
1958 Imperial: What It's Like to Drive an Auto-Pilot Car - userbinator
http://www.imperialclub.com/Articles/58AutoPilot/index.htm
======
niftich
A fascinating account of a feature we'd now recognize as 'cruise control'.
Despite the technical details being different than modern systems, many of its
behaviors are familiar -- like the surreal rollercoaster-tow hillclimbing --
while some have been rectified in more modern systems, like better engine
braking to regain the target speed.

I believe the UX of vanilla cruise control is a good fit for what it does:
it's a fire-and-forget, opt-in mode that's disengaged with a tap of the brake
or its own button. It's simple to reason about: do I want the car to gun it at
a constant 70 mph, or no? You can run a quick mental judgement call and decide
whether to engage it or leave it off.

This is completely unlike any other 'assist' feature that came later: ABS,
automatic emergency braking, and especially adaptive cruise control. And, in
my opinion [1] this vast difference between adaptive and classic cruise
control is a safety risk -- features that override driver behavior in case of
a condition the car identifies need to have no false negatives, need to be on
by default and opt-out instead of opt-in, and need to not be disengaged by
trivial inputs like lightly tapping the brakes.

In Tesla's particular case, the opt-in UX was even worse, because its
automatic emergency braking wouldn't engage if autopilot was off [3] -- a
decision contrary to sane user expectation, and completely unlike cars of
other premium automakers. And the fact that their emergency braking still
can't detect all stationary hazards in a travel lane is tragic.

I'm not convinced that classic cruise control is a good case study (or
anecdote) to compare emerging driver assist, autodriving, and safety features
with. It simply has the exact opposite semantics than every other feature that
we have since put in our cars.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16772748#16774258](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16772748#16774258)
[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12097671#12097911](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12097671#12097911)
[3]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12011584](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12011584)

~~~
NLips
I'll agree that the way you think of ABS should be unlike how you think of
cruise control, but you shouldn't lump it in with automatic braking or
adaptive cruise control. You just never need to think about ABS. It removes
the need for the driver to weigh up how much or how fast to pump the breaks in
an emergency situation, meaning that if you need to stop, you just slam the
pedal, as it should be.

Conceptually, ABS means that the driver has a simple interface to make the car
behave simply on the road. The other driver aids you mention give the drive a
simple interface to make the car behave in a _complex_ way on the road, which
is very different. The fact that there are smarts in the implementation is
neither here nore there.

The same applies to other electronic stability packages introduced 25-20ish
years ago which prevent / encourage skids depending on circumstances.

~~~
davedx
> You just never need to think about ABS. It removes the need for the driver
> to weigh up how much or how fast to pump the breaks in an emergency
> situation, meaning that if you need to stop, you just slam the pedal, as it
> should be.

Maybe if you learned to drive with ABS in mind.

I had to do an emergency brake on the autobahn in Germany a couple of months
ago. I instinctively did _not_ slam the brake pedal all the way, and tried to
do a controlled brake from a very high speed to a full stop. I just made it
and the ABS didn't engage.

Is it really recommended to let ABS take over even from very high speeds?

~~~
NLips
Yes, it is recommended. ABS pumps much faster and with more control than most,
if not all drivers. Modern cars also re-balance braking between front/rear and
left/right.

Anti-lock brakes are forbidden in Formula 1 in order to make it harder for the
drivers. If ABS were reducing how fast a car could decelerate, that regulation
wouldn't exist!

ABS can perform worse on loose surfaces like gravel or deep snow, where best
braking is provided by locking the wheels. However, steering control on those
surfaces while braking is better with ABS.

~~~
tomatotomato37
>Anti-lock brakes are forbidden in Formula 1 in order to make it harder for
the drivers

That's actually not a 100% true. Professional drivers don't pump, they attempt
to brake just at the threshold of locking in order to get the most out of
their available traction. It's a fairly difficult technique that is dependent
on experience more than anything, so for the average trackday racer ABS is
fine enough.

------
neves
When you read this kind of text from old magazines is that you see that
humanity is really getting better: "What it does. This is not easy to explain
to women and the mechanically innocent. Not that the gadget is particularly
complex;"

~~~
userbinator
You can definitely date a nontrivial piece of writing, at least approximately,
by the language it employs.

I'd say humanity has gotten better in some ways, but also worse in others.

~~~
aerovistae
Can you give an example of a way in which we’ve gotten worse?

~~~
maratd
Peretend I said something politically incorrect and insert your outrage below
this comment. Be sure to use some derogatory adjectives, unrelated to anything
previously said, to describe me.

~~~
aerovistae
I'm not convinced that's a new phenomenon. Certainly I've seen no evidence
that it _is_ and a great deal that it _isn 't._

~~~
MBCook
That may simply be an artifact of most writing we have from older periods was
professional, like magazine articles.

Not personal/casual, like Reddit/HN.

~~~
aerovistae
You don't even really need examples of casual writing to discern that this
attitude is nothing new. I mean, look at stories from throughout history, from
the debates of Roman senators to Salem Witch Trials and back to Chinese oracle
bones-- since when have people ever avoided _ad hominem_ attacks, fallacious
logic, and overwrought outrage on topics they barely understand?

------
tolien
Inflating by CPI, the option cost $805 at today’s prices [1].

For comparison, the brochure for a model year 2016 Audi A3 reckons cruise
control was a £225 and ACC a £575 option i.e. $300 and $763 at current
exchange rates.

1:
[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%2486%201954%20US%20Dol...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%2486%201954%20US%20Dollars)

~~~
OliverJones
Why the higher cost back then?

"A reversible electric motor, a flyball governor, and associated electrical
gadgetry."

Making that kind of precision mechanical stuff isn't cheap. Making the
"gadgetry" from discrete components isn't cheap. Making it in low volume isn't
cheap. Making it keep working when splashed with wet road salt and then frozen
isn't cheap.

Plus, it was a premium feature and probably was priced accordingly.

Electronic stuff is cheaper and works better. Even though a flyball governor
is a cool mechanism.

~~~
tolien
It wasn't my intention to imply that it was expensive - within an order of
magnitude of current prices shows how relatively cheap it was, given that
electronics and sheer scale will have driven down the cost of parts (if not
necessarily the end user cost).

I expect the difference is in the vendors' margins (i.e. nowadays the option
price is almost pure profit/salesperson's commission).

------
hackpert
Other than the obvious and horrifying casual sexism that others have
highlighted, the most interesting part to me is the diagram at the bottom. The
system was mechanically simple enough to be largely explained in one small
diagram that a near-layperson (and clearly not women!) could largely
understand. Such things are amiss from popular media today because our systems
are so (often perhaps unnecessarily) complex.

~~~
gist
> horrifying casual sexism that others have highlighted

Horryfying? You think that this is 'horryfying':

"This is not easy to explain to women and the mechanically innocent."

It's 1958. And yes most women (and especially at that time) tended to be less
interested in mechanics. Not to say that there weren't women who were but
nothing wrong in stating a point like that. Nobody cared back then either. And
it wasn't horrifying that is a big exaggeration.

I watch a TV Show on Jet Airplanes. My wife has zero interest in watching that
show or anything related. Ditto for my daughters and for that matter any past
girlfriend. Of course there are women who watch and enjoy the same show. But I
would love to bet anyone that the number of men far outweighs female interest.

Separately women make jokes about men and sports. That isn't to say that all
women don't like sports or all men do. It's just a generalization that is
rooted in truth and there is nothing derogatory about saying that either.

~~~
actuallyalys
This is disingenuous. "This is not easy to explain to women..." is saying that
women categorically would struggle to understand it, to the extent that they
need to be mentioned as a separate category in addition to the "mechanically
innocent." It's not simply observing that fewer women would be interested.

The other flaw in your argument is that casual sexism like this is why women
are less interested in mechanics (or at least appear that way). If I lived in
the 50s, why would I want to read a publication that casually implies I'm not
smart enough to understand it? Candidly, the number of commenters willing to
defend casual sexism is a big reason why I've lost interest in Hacker News.

------
jaggederest
I drive most of my miles these days with ACC and lane keeping on, and I find
that the article is generally still correct when relating to a newly automated
function of driving.

I watch more for peripheral threats and have to pay attention to the throttle
only when I feel unexpected acceleration or braking, or if there's a tricky
condition that ACC might not handle correctly. I hope, as time goes on, those
moments decrease in number and danger.

~~~
Roritharr
Same here, Fan of ACC & lane keeping. The one thing that bugs me about my car
(2018 VW Tiguan Allspace) is that it'll never get "better" at ACC & lane
keeping.

The factory defaults are what it's going to be, compared to how some tesla
owners describe their cars to handle more situations better over time.

------
gwbas1c
This is a good example of someone who can't explain a simple concept. The
author uses pages and pages when a very simple explanation would make a lot
more sense.

I think a lot of new technology is explained this way, and that's why some
people think certain new technologies have magical properties.

Referring to cruise control as a "robot" is, in hindsight, idiotic.

~~~
csours
> Referring to cruise control as a "robot" is, in hindsight, idiotic.

Much like 'AI' the definition of 'robot' shrinks to the pool of things which
technology has not conquered. That is to say - Speech Recognition is not AI,
Image Recognition is not AI, etc etc. As soon as it has its own name, we no
longer call it AI or robotics.

------
foobar1962
Mike Hawthorn famously (or infamously) died in a Jaguar with a hand throttle,
which could be considered a simple form of "cruise control".

It's the feedback systems that make cruise control safe: controlling the car's
speed and not the simpler task of controlling the throttle position.

~~~
hartator
What feedback systems? The system described doesn’t seem that different of a
regilar cruise control.

~~~
twtw
Regular cruise control is a feedback system, comparing the current speed to
the desired speed constantly and adjusting the throttle to make the two match.
A fixed throttle would result in wildly varying speed based on road grade and
other factors.

------
jakecopp
> It does not invite highway hypnosis. The explanation for this lies in your
> past driving experience. You lend the Auto-Pilot a duty you have been
> trained to perform yourself, and this somehow makes you just a little
> uneasy. It is not an entirely relaxing thing to sit back at 70 m.p.h. and
> feel the engine get gas from some other agency than yourself; your alertness
> is more likely to be heightened than lulled. This slight wariness stays with
> you as long as the device is working, even after thousands of miles have
> been logged.

This exact same sentence sounds like it could be applied to Tesla's Autopilot
(correctly or not I don't know!)

~~~
Piskvorrr
Could be, but isn't. Even with modern cruise control, you're just freed from
the accelerator; there's still plenty of driving tasks to keep you alert
("what is that opposite vehicle's _intent_? Is there something in that shadow,
threatening to enter my path? Which of the three closely consecutive exits do
I take?"). With the _promise_ of "it drives itself", you're prone to leaving
the driver's seat, figuratively speaking (although there are people that have
done literally that).

------
qrbLPHiKpiux
> This is not easy to explain to women and the mechanically innocent.

1950’s such an alive time!

------
m_st
> This is not easy to explain to women and the mechanically innocent.

How insulting! As a father of two girls (and a boy) I'm glad such statements
aren't common anymore.

~~~
qrbLPHiKpiux
They are! We just keep them to ourselves! (Father of two girls and married)

------
walrus01
wow, 1950s thinking indeed: "this is not easy to explain to women".

------
Tepix
Has cruise control been improved so that it takes into accounts reduced
visibility when going over hills?

~~~
gambiting
No - and why would it? Its only job is to keep the speed of your vehicle
constant, if the visibility is too low to travel safely at the chosen speed,
you should disengage the system.

