
The most under-hyped, but most important, technology since seat belts - MaysonL
http://scobleizer.com/2010/01/03/the-most-under-hyped-but-most-important-technology-since-seat-belts/
======
jordanb
The thing about ABS is that it operates on the principle of least surprise: It
takes what the user expect brakes to do (slow the car down) and makes it work
even when traditional brakes would fail to perform that task.

So it took a technology that the user expected to work in a certain way, and
made it work _better_ in that way.

It made brake behavior less surprising to the user.

This technology seems to do the opposite (at least, the way Scoble described
it). It massively changes the behavior of the car based on some sensors, and
then expects the user of the car to deal with the different behavior of the
systems, all in a high-stress situation with alarms going off.

~~~
ugh
Driving cars is very dangerous. The earlier we radically change how we use
cars the earlier we can avoid deaths on the streets.

I want an autopilot for cars as soon as possible.

~~~
houseabsolute
Absolutely. The moment we develop an autopilot that is safer than average
human drivers by a statistically significant margin, it should be mandatory in
all cars. I am hopeful that we will see this during our lifetimes.

~~~
ugh
The introduction of such systems (probably expensive at first) would also be a
great opportunity to switch from car ownership to widespread car rental (ala
zipcar).

------
ErrantX
_It is so reliable I no longer impulsively reach for my brakes. Let’s say the
car in front of me speeds up after slamming on its brakes._

Hmm. That sounds pretty dangerous :(

~~~
chaosmachine
Yeah, I could see this becoming a problem in the future. Imagine getting used
to this, then for some reason, needing to drive an older car. "Oops, I didn't
realize this car required manual braking".

~~~
sailormoon
There could be two classes of license, like in Japan where you can have a
limited qualification to drive only automatics, or a full license including
manuals too. In this case, however, the "automatic" would be the fully
automated vehicle, and the "manual" would be the traditional human-controlled
one.

~~~
borism
why would you need a license for a fully automated vehicle?

~~~
billswift
The real reason for drivers licenses is social control. My father's first
driver's license was never supposed to expire, my State ID was never supposed
to expire, in both they changed the rules, and forced stores and banks to no
longer accept "expired" IDs as proof of identity. It's not like your identity
or age or ability to drive or anything else changes when your ID expires, they
just want to keep you on their chain.

~~~
sailormoon
Don't ignore the departmental revenue from license renewals.

------
vlad
According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, electronic stability
control is the most important technology since seat belts.

Yet, as recently as a couple of years ago, the Volkswagen Rabbit (Golf) was
the only car under $20,000 I could find with the option, other than Suzuki. As
an example, the Honda Civic did not have it, and you had to buy an Accord or
an SUV to get Honda's version of it.

An electronic stability system "makes the vehicle go where you're pointing it
by applying the (computer-assisted) brakes. I think this is definitely a
milestone." This includes driving on ice, or making tight turns
(<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-hHWSQhKuc>)

Read more: [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/06/...](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/06/13/MNG7UJD1451.DTL)

~~~
CamperBob
There are some really interesting risks associated with electronic stability
control, though. One system used by GM on the Corvette works by comparing the
input from an inertial yaw sensor to the current steering-wheel angle. Any
disagreement results in selective application of braking at one or more
wheels, as needed to make the two sensors agree.

Now: what happens when one of those sensors fails?
[http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c6-tech-
performance/2336065-...](http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c6-tech-
performance/2336065-service-active-handling-consumer-action.html)

I wish I could find the video I saw earlier, where a Z06 doing about 90 MPH
did a hard right turn into the wall at a drag strip for no apparent reason. I
don't know with any certainty that the active-handling system was at fault in
that incident, but it was enough to turn me off of the technology in a 500+ HP
car.

------
elblanco
Ford is really doing a phenomenal job recently, doing its homework and
engineering to try and get the company back on track. 5 years ago, I would
have said they were 10-15 years behind an equivalent Japanese car. Now I think
they they are only 3-5 years.

Their recent offerings are really very impressive. I'd love to see Ford be a
benchmark for American car companies as well as imports. They aren't _quite_
there yet, but their progress is amazing.

~~~
ams6110
I'm sure they are getting a lot from Mazda. The Ford Fusion, for example, is
basically a rebadged Mazda 6.

~~~
jodrellblank
I wonder how it works - Ford own Volvo, who are pretty good with safety
features (e.g. the 3 point seatbelt) and who have been building blind-spot
awareness systems, brake-priming systems, etc. and their concept for the next
S60 had distance-to-car-in-front cruise control and pedestrian detection and
so on. ( <http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/index.htm?md=1468> )

Maybe Ford are getting it from Volvo?

~~~
ams6110
Maybe. Technology sharing is a big reason for a lot of these deals. For
example the Chrysler 300/Dodge Charger uses a lot of Mercedes-Benz suspension
components (though Daimler has since sold off their interest in Chrysler).

Incidentally, Ford has recently entered an agreement to sell Volvo to a
Chinese manufacturer.

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/dec/23/volvo-sale-
ch...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/dec/23/volvo-sale-chinese-ford)

------
pclark
> Just like it was criminal for car makers to drag their feet pushing out seat
> belts, air bags, and anti-lock brakes in previous safety fights

Apparently Honda couldn't get consumers to _pay_ for ABS and had to install it
by default at no extra charge in order for people to have it.

~~~
mike_organon
I agree that is part of the issue, many customers don't care. I think there is
another relavent point.

The video of the Ford guy illustrates how companies are competing on improving
this tech. If it were mandated, might that be like forcing commoditization?
Companies with inferior tech would push it out too soon. There would be less
competition because customers would accept the minimal and it would be harder
for companies to differentiate. As opposed to now: forward-looking customers
with the money can look for the best system which pushes the tech forward.

------
WesleyJohnson
I suppose I would have to experience first hand to really weigh in on whether
I would use it or not, but from an initial reaction standpoint, I would think
I'd prefer an all or nothing approach. Meaning, either fully automated driving
or don't help me at all. I just can't help but imagine that I'd never be able
to get used to this type of selective assistance. Someone cutting you off
doesn't necessarily mean you're headed for a crash and no cars in front of you
doesn't necessarily mean you can drive 80 mph without caution. If you grow to
rely on a system such as this, it only takes one incident where the vehicle
doesn't believe it's about to be in a crash when you really are for it to
ultimately fail. Or worse yet, for the car to sense you may be in a crash and
apply counter measures which causes panic by the driver and ultimately leads
to a crash anyway due to overcorrection or something similar.

------
teuobk
There's a lot of interesting automobile safety research going on in Silicon
Valley. For example, Mercedes-Benz has a building in the Stanford Research
Park in Palo Alto where they design next-generation safety systems. My former
roommate works there, and, though I probably shouldn't give details, I can say
that there are some neat safety systems under development.

One tidbit: a number of stoplights in Palo Alto and Redwood City broadcast
information about when they are going to change. A properly equipped car can
receive that information and decide whether to proceed as usual or begin
braking, even before there is a visible change. As a corollary, if the red
light is about to turn green, the car can decide not to slow down.

~~~
weaksauce
The slowing down for a red is nice but the not slowing down because it is
going to turn green is scary. My friend died in a car crash because he timed
the light and saw that it was going to be green. A mild red light runner
t-boned his car and that was that. I say mild red light runner because had he
not timed the green perfectly he probably would still be alive.

Don't get me wrong this is promising technology but I would be hesitant to
rely on it to do too much.

~~~
vijayshankar
One more argument is that there is usually a time gap between one light
turning red and the other turning green. This gap should allow most of mild
red light runners to pass through safely. (At least in my city in India this
is true, the time gap is as big as 5 to 8 seconds)

~~~
weaksauce
The systems here have a time gap too but it was not sufficient in this case. I
think it's at most 1-2 seconds here.

I understand that argument but I am of the school of thought that the machine
should not make decisions that can impact my safety unless it is an emergency.
shaving off a few seconds on my commute is not what I would call a much of a
benefit when there is a substantial possible downside.

~~~
djcapelis
These types of technology are unlikely to make it out of research for quite a
long time. Assist and emergency operation tech seems to make it to deployment
a lot faster because of exactly these issues.

The transition between research and deployment is an important period where
things that recently became possible can be fully scrutinized. The goal of
research is simply to make things possible. The rest is a long hard slog that
not all tech makes it through.

In short, I really wouldn't worry about anything they're working on in a
research facility, that's just so far away from shipping product figuring out
which parts are more or less useful probably isn't worth doing at this point.

------
blahedo
Here's the reason I expect to hate this "feature": I _already_ hate the way my
seat belts work and they have nearly gotten me into multiple accidents.
Specifically, if I see a hazard coming from the sides/rear and slow down and
try to avoid them, I need to be able to turn my head quickly and sharply to
see them. And the GODDAMN SEATBELT IS PREVENTING THIS because the slowdown and
my quick sitting-up-straight has caused it to lock me tight against the seat.
I am now PARTIALLY BLIND with respect to whatever threat is incoming and I
have to hope for the best. This is terrifying and it is _not_ a safety
improvement. Based on the descriptions in this article, the situation in these
cars of the future will be even worse, because the seatbelts will lock down
more often _and_ the brakes will become hypersensitive and work differently
than your muscle memory has been trained to expect.

No matter how much training and experience you have with your car, as soon as
you get in a situation that requires precision handling you are suddenly
transported into a car that behaves and handles completely differently, that
you've never driven in before. Put me down in the "no" column.

~~~
anigbrowl
Sure, buddy. And not wearing a helmet would doubtless make you a better
motorcyclist, too. Fortunately, in the case of motorcyclists, people who
actually believe this tend to kill themselves earlier, sparing the rest of us
from having to listen to their bullshit.

Edit: I suggest not slouching to start with.

~~~
blahedo
Note that I'm still wearing the seatbelt, and I'm not pushing for the repeal
of seatbelt laws. If you'll read a little more carefully, you'll see that my
objection is to the mechanical change in handling, visibility, etc, just at
the moment when you need it the most, not to the presence of safety measures
in general.

------
tjmc
Adaptive cruise control has been on high end cars for over a decade -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_cruise_control_syste...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_cruise_control_system).
It would be good to see it standardized as it can significantly reduce traffic
congestion that's caused by over braking. I think BMW claimed that this would
be happen if more than 30% of cars had the feature.

------
mjs
"Ford’s version of radar prepares the brakes so that all you need to do is
touch them to get full braking pressure if the car thinks it’s headed for a
collision."

That sounds like a really good way to get hit from behind. Does the system try
to stop you as fast as possible, or as slow as possible while still avoiding
the car in front? The second option is kinder to cars behind without such
sophisticated safety systems.

~~~
adamsmith
It'd be especially cool if it took both front and back radar into account. If
nobody is behind you break more liberally but otherwise exercise more caution.

(It does seem like there would be room for such an "aggressiveness" parameter,
since you can't predict the future breaking behavior of the car in front of
you and it might have stronger or weaker breaks.)

Either way I hope all of this stuff works out to be a net win. We should know
more in a year or two!

~~~
electromagnetic
Wouldn't the ideal step be to harmonize the radar/lidar technology and have a
system enabled that forces a safe driving zone. It's all too common on
highways that vehicles can't stop within a safe distance if the vehicle in
front of it stops, which leads to 5 vehicle pile ups.

You'd only need a moderate percentage of vehicles with the radar/lidar
technology to keep a highway reasonably spaced. EG if you're tailgating, your
vehicle will brake, if someone is tailgating you it will speed you up (within
the speed limit) to get you to a safe distance, or (when capable) shift you
safely into a different lane when you're in cruise.

Eventually you could simply have vehicles communicate, so when the guy in
front of me brakes, my vehicle gets instructed that it's approaching a
decelerating object. It'll be small 'safety' steps that will eventually remove
human error from vehicle accidents.

~~~
TeHCrAzY
I don't think increasing your speed will avoid tailgaters, rather it (in my
experience) makes them go all the faster, to continue with thier tailgating
ways.

------
ricree
"Think about that. If we could cut down on car crashes by even 5% we could
save more than 2,000 lives!"

I don't know whether or not this is true, but the argument is fallacious.
Without further evidence, it is a bit premature to assume that the
fatal:nonfatal ratio in crashes prevented will be the same as that of crashes
in general. It is possible, though unlikely, that a chance might only prevent
nonfatal crashes.

~~~
ams6110
Seems that I've read about studies that show that people have a certain,
nearly unconscious risk tolerance. For example, ABS and all-wheel-drive made
driving in the snow and ice easier, so people drive a bit faster or more
aggressively until they reach their previous risk tolerance level. Thus the
potential safety benefit is not realized in actuality. In fact, if people
overestimate the added safety of the new technology, they may be more likely
to have an accident than without it. Witness the common sight of four-wheel-
drive vehicles spun off the road in a snowstorm.

~~~
Retric
Looking at the data, the steady decline in deaths per passageway mile suggests
improving safety actually works. Now, it may be useful to make people feel
less safe, but IMO most accidents are caused by people not really paying
attention and automated systems which tell them something bad happens should
help as long as they alert the driver that something bad almost happened.

PS: The fact you can take little damage while rear ending someone at 65MPH is
not something the average person wants to test out.

------
jacabado
Just to put in context, a link that was here last week or so about the
Automation Paradox:

[http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/automated-to-
dea...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/automated-to-death)

Will there be a compromise between traditional crash deaths and safety systems
induced deaths ?

Not to dismiss the new systems, I'm an optimistic by nature.

~~~
lincolnq
How is it not still a net win? The automated systems fail a lot less often
than humans. Even if they can't get the failure rate to 0%, it is still making
things safer to replace humans by robots.

------
dgallagher
GPS-enabled Governors should be put in all cars too, limiting your speed to
that of the speed limit, adjusted for weather conditions. If you're in a 35
MPH zone, you car will stop accelerating (and ideally auto-slow when going
downhill or onto slower roads) once you hit the limit for that part of the
road.

Speed limits would likely have to be re-adjusted in some cases as they may be
too low in some area's, but it would certainly cut down on accidents.

An exception would be allowing people to speed in short bursts. While rare,
sometimes you need to accelerate to avoid an accident. Not allowing for this
would be unfair.

Definitely wouldn't be popular with a lot of people, or police departments
generating revenue from speeding tickets. But driving is simply a means of
getting from A to B in a safe and efficient manner. So long as people are
getting hurt or killed in between A and B, something is very broken.

~~~
portman
This proposal wouldn't increase safety until _all_ cars on the road had the
GPS-governor feature, which would take 15-20 years for old cars to be phased
out. In the meantime, the new cars would have an annoyance (no speeding)
without providing any measurable safety improvement.

~~~
dgallagher
You're correct on some points, though it may slow other cars by way of simply
being in the way. It wouldn't work on highways with passing lanes until a high
adoption rate, but a single slow car on one-lane side roads will "bottleneck"
any speeders. This alone would most likely increase safety.

Gradually as more people got the cars, things would get safer and safer. Once,
say, 90% of cars on the road have governors, it'll be hard for a speeder to
find the opportunity to speed.

Economic reasons could speed up adoption too. For example, insurance carriers
would likely charge less for those with the device, and more for those without
it. Governments could give those with the device a break on their income
taxes.

But honestly, I don't think the idea has much traction. It's too emotionally
charged which would make it difficult for politicians to implement it, and
there are large switching costs from current cars. Self-driving cars will
likely appear beforehand. Radar and governors and what-not are really all just
bandaids for the real problem with cars; their human drivers.

~~~
sokoloff
It's not clear to me that slowing traffic will increase safety in any
meaningful way. Slowing traffic will, for any constant amount of "demand",
necessarily increase traffic density. Increased traffic density would seem
likely to have a positive correlation with accident rates that would partially
offset the decrease you're hoping to see.

During the transition period, I predict you'd see a marked increase in the
accident rate due to the increased instances of overtaking and broader spread
of speeds. (12 cars all travelling at 80 mph on an interstate is safer than 6
cars travelling at 60 mph and 6 cars travelling at 80 mph. When you figure
that each car governed to 60 will have to drive 33% longer, you'd actually
have 8 cars at 60 mph and 6 cars at 80 mph to get the same throughput to
destination on the highway.)

~~~
dgallagher
Interesting point. I know broadly that lowering speed limits tends to reduce
accident rates, but that's certainly different than this (and may just be spin
I've heard through the media).

The only way to tell would be to run something like this through a traffic
simulator, and if that found things to be safer, next study it in a sample
state or country (would be difficult to do). So you're possibly right, pending
results of an imaginary study. :)

------
jsz0
Besides radar I think there's a lot of potential for automated systems to help
drivers cope with snow & ice. For example a sensor scanning the road able to
warn the driver of black ice, or at least inform the driver that they may be
seeing rain on their windshield but it's freezing on the ground. Maybe speed
controls based on real time weather conditions. No one should be going over
40MPH on any road in the snow. How about using cars as a way to measure road
safety? Monitor the road conditions and the cars traction and report this
information to the DOT so a plow/sander can be dispatched to particularly bad
areas.

------
bmalicoat
Interesting that it doesn't always perform in severe weather conditions as
this seems like it could be when it was most useful, eg avoiding a pile-up in
a whiteout. He mentions that you shouldn't be driving in such conditions but
unfortunately Michigan is famous for rapid and surprising weather changes.
Other than that it seems like very cool technology that hopefully becomes
standard soon. It's nice to see that car manufacturers are willing to take
things slow to avoid rejection because they think it is important as well.

------
kyro
The assisted braking 'feature' where the system moves your calipers closer to
your rotors sounds really stupid and dangerous. When I press the brakes, I am
expecting a buffer period between initial contact with my pedal and the actual
deceleration of the vehicle. Because of that buffer, I tend to push my pedal
down further to initiate braking. Eliminating that buffer with drivers who
have come to expect it will make for very sudden braking, which would probably
increase the chance of being hit from behind.

~~~
dkokelley
Presumably the ABS still works, meaning you won't lose control of the car
while slamming on the breaks.

As far as being hit from behind, I suppose this is (and always has been) an
issue in accidents and other emergency situations. Still, the car behind you
_should_ allow appropriate spacing to prevent rear-ending you. I don't see how
emergency breaking systems change really change the basic rules of the roads.

------
axod
I don't buy it. If you need a radar to tell you you're about to crash, you're
probably not paying attention properly.

We should tighten up driving tests. Driving shouldn't be a right, it should be
something only competent attentive people can do.

It'd be interesting to know stats on Manual vs Automatic car accident rates.
I'd guess that Automatics are involved in more accidents since the drivers are
probably paying less attention. Similarly cruise control.

~~~
mattmaroon
It's not that you need it to tell you that, it's that the human brain, even
when focused, is relatively slow to respond. Not to mention many people have a
panic impulse that causes them to yell first and then step on the brakes. In
certain situations where a half second can mean the difference between death
and a bruised knee, it's pretty impressive stuff.

~~~
kscaldef
That may be, but I still look with suspicion on someone who says he would have
gotten in 2 accidents in 11,000 miles had his car not saved him. In my
experience, it's very, very rare for someone to just cut you off with no
warning. I can almost always predict that someone is going to switch lanes
without signaling; usually 2 or 3 seconds before they do it.

~~~
DenisM
Good for you, but how about the other 95% of the population who are less
attentive than you and lack predictive powers?

~~~
kscaldef
You think 95% of the population gets in 2 accidents a year? Scoble is either
overstating his case, or he's a wretchedly bad driver.

------
dghughes
"Another place the radar is invaluable? In fog. I drive over the Santa Cruz
mountains every day to get home and there often is fog. One day there was a
car in front of me that had no back taillights."

I bet the driver of that car was just using parking lights. I hate that!
People who drive with parking lights on don't seem to realize the rear running
lights are not on, parking lights are not meant to be used when driving that's
what headlights are for.

~~~
mmastrac
Daytime running lights are mandatory in Canada. Not sure why they aren't in
the USA. If the car is out of park, the headlights turn on automatically. It
solves a handful of issues like this that are potentially dangerous.

~~~
sokoloff
It specifically does _not_ solve the "no rear lamps" issue. In fact, it
exacerbates it.

~~~
mmastrac
Not true. Every car in Canada engages headlights and rear tail lights when the
car is out of park, regardless of the headlight settings. The only thing
effectively controlled by the headlight knob outside of park is the dashboard
lights.

~~~
sokoloff
Interesting; I did not know that. In the US, every DRL that I've seen lights
only one pair of front lamps (usually the headlamps at partial power, but some
models light other front lamps).

------
aneesh
What worries me about this technology are the corner cases. If it's 99.9%
effective, eliminating the need for manual braking, the 0.1% of the time where
it doesn't work, the user won't be ready to brake, which is dangerous.

~~~
TeHCrAzY
I think the point is that rarely would a human succeed in such a corner case,
let alone in 99% of all cases.

------
kiba
Do ya think it will have the unintended consequences of making people take
more risks then they would have if they know of safety features?

Or maybe the increased safety outweigh the cost of false sense of safety?

------
Devilboy
BMW has a system in their top-end saloons that will safely pull your car over
to the side of the road without crashing if the driver is suddenly
incapacitated (e.g. a heart attack). These system are great and I hope we can
overcome the social barriers eventually. Car accidents are still the #1 cause
of preventable death worldwide.

EDIT: Here's another great system expected to start trials in 2011:
[http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/11/road-trains-and-modular-
veh...](http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/11/road-trains-and-modular-
vehicles.html)

If you have a vehicle fitted with this system you'll be able to join 'road
trains' where the front vehicle is driven by a professional driver (e.g. truck
or bus driver) and the rest of the cars follow behind it - driven
automatically.

~~~
patio11
_Car accidents are still the #1 cause of preventable death worldwide._

That strikes me as unlikely, given that car accidents kill something like
50,000 people a year in the US. Just inside the US, an obvious candidate for
prevention -- medical mistakes -- kills far more people. (Estimated at 200k
per year preventable deaths in hospitals alone.)

Casting our glance worldwide, poorer nations have millions of deaths from
causes that aren't even "hard problems", such as clean drinking water, food
distribution (solved in Europe in about the 1700s), malaria (solved in America
over half a century ago), etc, etc.

~~~
tokenadult
_(Estimated at 200k per year preventable deaths in hospitals alone.)_

For the United States ALONE? I don't buy it. But prove me wrong by citing an
authoritative source if there is one.

~~~
patio11
Citing an authoritative source doesn't prove you wrong any more than it proves
global warming is happening ;)

Be that as it may, see generally To Err Is Human by the Institute of Medicine
(an arm of the National Science Foundation), which put the tally at 100k back
in 1999, or Dr. Chunliu Zhan and Dr. Marlene R. Miller in a research study
published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in October
of 2003.

~~~
teej
The Zhan & Miller study in 2003 supported the IOM's conclusion of ~98k deaths
due to medical errors. The 200k number you quoted earlier was "found" by a
study by some random website and was not published in any medical journal.

Not to downplay the severity of the issue, but there is a big difference
between 100k and 200k lives.

------
mschy
I've had the radar-assist cruise control for two years (complete with braking)
and everything, and I view it as a first step towards automated driving.

People aren't likely to accept automated driving (even if it's statistically
safer than the average driver) but they will pretty readily accept driving
aids that watch the car in front of you, and watch if you're in your lane, and
what not. I expect those "aids" to continue to advance and expand with them
being "aids" for a long time, until liability problems are solved.

And FWIW, I've had no issue when driving rental cars that don't have the
radar/laser based cruise control. The experience of regular cruise control and
radar/laser cruise control is sufficiently different that there's really no
way to mix them up.

~~~
elblanco
On long stretches of Highway in the American West, there really isn't a whole
lot of _driving_ to do except keep the car in the lane. It's pretty clear that
we're getting painfully close to fully automated highway driving.

~~~
mschy
I wouldn't describe fully automated highway driving as painful in the least.
I'd be quite happy about it.

After all, highway driving isn't remotely interesting from a "driving"
viewpoint, so I'd hardly miss it.

~~~
tree_of_item
"Painfully" close as in very close. I don't think he meant to say that
automated highway driving was painful.

~~~
elblanco
Right, that's what I meant, apologies for lack of clarity.

------
dnsworks
As usual, Scoble misses the boat by several magnitudes in his aim to over-
sensationalize something he read on techmeme. I would personally put safety
glass, airbags, anti-lock brakes, traction control, and crumple zones ahead of
radar. Those are technologies that improve safety for everybody, whereas radar
is for people who don't pay attention and should not be driving in the first
place.

~~~
anigbrowl
Radar is not for the people who don't pay attention. It's for the people who
are driving in front of them who are going to get rear-ended otherwise. The
less control idiots have over cars, the better. I would feel far more
comfortable dealing with a bunch of automated vehicles than a similar number
of typical drivers, to be frank.

~~~
dnsworks
Radar will just be another crutch for a bad driver. Good drivers make sure
that they always have an out, check their mirrors and blind spots as often as
possible, stay safely away from other drivers, and do their best to control
the situation. Adept use of brakes and speed can control how far people stay
from you, as well as your position within a lane. These are skills every
motorcyclist learns very, very quickly.

~~~
vacuumboots
I use my seatbelt as a crutch to lean on.

