[edillen1]

I would guess its due to price. The Camaro already isnt a cheap car. Plenty of threads on that.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Ok, it appears you don't know much about what you are talking about here, but here is a book to get you started:

https://www.amazon.com/Human-Factors.../dp/0070448841

In short, it is not possible to "watch everything". No matter how good you think you are, you will miss things, for various reasons (SDT), this has been proven and many tests have been performed, including ones that I helped research or had direct knowledge of. You can look right at things and not even see them or miss critical information, in short, your brain sees what it wants to see much of the time, not necessarily what is there (you have no choice over this). One of my professors was head of GM ergonomics for a while too, he knew what he was talking about and had some pretty amazing insights. I kind of threw the bait out there for you with the "watch everything" line to see if you really thought it was possible to do this while driving or doing anything else. Your assertion that it is tells me all I need to know. I could break it down more simply for you at this point if you wish, will you continue to just disbelieve?

Your argument is no different than someone arguing why we don't need airbags, seatbelts, or steering-columns that kill you in a crash, that "if you just don't crash", you don't need any of this. If you, or any other human, were as capable as you claim, we wouldn't need computers for anything or any safety devices.

I completed a degree at the MS level centered around human factors and ergonomics (in design) and I'm pretty familiar with this and safety in general. I'm not advocating for systems that can't be disabled or to remove all driving, but your basic assumptions are founded on false premises.

Yeah whatever dude, I'm not the guy putting my life dependent on artificial intelligence...it's artificial for a reason.

I never said I was good enough to avoid everything, but I do say there is no way a car will be able to react as adequately as a properly trained and also attentful driver. It's merely a handicap for those behind the wheel who aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing to begin with as a secondary assist and as it stands there's no current automaker who will advertise or even recommend its purpose to be depended on or relied on, it is merely...an assist, one that even the top automakers recommend to use with caution, on top of which none guarantee its effectiveness against a human driver nor will they ever say that it is a replacement for responsible driving. Your argument is based on the act of the vehicle in the event of the situation of the accident occurrence, mine is based on avoiding that situation altogether as 90% of the time it is due to negligence behind the wheel.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

How do you watch "everything" around you? How is this even possible?

Form the time you first started crawling around on the living room floor you've been learning how to separate the more important things going on from the less important stuff. You don't actually watch everything within your field of vision, and you learn which things/kinds of things are more important to pay attention to and to focus on them. You may see the Camaro in the driveway on your right, but you temporarily dedicate the bulk of your attention to the kid on the bicycle on the other side of the street and might miss the fact that the car was blue rather than black.


I don't make any claims of 100% attentiveness or perfect judgment for either myself or my wife. But whatever they amount to, it's been more than adequate as I almost close out my 55th year behind the wheel and she her 48th. All without AEB or even so much as an incident that might have invoked AEB had it been present that we didn't successfully cope with by more conventional means.


Norm

[Tenfive]

Originally Posted by DevilsReject97

THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IF YOU CAN'T PAY ATTENTION AND DRIVE, YOU DONT BELONG BEHIND THE WHEEL!!!!!!!!

I'm all for things like backup sensors, backup cameras, anything that makes it easier to see in areas where it can be difficult. I don't even mind the blindspot annoyances on my mirrors..... but lane assist, brake assist, park assist, these are all babysitting tools for people who can't drive, who shouldn't drive, or worst case, are too busy doing other crap but driving...

Keep in mind, I do understand that there are a very select group of people who are disabled or have injuries that these types of things are beneficial to have. I am not including these individuals in my comment.


I also am not against these being available to a vehicle, as long as they can be disabled.

With more and more stoned drivers on the road & peopl texting 24/7 and considering my kids drive now too. I dont want them to get rear ended Period !

Yes I agree with you that you should be able to disable it , but it should default to operate and engage at startup . If you look at the propensity for rearend collisions and considering they are on the rise . It is there to make cars even safer , there are way too many stoned or drunk drivers on the road today .

[JamesNoBrakes]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

Yeah whatever dude,

You can fabricate a reason to satisfy your belief system.

[JamesNoBrakes]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

Form the time you first started crawling around on the living room floor you've been learning how to separate the more important things going on from the less important stuff. You don't actually watch everything within your field of vision, and you learn which things/kinds of things are more important to pay attention to and to focus on them.

True, but what is "important" depends on many things, changes second to second, is affected by interference, some of which we can control, and some of which we can not, and on top of that, even in the most ideal circumstances, we make errors. Put someone in a car in a scenario where a significant decision/avoidance has to be made and you'll get 98 out of 100 or 950 out of 1000 successful outcomes, but you will have some incorrect decisions as well, some will be failure to act, some will be taking the wrong course of action, some will have the correct outcome but possibly not for the reasons we assume. As I started earlier, it's easy to say "well, in x situation I'd simply look around" or "I wouldn't hit that kid", but real life and human capabilities are not that simple. Is it ok to not hit the kid 950 out of 1000 times? What threshold is ok? These are not simple questions. Addressing some of the distraction of cell phones would take regulation of the cell phone companies, to inhibit the devices while you drive, but all of a sudden it's "government overreach" and people wouldn't stand for that, besides, the majority of the public WANTS to use their phones, they want to have the self-driving cars so they can surf the net. Just look left and right at any stoplight, you'll see people of ALL ages playing on their phones. So what is the correct solution? There's no perfect solution, but ANY of these need to take into account basic human capabilities, the environment and the human-machine interface. Even in my field, we rely heavily on automation now, autopilot, autoland, flight management systems that do the navigating and sequencing, and so on. With some of these systems, like Cat III approaches in zero visibility, it realizes that human reactions are in no way good enough for an acceptable outcome. Now zoom back out to cars and kids crossing the street when you become momentarily distracted by something else, possibly something you perceive to momentarily be a greater threat, like a car backs out of a driveway suddenly, it's impossible to expect humans to make perfect decisions each and every time, it's simply outside of our capability and control. Maybe that frightens people, but it's the truth. That doesn't mean we should remove all of the driving/interaction, but again, there needs to be recognition of basic human limitations.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

True, but what is "important" depends on many things, changes second to second, is affected by interference, some of which we can control, and some of which we can not, and on top of that, even in the most ideal circumstances, we make errors.

Understood. However, as we continue to encounter new or slightly different situations, our ability to cope with them and other situations ought to get better whether the first time was perfectly successful or not. Hell, you should be learning more from your failures than you do from your successes.

Addressing some of the distraction of cell phones would take regulation of the cell phone companies, to inhibit the devices while you drive, but all of a sudden it's "government overreach" and people wouldn't stand for that

Funny how it's "government overreach" when it works against what any given individual wants/believes, but seen as government-appropriate or even the government's responsibility when it fits in with the individual's beliefs . . .

, besides, the majority of the public WANTS to use their phones, they want to have the self-driving cars so they can surf the net. Just look left and right at any stoplight, you'll see people of ALL ages playing on their phones.

I must be too old to even understand why people can't put that stuff aside while they're driving and let the world get along without them for a few minutes. For as much time as I might be on the computer to message boards such as this one, once I'm in the driver's seat I pretty much forget that I even have a computer, let alone what I might be able to do with it. And my "un-smartphone" stays closed in my left front pocket even if it rings.

Even in my field, we rely heavily on automation now, autopilot, autoland, flight management systems that do the navigating and sequencing, and so on. With some of these systems, like Cat III approaches in zero visibility, it realizes that human reactions are in no way good enough for an acceptable outcome. Now zoom back out to cars and kids crossing the street when you become momentarily distracted by something else, possibly something you perceive to momentarily be a greater threat, like a car backs out of a driveway suddenly, it's impossible to expect humans to make perfect decisions each and every time, it's simply outside of our capability and control.

Let me suggest that the number and variety of sudden situations is far greater in street driving than it is in your field. I'm going to guess you're likely to get a warning from the outside if there's a Cessna on a collision path with you, where you don't when it's the the less-than-predictable kid on a bike/skateboard/whatever when you're in your car. It's highly unlikely you'd simultaneously have two other aircraft on threatening paths with you like the kid on a bike and the other guy backing out of his driveway.

Maybe that frightens people, but it's the truth. That doesn't mean we should remove all of the driving/interaction, but again, there needs to be recognition of basic human limitations.

You don't have to be perfect. Good enough for basically successful outcomes will do. I suppose that's the real problem here, where anything less than perfect is seen as complete failure. Like most things in life, it's not that rigidly binary no matter who tries to convince you via fears of the relatively rare "what-if's" that it is.


Norm

[DevilsReject97]

Originally Posted by Glen e

Exactly.....the chest beaters/real men had the same lame argument about not wanting ABS when it came out “ I know how to brake....”

Can't speak for others, but I don't care about the whole "real men don't etc etc schtick". I just don't want crap on my vehicle interfering with my ability to make judgement calls. If I opt to pass instead of slow, and it slams on my brakes....that's something that should never happen.

I'm all for adding technology, as long as it can be disabled or removed.

Originally Posted by 90503

No steering wheel....No foot pedals....On the streets in 2019...

No thanks. I will never ride in a vehicle that can't be driven at all by a human. That's just asking to be stuck somewhere for no reason.

Originally Posted by Jackass

With all the electronics that seems like everyone wants to have in the car , GPS, SELF MESSAGING response , phones , etc etc , it's just a matter of time until one , even you could find yourself just a little off pace , and that's when those self guiding , pace keeping ,change lane warnings , or even on some models the car pulls you into your lane if you cross or get too close to the white lanes demarking another lane
Keep in mind that you have the option to turn those systems OFF if you want
However , do NOT really on those systems alone , they are there NOT to drive anyone home

This is true, anyone could easily be distracted or sleepy or sick or etc etc etc.... and it is possible those items might help. It's also possible they could create a massive accident and you be to blame even though you didn't do it.

Additionally, some of these systems are not going to be available to be disabled in the future, so be careful what you wish for. I think a front facing camera is far more important than the stupid braking assist.

Originally Posted by Tenfive

With more and more stoned drivers on the road & peopl texting 24/7 and considering my kids drive now too. I dont want them to get rear ended Period !

Yes I agree with you that you should be able to disable it , but it should default to operate and engage at startup . If you look at the propensity for rearend collisions and considering they are on the rise . It is there to make cars even safer , there are way too many stoned or drunk drivers on the road today .

Then keep them off the roads. The US has VERY lax driving requirements compared to most countries, and while I'm not a big fan of them, even a 12 year old could get a license here.... Again, cars are not babysitters, and if you can't drive or shouldn't be driving...you don't belong behind the wheel..

So tired of seeing adults more focused on driving straight than actually driving as they should. People do not understand basic concepts, such as flow of traffic or passing or even doing the damn speed limit instead of driving 5 under for NO reason..

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

You can fabricate a reason to satisfy your belief system.

You're hilarious... and in your very next post you're comparing this to autopiloted aircraft... I'm done here.

[Russell James]

Absolutely do not want. I'll drive myself.

[JamesNoBrakes]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

You're hilarious... and in your very next post you're comparing this to autopiloted aircraft... I'm done here.

Facts are facts whether I believe them or not.

[wjmeyer]

Wow, what a debate. I noticed the 2019 Camaro will have the Forward Collision Alert feature. It won't stop the car like the models advertised on TV, it will just beep more loudly as a possible collision becomes apparent. The Gen7 in 2022 will no doubt have full AEB as mandated by federal government regulations. I hope GM designs it well.

[drew peacock]

worst thing on these new cars is this lane assist garbage,
with it on the car keeps u in the white lines..if u wander a little it pulls u back in line.

IT'S HORRENDOUS..I CANT DRIVE WITH THAT JUNK ON.

turned it off 2 minutes after i collected the car..

[wjmeyer]

I agree. Very few drivers in New Orleans use turn signals when switching lanes, so that feature would be annoying.
Unfortunately most rarely look when switching lanes, frequently merging into a space I would even try to park in, much less at 30-40mph.