V8-X Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 You keep saying this. It's not about NEED. It's about convenience. No car NEEDS a stereo, navigation, heated seats, etc, but people want them because they add convenience. If an automaker can add a feature that consumers will pay for, why shouldn't they? And I never said this feature (parking spot finder) was a need. I did say if the person needs parking assist, they shouldn't be driving. Personal opinion there, being if a person can't park your car, I believe you should take the bus, taxi, bike or walk. Too bad drivers aren't required to taking driving school and education classes before they get behind the wheel or the keys. I understand it's a convenience item, but an item to conveniently make people more lazy, IMO. Heated seats is a convenience, but it's nice to have a warm tush, not about being lazy. Same with a stereo, doesn't make you lazy, just makes the ride more enjoyable. Navi helps find directions, which I guess could be considered a lazy feature, since most men won't get out and ask for directions. Never stated Ford or any automaker shouldn't offer it. Like stated early, I totally understand if people will pay and Ford can make money off it, they will offer it. But I simply view this as another feature to dumb down our lazy drivers. If you can't park your car or can't locate a parking spot, should you really be driving? Again just my thoughts, as now people get to pay even less attention to the road since the car will park and find their spots for them. If Ford makes money, more power to them. Since I park out on the back 40 and use a cart to haul things I can't (or don't want to) carry, I can't address that from experience, but maybe that Parking Spot Finder would tell people to skip a spot that's too small and to not park so damned close to my car. I'm all in favor of technologies that will reduce the incidence of dings to my doors... I'm the same way, always back aisle or two when in the truck. But don't you always find that even though there are plenty of spots up front and you are the only vehicle in the back when you park, it's inevitable that some POS deliberately parks next to you? So you're okay with auto's bringing down peoples common sense and logical rational even more, so the car itself has to tell them whether or not the spot is big enough? To me, and again just my simple opinion. If you can't decipher whether or not a parking spot is big enough for your vehicle, you should not be behind the wheel. Guess that's the biggest issue I have with so many automotive so called convenience features these days. It's making it "convenient" for the drivers to lack all common sense, responsibility or basic driving skills because the car is now doing everything for them so they can put on their mascara, play with their smartphone, etc. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 So you're okay with auto's bringing down peoples common sense and logical rational even more, so the car itself has to tell them whether or not the spot is big enough? To me, and again just my simple opinion. If you can't decipher whether or not a parking spot is big enough for your vehicle, you should not be behind the wheel. No, I'm saying that the morons are already driving, and anything that helps protect me from them is a good thing. Note that I've never said that I want any parking assist technology on my vehicles. I wouldn't mind having the cross-traffic warnings, though, when I'm having to back out of a parking space into traffic with panel vans (or darkly-tinted windows) blocking my view of the traffic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 When you have to start every other paragraph with "I didn't say" or "what I meant was" or "what I actually said was" - you need to pay more attention to what you're actually typing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBFlex Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 Just like cruise control, power steering, power windows, power brakes, power seats, power mirrors, parking assist, etc. Yet they are all commonplace. Better that Ford develop it instead of playing catchup when everyone else is offering it first. Yeah...because power mirrors are exactly the same as a car that can drive and park itself. It's a stupid and dangerous idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Yeah...because power mirrors are exactly the same as a car that can drive and park itself. It's a stupid and dangerous idea. If the system works, how is it dangerous? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Call me old school but I cannot understand how anyone in the car business can drink the cool-aid when it comes to letting a motor vehicle go out on it's own and possibly do any number of things. Remember, the SYNC system, the BLIS system, the CROSS TRAFFIC system, PARK-AID system all currently are full of unreliable actions at some time or other ( I have to work on all of these systems). It may be that the system could be made to operate at 99%, but, to me it's just foolishness. Yeesh. My Edge has all of those. I don't rely on them being there to drive properly, but they sure make it easier. And that's the point. They aren't meant to replace a driver's skill. They are meant to augment it. And to that end, these systems all do a fine job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 If the system works, how is it dangerous? It's dangerous because Ford did it. Had Dodge done it then it would be perfectly fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galaxie Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 The main point I object to, which is reinforced several times in the article, is letting the veh move WITH NO HUMAN INSIDE TO CONTROL IT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 When you have to start every other paragraph with "I didn't say" or "what I meant was" or "what I actually said was" - you need to pay more attention to what you're actually typing. Or the people replying should read what's being typed, not making assumptions or taking comments out of context. But that would be too easy and then others wouldn't have things to bicker over instead of taking the comments for face value and moving on. They aren't meant to replace a driver's skill. They are meant to augment it. And to that end, these systems all do a fine job. This I could totally agree with. But knowing our society, they will expect these systems to replace their lack of driving skills, rather than assist their driving. It's dangerous because Ford did it. Had Dodge done it then it would be perfectly fine. Personally no. Wouldn't matter who makes it IMO. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Or the people replying should read what's being typed, not making assumptions or taking comments out of context. But that would be too easy and then others wouldn't have things to bicker over instead of taking the comments for face value and moving on. This I could totally agree with. But knowing our society, they will expect these systems to replace their lack of driving skills, rather than assist their driving. Personally no. Wouldn't matter who makes it IMO. Bad drivers existed 100 years ago. Bad drivers existed 50 years ago. Bad drivers exist now. Bad drivers will exist tomorrow. I don't think it has been demonstrably shown in any way that these "nanny" aids are making drivers any worse. If anything, it's making the bad drivers that have always existed just a little less dangerous to the rest of us, which we should all be glad to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 The main point I object to, which is reinforced several times in the article, is letting the veh move WITH NO HUMAN INSIDE TO CONTROL IT. I think some European buyers would love such a feature where parking room is sometimes at an absolute premium. Not sure how the lawyers would feel about it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted October 14, 2013 Author Share Posted October 14, 2013 http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/hate-parking-car-parks-itself-while-you-shop-1C6305410 Nissan will park AND return the car to the front door. I'm sure all of the others will do the same. IMHO, the most unreliable and unsafe thing in cars are...... humans. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 (edited) Let me guess, it's only stupid and dangerous technology because Ford does it. Any parking aid that allows a substandard driver to park a car safely without causing damage to other vehicles has to be good news. How many times have people returned to their parked car only to see evidence of some vehicle scraping up the sides or worse. Don't ban high performance cars, ban low performance drivers. Since we can't effectively ban them, give them all the help possible to stop them damaging our cars. Edited October 14, 2013 by jpd80 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBFlex Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 It's dangerous because Ford did it. Had Dodge done it then it would be perfectly fine. Who said that? I certainly did not even imply that. It's a stupid and dangerous idea no matter what manufacturer has it. A computer should not be able to take over the steering wheel/brake and gas pedal. Let me guess, it's only stupid and dangerous technology because Ford does it. Who said that? I certainly did not even imply that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Let me guess, it's only stupid and dangerous technology because Ford does it. Any parking aid that allows a substandard driver to park a car safely without causing damage to other vehicles has to be good news. How many times have people returned to their parked car only to see evidence of some vehicle scraping up the sides or worse. Don't ban high performance cars, ban low performance drivers. Since we can't effectively ban them, give them all the help possible to stop them damaging our cars. Don't ban high performance cars, ban low performance drivers.....that may be one of my favorite quotes of all time!.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmalonehunter Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W7o7JGj8bz4&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DW7o7JGj8bz4 One of my favorites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBFlex Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W7o7JGj8bz4&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DW7o7JGj8bz4 One of my favorites. And these are the people that, rather than fix the behavior, some prefer to have the vehicle cater to them. Again, if you can't park your vehicle, you should not be allowed anywhere near a vehicle. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrewfanGRB Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 And these are the people that, rather than fix the behavior, some prefer to have the vehicle cater to them. Again, if you can't park your vehicle, you should not be allowed anywhere near a vehicle. Jesus, you're obtuse. You didn't even read the article, did you? This is a basic system a step short of what Volvo's working on. Ford's system will let the car park w/you outside of it w/remote control. The point being, it's a process. The article doesn't flesh it out, but Volvo's system would let you exit the car at the curb or wherever and the car would go on its own to the lot and truly park itself. You, of course, turn this into "lazy stupid losers can't even park themselves". I don't disagree that a lot of drivers suck, but that's not what this is about. Besides, if it keeps sucky drivers from taking forever to park or from dinging your car, isn't that a GOOD thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 A computer should not be able to take over the steering wheel/brake and gas pedal. I take it you never fly commercial? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galaxie Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Last time I checked, when there are passengers envolved, there is a PILOT who ultimately makes the ultimate decision and hand-flies the toughest sections of the flight. Military drones are another topic, but even then there are losses due to software/weather incidences. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Last time I checked, when there are passengers envolved, there is a PILOT who ultimately makes the ultimate decision and hand-flies the toughest sections of the flight. Military drones are another topic, but even then there are losses due to software/weather incidences. Yes, you are probably correct. But, parking is not the toughest part of driving, so auto-pilot parking seems to be a perfect next-step for autonomous cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Last time I checked, when there are passengers envolved, there is a PILOT who ultimately makes the ultimate decision and hand-flies the toughest sections of the flight. I'm not a pilot, but I'm told (by a recently-retired ATC) that Airbus computers can override the pilot, and that it contributed to a crash. I've not checked into it myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 I'm not a pilot, but I'm told (by a recently-retired ATC) that Airbus computers can override the pilot, and that it contributed to a crash. I've not checked into it myself. True. At least it used to be that way when the 320 flew itself into a stand of trees at the auto show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 (edited) Last time I checked, when there are passengers envolved, there is a PILOT who ultimately makes the ultimate decision and hand-flies the toughest sections of the flight. Military drones are another topic, but even then there are losses due to software/weather incidences. Given the details revealed in this article, we don't know if there is an override feature available to the vehicle operator. Surely while in the vehicle, there would be a way to override the computer. I think it would be safe to assume the "remote" would offer some sort of cancel or override feature as well that would simply stop the vehicle if instructed to by the operator. It's not like we don't already interact with automated machinery on a daily basis that has the potential to kill us if it malfunctions. We trust that it has been thoroughly tested well enough that it won't. When this technology arrives, it should be tested well enough that we should be able to hold the same amount of trust in it. Edited October 15, 2013 by NickF1011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBFlex Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 I take it you never fly commercial? I do not fly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.