Is our future bleak?

"MUSASHI66" (musashi66) 08/24/2016 at 11:47 • Filed to: None

0

38

From FP today

The 2016 Nielsen AutoTECHCAST report, released today, found that U.S. consumers are most interested in technology aimed toward safety, followed by connectivity, comfort and convenience, driver assistance and fuel efficiency.

Safety tech features drawing the most interest in the survey were rear camera mirrors, low-speed collision avoidance systems and blind-spot detection and prevention systems, respectively.

Blind-spot detection and prevention systems are viewed by consumers as being the most differentiating technology during the vehicle-buying process. In fact, 73 percent of responders said they were “very/extremely likely” to purchase a vehicle with blind-spot detection/prevention than one without, the survey found.

My wife and myself just bought new cars, 2016 Subaru Forester XTs, and my mom purchased a 2017 XT as well. We were very clear that we wanted the XT for the power, but no Eye-sight bullshit which Subaru offers on all their cars as an option. The inventory was very much against us - I’d say that an average Subaru dealership had 10 Forester XT Touring models with leather and Eye-sight to 1 XT Premium with fabric seats and no Eye-sight.

Subaru and Honda/Acura are two of the companies which have really streamlined models - you really don’t get many options. I wonder how long will it take for this technology to become so cheap, and for the demand to become so vast, that it doesn’t make sense for them to offer their top of the line engine/trim without the Eye-sight. I wonder how long will it take to have the market of desirable cars (with good engines) ruined completely by having undesirable (to me) features like Eye-sight. I wonder how long before the only new models without tech like that are the cheap stripper models with base engines.

Right now, we live in a world of family cars with 250+ HP, cars with a manual transmission, crazy good handling and 400+ hp for $35k, AWD rockets with 300+ hp - really, a golden era for automobiles. The convergence of speed, safety, reliability, efficiency and handling is unmatched in history as far as I am concerned. But, as these new technologies are becoming the norm, I fear that in 5-15 years, every car will have a suite of collision avoidance technologies which we won’t be able to turn off. I feel that those will propagate into mainstream just like ABS and traction control did, and they’ll become mandatory if a car wants to meet NHSTA safety requirements.

Your thoughts? Is the future bleak? Or, do you welcome our collision avoidance overlords?

For Sweden > MUSASHI66 08/24/2016 at 11:52

3

Nah gimmie that eyesight I don’t like crashing

jimz > MUSASHI66 08/24/2016 at 11:53

4

I don’t see it as “bleak,” but it is inevitable. we as enthusiasts have to keep it in perspective. the vast majority of car owners drive because they have to, not because they want to. Driving is a chore they put up with so they can get their shit done. They’d rather be doing anything else, which is part of the reason so many people do shit like text while driving.

hell, I’ll even happily admit that 80% of the driving I do on a daily basis sucks. I don’t enjoy being stuck in stop-and-go, barely moving traffic on the freeway for an hour.

Ash78, voting early and often > MUSASHI66 08/24/2016 at 11:56

0

My experience is that our 2015 Honda’s lane departure and forward collision warnings are utterly useless and only provide false alarms (or real alarms when it’s too late to react). I can’t speak for eyesight and others, but what I’m seeing so far is an overpriced joke, rushed to market so the list of safety features could be padded. And when it’s hot outside, the windshield camera shuts down.

RiceRocketeer Extraordinaire > MUSASHI66 08/24/2016 at 11:58

3

As a traditionalist? Of course.

As a futurist? No, I think cars have failed as transportation solutions in urban areas .

So I’m holding on to my manual transmission, rear wheel drive throttle-cable roadster with neither stability nor traction control, but as soon as self-driving cars come around the Camry is done for.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > MUSASHI66 08/24/2016 at 11:59

0

I wonder how much of it is due to the newness of the tech and status of car as fashion or tech accessory. New car, gotta have the newest in tech - back in the early 2000s there was a brief tech war in minivans on offering integration of game consoles in the back seat - whatever happened to that? The market may be able to determine which new techs are worthy of surviving - if not interfered with.

ABS and STM are second-stage measures - driver does X, system enhances with Y. That’s a lot easier to normalize than first-stage - car sees X, does Y.

crowmolly > MUSASHI66 08/24/2016 at 12:01

2

I welcome it, but some of this stuff is certainly not ready for prime time. Back up sensors/cameras? Lane departure? Sure.

Eye tracking to detect fatigue? File that in the “8-6-4" folder.

CB > MUSASHI66 08/24/2016 at 12:01

1

So, what exactly does Eyesight do that you don’t want in a vehicle? Is it just the added costs or the fact that it’s a nanny feature? Because really, if something helps prevent a crash, that’s probably a good thing.

One thing that irks me is “oh, you can’t turn off the traction control/abs/who cares on this vehicle!” If you’re autocrossing, sure, valid complaint, but if you’re driving on the streets, you’d be an idiot to not have those on.

MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner > CB 08/24/2016 at 12:11

0

I will say turning off the traction control helps me in my 07 Mercury Milan in specific road conditions (as well as being off the whole time during RallyX). Biggest issue is when I know I just need a bit more power to get out of that snow pile it kills my power. It’s to the point that I don’t even have to look at the dash to slap the TSC OFF button and turn it off while getting out of the deep snow.

For the record I turn it back on right when I get out of the deep stuff to make sure it’s helping out on normal surfaces.

CB > MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner 08/24/2016 at 12:12

0

Fair enough, you got me there.

MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner > CB 08/24/2016 at 12:16

0

I mean 99.9% of the time I leave it on. Deep snow and rally cross are the only times I turn it off. I do like the option though.

MUSASHI66 > CB 08/24/2016 at 12:18

0

It brakes for me

It reduces the power for me

It yells at me when I cross a lane line

I could live with the adaptive cruise control, but I in no circumstances want any of the above. Plus, the added costs, complexity and future repairs of the countless sensors etc is not something I would want for my worst enemy.

Urambo Tauro > MUSASHI66 08/24/2016 at 12:21

1

The bleak part is that people are getting too comfortable with “safety” technology.

Statistics often focus on fatalities, and I’m having a hard time finding numbers on crashes in general. But I strongly suspect that while modern cars make it easier to survive a crash, the amount of crashes has only increased.

I think this is silly. Why settle for a “good” crash, when you can avoid the crash altogether? But it’s not the cars that need to avoid collisions; it’s the drivers.

Frenchlicker > MUSASHI66 08/24/2016 at 12:22

0

As told by a Subaru salesmen “, We really don’t have many cars without Eyesight in stock. Almost every single person actually buying one wants it.”

MUSASHI66 > RiceRocketeer Extraordinaire 08/24/2016 at 12:22

0

Self driving is different that driver assist. I would probably take a self driving car right now if they were available. Drive to work or home in rush hour traffic while catching another 30 min of sleep? Check. Drive to a grocery store and catch up on my reading? Check - my pile of Car and Driver, MotorTrend and Automobile is so large that I threw away 10-15 of them the other day as I knew I’d never get to them.

But I don’t want my car breaking for me, changing lanes for me or reducing my power for me while I am driving and in control. That is some HAL shit right there.

Please Subaru, accelerate for me.

“I can’t do that”.

Nope. Not for me.

cletus44 aka Clayton Seams > MUSASHI66 08/24/2016 at 12:23

0

Cars have been dead since 1974.

MUSASHI66 > crowmolly 08/24/2016 at 12:26

0

I do like backup sensors and cameras. But those are not in the same league as auto-breaking.

MUSASHI66 > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 08/24/2016 at 12:28

0

I don’t mind ABS and traction control. As you said, they only react to what I do. But having the computer do something for me...I don’t like it.

I understand people which do like it. Many drive as a chore, and many are shitty drivers, and many will greatly benefit from having it.

Maybe I need to look at it differently - if all the sheep drives a car with Eye-sight, then the chances of them hitting me because they are shitty drivers are less than without Eye-sight.

crowmolly > MUSASHI66 08/24/2016 at 12:28

0

A big problem with it all is UX design, too.

You mess with people’s subconscious when you auto brake or when a car does something it is not traditionally supposed to do. Lane departure is great if somebody is driving fatigued but it’s not so great if it’s startling or obtrusive.

MUSASHI66 > Urambo Tauro 08/24/2016 at 12:29

1

We definitely need safer drivers. Drivers license tests in the USA are pathetic. My first curse at shitty drivers is usually “ who gave you the license?!!”

MUSASHI66 > Ash78, voting early and often 08/24/2016 at 12:30

0

And all the videos I’ve seen confirm that too

MUSASHI66 > For Sweden 08/24/2016 at 12:30

0

Consider paying attention while you drive ;)

MUSASHI66 > Frenchlicker 08/24/2016 at 12:31

0

Typical Subaru buyers are the kind that would appreciate Eye-sight.

MUSASHI66 > jimz 08/24/2016 at 12:32

0

True... as I mentioned in another reply, many this is a good thing - more cars with this equals less people hitting my car. I don’t mind this technology in cars, I just don’t want it in my car, and I am afraid that as it propagates, it will become mandatory in new cars eventually.

MUSASHI66 > cletus44 aka Clayton Seams 08/24/2016 at 12:34

1

When a family sedan can run circles around some of the best that pre-1974 had to offer, I can’t agree.

There were some great designs though. Too bad that the cars were shit

MUSASHI66 > crowmolly 08/24/2016 at 12:35

0

Well, ABS did the same way back when, but them it became normal and then it became mandatory...

For Sweden > MUSASHI66 08/24/2016 at 12:35

1

That’s a good thing to do, but if working in air safety has taught me anything, it’s not perfect advice.

crowmolly > MUSASHI66 08/24/2016 at 12:40

0

ABS is slightly different. Your foot is already on the brake with the pedal mashed. You are already aware of braking. That aside, the pulsing is still startling for some people.

I guess you could make a case for the introduction of the automatic trans back in the day.

cletus44 aka Clayton Seams > MUSASHI66 08/24/2016 at 12:42

2

By that logic, because the Beatles sometimes sang out of tune, today’s autotune singers are more enjoyable. Old cars are not as fast, efficient and safe, but the fact that we’re here talking about cars shows that we care about more than speed, efficiency, and safety.

MUSASHI66 > cletus44 aka Clayton Seams 08/24/2016 at 13:03

0

No, that is not the same logic, at all. In order for Auto tune to be better than Beatles, they would have to have better lyrics, and music, and harmonics and everything else that makes a good song good.

Some old cars are fine. Let’s just not pretend that nothing made after 1974 is good.

MUSASHI66 > crowmolly 08/24/2016 at 13:05

1

I do see your point and I agree :)

Frenchlicker > MUSASHI66 08/24/2016 at 13:12

0

I thought it seemed pretty snazzy myself. It would be nice on a DD.

mazda616 > MUSASHI66 08/24/2016 at 13:13

0

I don't mind most of that stuff. My car has blind spot monitoring and it has saved my ass a couple of times. Plus, I can turn it off if I really want to. That's the key for me.

RiceRocketeer Extraordinaire > MUSASHI66 08/24/2016 at 13:29

0

Well .. the way things are going, it will probably be criminal at some point to not have those systems, or to disable them, kind of like how emissions and airbag laws are now.

BigBlock440 > CB 08/24/2016 at 13:54

0

Why? Traction control is not stability control, and with a sub-200 horse FWD econobox, it will literally make no difference. The only thing traction control is good for is getting you unstuck when one tire loses traction.

MUSASHI66 > RiceRocketeer Extraordinaire 08/24/2016 at 13:56

0

And that is my fear

MUSASHI66 > mazda616 08/24/2016 at 13:59

0

That’s just monitoring and beeping. Does it hot the breaks for you? Does it nudge you back in the lane when it thinks you are swerving? Does it cut power when it thinks it should? Can you turn it off and make it not come back on next time you turn on the car?

CB > BigBlock440 08/24/2016 at 14:03

0

I just have the mental image of people turning it off and then peeling out from Cars and Coffee.

However, in your point about it making no difference other than helping out when a tire losing traction, why not have it on if it only benefits safety and you’re not doing some form of performance driving on a track?

mazda616 > MUSASHI66 08/24/2016 at 16:06

0

No. No. Yes. No.

It would do all of those things if it was a Grand Touring with the Technology package but it’s just a Touring with the sunroof package.