PCS, LKA, e-VSC...Are These Techs the future "ABS"??

Unfortunately, I don't have much faith in them actually reducing fatality if they were to be mass adopted due to the concept of risk homeostasis. People would just drive less carefully essentially eliminating their benefits.

 

Thoughts?

Thanks for posting that long winded post...twice in less than 15 minutes...
http://priuschat.com/forums/gen-iii...89487-need-help-2011-prius-v.html#post1257334

 

Why are you so pissed lately, given your attitude toward certain posters including Electric Me?

 

I am all in favour of anything that can possibly reduce accidents. As 32Kcolors said, there will be a tendency for people to become less attentitive to their driving and let the "system" do all the work, but that will, in its turn, encourage more systems that eventually will do most of the driving. These systems will, of course, get those who feel that their right to kill themselves, and any other person that gets in their way, screaming about loss of these rights, but for the majority of us, all to the better.

 

VSC will be mandatory in 2012 but I doubt LKA and PCS will anytime soon. There are 2 kind of PCS, one that brakes for you the other will not. Most PCS will only give warning chime, pre charge the brakes, and tighten the seat belt. The PCS on the Prius will so all that plus should you fail to apply the brakes, it will apply the brakes at maximum force at the last minute but it will not completely stop the vehicle.
Here's a clip of Ford's pre collision warning. It's toward the end.

Ford is also researching lane departure warning but according to the video, it will not auto correct like the Prius

It looks like a lot of these safety features still require the driver to intervene.

 

Very mature.

 

While that's true on paper, the reality is more drivers will become less attentive over time under the guise of PCS and it'll be too late in some cases, still resulting in accidents. The concept of risk homeostasis also explains why the helmet law, although effective in reducing the extent of injuries to the head, actually resulted in an increase in the number of visits to the ER.

You could think of PCS, LKA, adaptive CC, etc. as precursors to self-driving cars a la Minority Report. We'll see a dramatic reduction in accidents only when you take the human element out of it.

Your recent posts to Electric Me et al. were very mature too.

 

Huh???
Waitaminute. I gotta throw the BRAVO-SIERRA flag for that one.
While I understand the concept of risk homeostasis, I don't think it applies to the fact that head injuries have increased for M/C operators. I think the fact that there are faaaaaaaaar more M/C (and ATV) operators out there out there have resulted in more 'donor cycle' riders getting to be (*) ah...donors. There are lotsa folks out there that don't like being told that they have to wear a helmet, and so they gin up all kinds of daffy "studies" saying helmets reduce hearing, reduce visibility, add to neck injuries, and now.....(drum roll) they make riders ride less attentively???? Sorry. PPPHHhhhhtttttt!!!!!
FWIW...I wasn't at all a big fan for helmet and seat-belt laws for over-21 riders and drivers. However (comma!) since I have to help pay for health care for every man, woman, and child in the USofA now, it seems only fair that laws should be enacted to help the folks in the shallow end of the gene pool from becoming a financial burden to the citizenry.
If you want to ride without a helmet or a seatbelt...knock yerself out!!! (no pun intended! ) In a fair world, the first responders should have the ability to giggle at you and drive away if you come up on the short end of an accident, but we don't live in a fair world.

Soon and very soon (to quote from the hymn) PCS, LKA, e-VSC...and all the other golly-gee-whizz features will trickle down to the every-man's-car until the price of a base model Aveo reaches $30,000.
Personally I really don't care much, since I can afford to drive almost any (normal) car I want....but there's going to be a tipping point for Government Mandated devices in automobiles that will drive an even bigger wedge between what people in America call "the rich" and "the poor".

The winners?
Heck I do not know.....
Probably the Lawyers.

 

Not less attentively, but they take on more risk (ride faster, perform more dangerous maneuvers, etc. that they would not otherwise do if they were unhelmeted).

I suggested that, as I wrote that the helmet law has been effective in reducing the extent of injuries to the head. PCS may do the same thing as it reduces the impact speed, but accidents will still occur and may even increase, which is what the OP is worried about.

 

If one assumes the increase in ER visits post-helmet-law is true, keep in mind that some of those ER visits may have been converted from fatalities. I remember hearing about a statistic that after the army provided helmets to enlisted men, the rate of head injuries *increased*... Because many of those injured would have been dead without the helmet!

 

It doesn't matter what you call it. It does the same thing. That's like arguing that Honda's antilock brakes as ALB not ABS.