Do you agree with Tim Allen?

[Equinox]

^ Yea, but thats not entirely true. I mean everytime we get on planes, we put our lives in the crew's hands. When we get on a bus, we put our lives in the drivers hands etc. etc. It would be the same thing if a computer was driving us around. There are alot of situations were we are not in control of our own lives. Even people who get driven around in a limo put their lives in the drivers hands. We have to face that we really don't have total control of our own lives.

People don't mind letting others drive them around. Computer driving aids (we have them now, but more will come,) or a car totally driven by computer will happen one day.

[Ferrer]

Certainly we can't have full control our of lives, by several reasons some of which have already been exposed. But that we can't have full control of our lives doesn't mean we don't want to have it. Without going to far into psycology, because I'm not an expert, I'd say that humans like power, control and freedom.

And this why the car is great. Yes, public transport is practical and cheap and planes and trains are convenient in terms of time employed in the journey. But the greatness of the car lies within the fact that whenever I want I can grap the keys of my car and go wherever I fancy.

I don't have to follow predetermined roads, nevermind railways, or comply with time tables or schedules. The car represents pure freedom. Which why, after all, we like ti so much. There are no constraints, no conditions, no anything. Just road, seat and ass.

I don't see this concept, wheter it's the car as we know it today or an evolution, disappearing any time soon.

[Equinox]

Yea, I agree that the car represents freedom. Thats why I think there will always be cars that we can drive ourselves (or like on IRobot, a car that drives itself, but you can also take control when you want.) But it could be the same with cars that drive themselves. It would still be freedom just your not driving.

But with a car that drives itself, you wouldn't grab the keys. Probably just voice command like some cars have now. But you would just tell the car were to go, or even tell the car where to go/ turn etc. It could be the same as we have now (the freedom to go where we want,) just instead of turning the wheel or pressing the fuel pedal, you tell the car to turn left at the next turn etc. So instead of physical commands like turning the car yourself, it would be voice commands to turn.

I'm just throwing stuff out there. I do agree with what you said though. The car is freedom, but I think cars that drive themselves could also be freedom, just in a different way (It could give even more freedom as you can sit back, relax, and look around.) Plus the fact alot of people get in their car when their upset and just want to get out, which can cause issues as their emotional etc. If a computer drove the car we wouldn't have to worry about some angry guy getting behind the wheel as he's just sitting there not driving, just relaxing. I will always prefer the cars we have now over a computer controlled car.

[Kitdy]

I think there are a lot of people out there that don't really care for driving and when the time comes would easily give up the steering wheel and pedals for a computer.

[wwgkd]

I think there are a lot of people out there that don't really care for driving and when the time comes would easily give up the steering wheel and pedals for a computer.

With all the stupid things I've seen computers do I have issues fully trusting them to drive me around, but we're slowly edging our way there with drive-by-wire and such. I suppose by the time they do bring something like this around it would have become more acceptable to most people. I look at how often adaptive cruise control thought we were going to die and slammed on the brakes because of a corner and wonder, though. I figure if they want to make a car beep at me becuase it thinks I'm asleep that's one thing, allowing it to brake is something else.

[csl177]

The public likes the IDEA of being in control, not the responsibility required of it.

Look around... the cars we have now already give drivers the impression of mastery, when in fact DSC/TC/XYZ is behind the curtain. Manufacturers will continue to provide features that support the conceit.

And when a primary control device develops problems, the public will call out the lawyers. Ask Toyota.

EDIT: Forgot to register my opinion of Tim Allen's pontificating, but Matra's covered it for me.

[henk4]

The public likes the IDEA of being in control, not the responsibility required of it.

Look around... the cars we have now already give drivers the impression of mastery, when in fact DSC/TC/XYZ is behind the curtain. Manufacturers will continue to provide features that support the conceit.

And when a primary control device develops problems, the public will call out the lawyers. Ask Toyota.

EDIT: Forgot to register my opinion of Tim Allen's pontificating, but Matra's covered it for me.

on another note, who would have guessed 50 years ago that a BMW 600 would receive the atttraction is obviously has got now.....

[TheScrutineer]

Because we humans like to be in control, we like to decide our destiny and manage our freedom as much as possible. And vehicles without driver inputs are the exact opposite of that.

We also don't like dying in car accidents.

[Ferrer]

We also don't like dying in car accidents.

Freedom has its risks, and I'm sure that they can't be eliminated fully no matter ho much technology advances. Maybe one day we'll have to make the choice, freedom or safety.

The public likes the IDEA of being in control, not the responsibility required of it.

Look around... the cars we have now already give drivers the impression of mastery, when in fact DSC/TC/XYZ is behind the curtain. Manufacturers will continue to provide features that support the conceit.

And when a primary control device develops problems, the public will call out the lawyers. Ask Toyota.

EDIT: Forgot to register my opinion of Tim Allen's pontificating, but Matra's covered it for me.

You've definitely got a point, but I think traction control, and the current array of electronic devices are very different from cars that completely drive themselves. In fact in normal driving those devices hardly affect you.

[csl177]

You've definitely got a point, but I think traction control, and the current array of electronic devices are very different from cars that completely drive themselves. In fact in normal driving those devices hardly affect you.

"In normal driving" those devices are always vigilant of when an operator may go beyond their skill or encounter conditions that upset the vehicle's dynamics. Buyers of everything from self-parking and crash-avoiding luxury sedans to active traction and stability controlled sports cars are happy to have the conceit of control, but in fact are only providing basic inputs. That acceptance is part of the psychology that enables a future with ever more technology sold as safety. Not a bad thing mind you, just something to consider when looking in the automotive crystal ball. Engineers can't help themselves, and the public loves gadgetry. Future cars will have more.

[Ferrer]

True, though as long as you can disconnect the electronics, all is fine.

[TheScrutineer]

Recalling great automotive moment when the 2007 S Class crashed while trying to demonstrate their radar-braking system

[csl177]

True, though as long as you can disconnect the electronics, all is fine.

Until something happens and the lawyers are called.

[Ferrer]

Well, we don't do such things.

[cargirl1990]

Don't agree at all.