so they can go faster in poor conditions. Every year up here in winter in Mn. we have to remind people that cruise control is a bad idea on ice. Really? So is putting a shotgun in your mouth.

And every year someone bitches that they're car didn't work to save them. Physics still wins every argument.

 

[Papaya]

But the car was probably 20-25 feet away, but about to cross paths. It was basically a "there is a car coming" warning. Does the mustang do that?

Sorry! Your question isn't correct answered here. (I don't like that people throw things around - and have no idea what they are talking about.)

Sorry again guys.

What you are asking for is the "CTA" Cross Traffic Alert what is a part of BLIS (Blind Spot Information System). See the video if this is what you are looking for. It detects vehicles approaching your vehicle from a distance up to 65Ft.

[ame]

 

[Papaya]

This is easily solved by clearing all of the snow off of your car, which you really should be doing anyway...

You are funny! :cheers: Really!
Honestly, what do you thing how often you are trying to clean your sensors at -38 Celsius (close to even -40 Fahrenheit)? Are you scratching the ice of the new car or you using a hammer? Backside of the Stang and sensors were covered in 1" ice. FYI. Cleaning sensors.... :tsk:

 

[14MustangV6]

You are funny! :cheers: Really!
Honestly, what do you thing how often you are trying to clean your sensors at -38 Celsius (close to even -40 Fahrenheit)? Are you scratching the ice of the new car or you using a hammer? Backside of the Stang and sensors were covered in 1" ice. FYI. Cleaning sensors.... :tsk:

If it's caked in ice, that's one thing and yes, there isn't too much you can do about that.

I interpreted your post to mean that the sensors were cleared (and working normally) until you started driving and snow/ice moved from one area of the car and wound up covering the sensors (in which case the solution IS to clear the entire car off and not just the windows). My mistake.

 

[tsunami]

I am glad that my Mustang has airbags all around the interior. I am a fairly good driver but I need as much help as I can get, to survive when other drivers think that they are Le Mans qualified. And the more that Ford can do to protect me from the 'expert drivers' who drive as if they are the only vehicle on the road.

 

[Norm Peterson]

And that, right there, is your problem. If you feel like your needs are special and are not being met by the general run of vehicles, then you're free to go out and buy a bespoke car or a kit car lacking all of the whatever-you-don't-wants.

But whether you see a "need" for it or not, the NHTSA looks at statistics over tens of millions of drivers. And if something shows a statistically significant impact on reducing accidents and fatalities without imposing a disproportionately large cost, then they're going to mandate implementation of that. Period. Because we live in a civilized society. And society has chosen to value the safety of its members as a whole -- very much including what you'd deem "our lowest common denominator licensed drivers" -- over whether you get startled when your ABS kicks in.

Every year between 1966 and 1973, there were over 25 traffic fatalities for every 100,000 people in the United States. By 2011, there were 10.4. Cutting the automobile death rate by 60% is MORE than worth whatever inconvenience you might feel. The world is larger than yourself. Society is larger than yourself.

I don't think that having fewer needs really counts as having special needs. To me, a special need is one that is attended to by having assistance provided, not by not having it.

If you can, please explain to me why I would ever need a backup camera or reverse park assist, if I choose to never live where parking is as bad as it is where you live, never own an SUV, for as long as I can effectively use my car's mirrors and/or turn my head. I'm not saying that you shouldn't have it, only that in the absence of similar needs I should be able to opt out. Yes, I know I could probably arrive at some DIY work-around (just as you might in order to get a rear window defogger to work the way you prefer it to work). But should we have to? I don't think so.

Just as a passing thought, I wonder how thoroughly the concept of BLIS was really thought through. How long in heavy traffic might it take for people to get annoyed with its constant warnings to the point of learning to ignore it completely. How valuable will it be then?

You really should be concerned about any reduction in average driving skill levels. Nannies and such do have their limitations, and it'll be those least able to cope who will be most likely to be "caught out" in a big and unpleasant way.


Food for thought. Any "society" that refuses to acknowledge a range of needs among its members - however lofty and well-intended their aims might be - is little more than a dictatorship.


Norm

Sponsored