kenji666

Pretty cool:

turbo1889

Such systems are a great idea and I have nothing against the idea. However, I feel it is very sad that human drivers cannot be competent enough not to hit stuff right in front of them. I also wonder about over-reliance on systems like this and drivers feeling even more confident and taking even more chances and paying even less attention to driving counting on the system to cover them, that combined with the fact that no system is fool-proof could lead to disaster. I also wonder how easily some of these newer cars with all their controls tied into the electronics could be hacked. For example could a malicious hacker that is a fat piece of slime slob who hates cyclists in his basement make up a virus and then send it out world wide that made cars with this system hit the gas instead of the brake when they detected a bicycle in front of them ???

B. Carfree

Back when anti-lock brake systems were relatively new, a slime ball drunk driver crashed in the Napa valley. His passenger died in the wreck. He was prosecuted but was acquitted when his lawyer convinced the jury that the presence of skid marks, on a vehicle that was sliding sideways, indicated that the ABS had failed. Never mind the fact that he was driving at over one and one-half times the speed limit and had an BAC over twice the presumed intoxicated level, the car didn't drive itself so he must not be guilty.

I look forward to when the cars actually do drive themselves. I'll take my chances with the malicious hackers. Heck, all the good programmers I know don't drive.

turbo1889

Anything can be hacked, the question is how easily it can be done, and if anyone has taken the necessary due diligence. I wonder if these highly electronic cars even have any protection and if there are any safe guards at all on their systems much less adequate protection since its a potentially lethal machine that is under the computers control.

delcrossv

People aren't going to suddenly get smarter. It should be mandated on all new cars.

asmac

Do you save your contempt only for self-hating fat people who are in their basements (guilty, I suppose, except for the self-hating) or only those who hate having cyclists in their basement?

FBinNY 

Anything that helps prevent accidents has to be welcome. The fact is that even decent drivers, who aren't drunk, on cell phones, or otherwise distracted can make errors in judgment, or fail to register a cyclist or pedestrian (or even a car) and have an accident.

The downside is that driver assists are rapidly factored into driving habits, so, for example, those with anti-lock brakes tend to drive a bit faster in bad conditions. I can see that some (many?) drivers will rely on the system and feel it allows them to drive distracted, but since they do that already I don't consider this a serious downside.

The reality, based aircraft where they've been in use for years, is that computers are far better and more reliable than humans, and it's only human conceit that makes us worry about trusting them.

Matariki

Yes, this is a well-known consequence called "risk compensation". When you make something safer, some users compensate with behavior that is riskier. For instance, vehicles with traction control are safer, but could lead someone to drive faster. Risk compensation happens, however still may not cancel all of the safety gains, so systems like the one Volvo has are still overall plusses.

spivonious

They have hacked cars, but the hacker needs to be directly plugged into the car to do it. Until cars get wireless networks, it's next to impossible to hack a car.

As far as driver attention, they're going to use their phones regardless; we may as well make the car a bit smarter. I think systems like this are just one step closer to fully-automated cars that drive themselves.

turbo1889

You deliberatly cut relevant portions out of where you quoted me and deliberately took my quote out of context. I have re-quoted myself below with the relevant information you deliberately omitted to deliberately take me out of context in bold italics:

I was putting forth a hypothetical example and not referring to a specific person, the beginning highly relevant section you deliberately omitted makes this very clear. In addition the "in his basement" refers to the location of said hypothetical deviant hacker rather then the location of the cyclist (I could understand someone not wanting cyclist to randomly trespass in their basement) and the ending relevant section you deliberately omitted makes this clear. It is true that I could have actually used the word "hypothetical" instead of relying on the reader to be intelligent enough to get that from the example used but I didn't think that was necessary and the strongly stereotypical language alone would communicate that the example used was indeed a hypothetical one, apparently I have too much faith in other peoples reading comprehension and critical thinking capabilities. I could also have used a little better word order by position the "in his basement" prepositional phrase modifier in a following position after the direct object of the main action verb sentence pattern rather then in a leading position and made the sentence structure simpler and flow easier. So some of the misunderstanding is on my part but your deliberate omissions clearly identify your motives to deliberately quote me out of context by your deliberate omission of immediate relative context in the very same sentence.

turbo1889

To answer your specific questions:

Yes, I do have contempt for the vast majority of people who are obese and lazy, I do not deny that. The personal standards I hold myself are to not judge people for things that they have absolutely no control over and not only allow but mandate judging other people over things that are matters of their choice. Yes, there are a few obese people who are that way as a result of other health issues and it isn't a direct result of their own actions, they however are the significant minority. And of that significant minority for a significant number of them the other health issue they have that is causing their obesity is caused by their own choices so although the obesity isn't directly a matter of their own choice it most certainly is indirectly. The number of obese people who their obesity is entirely outside their control and entirely not a result of their own choices is an incredibly small and insignificant minority. As for laziness, thats entirely a matter of choice. So, yes, if you are a lazy fat chubber I will judge you for that. It's not like skin color where if your born black or white that's what your stuck with.

I already answered the question as to people who wouldn't like cyclist randomly trespassing in the basement of their house in my previous post directly above (If my example was ridiculous then that question of yours is beyond ridiculous.)

atbman

For a moment I thought that it would be a story about Volvo equipping drivers with eyes

FBinNY 

Maybe we need a separate forum where sanctimonious, self-righteous horse's asses can go off on folks who don't live up to their personal standards.

jon c. 

I thought A & S was that forum.

(I believe the foregoing to be well done satire though.)

B. Carfree

Don't be silly. Of course motorists have eyes. They just don't have any brains to process the input.

turbo1889

He asked the question, I'm willing to answer it truthfully even if it makes me look bad to some people. As to standards, as far as what constitutes "fat" and/or "lazy" my standards are actually pretty liberal. But when you start to waddle when you walk and if you sat on any normal bike it would break underneath you and you don't get a job and instead live off of welfare checks while sitting in front of the TV stuffing your face with junk food by the bushel inbetween runs to the store and post office and bank and harass cyclist on the way to get your kicks - Yes, I'm going to judge you for that. I know at least three people I can count right off without hardly thinking that fit all of those criteria plus more. What worries me is that for some of them its the computer not the TV they blubber out in front of and I my generally suspicious and cynical nature when it comes to my fellow human creatures makes me wonder if somewhere someday one or more of them might try something like I suggested. Good to know that so far these fancy computerized cars aren't networked, but sooner or later they will be and when they do they better have some good encryption and anti-virus on them. It's one thing when a computer sitting harmlessly on a desk goes bazerk because its got a virus, quite another thing if that computer is installed in and controlling a dangerous piece of equipment on the public right of way.

ItsJustMe

Nope. At DefCon last week, a couple of researchers demonstrated hacking into a Prius via bluetooth. They were able to apply brakes, prevent the brakes from being applied, control acceleration, and make the steering wheel move left and right, all via bluetooth.

They also got into a Ford Escape the same way but they had less control (because the Escape is "less sophisticated").

As a programmer who deals with security, it's clear to me that the people designing these systems either do not understand proper security (this is unlikely) or they are not able to implement proper security because it would cost an extra few tens of dollars (this is my bet). The proper way to design these systems would be to completely isolate vehicle and engine control from wireless com and entertainment systems. Failing that, there should be a firewall that only allows sanitized data to pass between systems. The latter could probably be done entirely in software, but obviously the software doing the firewalling needs to be on the protected side. On the open side, the firewall itself could be hacked. Ideally there would be a separate processor to do the firewall operations and it would treat the data passing through it entirely as data and would not ever take commands or software updates except via a hard connection.

turbo1889

@ ItsJustMe

Since you seem to know more about this then anyone else who has chimed in on this thread so far (including myself) is it a ridiculous notion that is beyond the realm of possibility that a hacker who hates bicyclists could deliberately and knowingly write a malicious code designed to make cars with systems specifically designed to identify bicyclists in the road ahead of the car and apply the brakes to keep the car from running down a cyclist in front of the car apply the gas instead of the brakes when the system detects a bicycle in front of the car. I'm talking simple control response reversal that makes the car lurch forward when it detects a bicycle close in front of it when the system is instead intended to apply the brakes in that situation. If such a malicious piece of specifically targeted software was successfully uploaded to a car equipped with such a system how long could it lie dormant waiting for just the right moment to strike and would their be any way of tracing it back to the perpetrator after a cyclist got run down as a result?

My main issue with this system is that it can apparently distinguish between various types of objects in front of it. I would have far less concern about a system simply designed to prevent the car from running into any object right in front of it. Where as a system that can tell the difference has the potential for deliberate targeting. A malicious code that made the car accelerate and run into any obstruction right in front of it would show up in short order but a targeted attack on only specific target types could lie dormant and undetected until the target of choice presented itself.

gcottay

Dystopian fantasy aside, this and similar systems will likely save some lives.

I wonder if the safe driver discount insurance boxes will capture data on system activations.

Booger1

I feel much safer now,knowing the car is looking out for me....

I remember a time,long long ago,when drivers were suppose to have control of their cars....not the other way around.

degnaw

Can you link me to a relevant article? I did a quick search and all I've found are cases where they were either directly connected to the ECU, or had permanently modified it prior.

genec

We were probably better off when the horse was looking out for the driver... The horse had a vested interest.

asmac

I'm not losing sleep over this but that is how things are hacked, from Iranian centrifuges to convenience store bank machines: software updates are always possible so the hacker creates his own package that replaces legit code with code that does the hacker's bidding. Add in the wireless connection and who knows what's possible? That was a point of a previous poster, to isolate critical vehicle control functions as much as possible from other systems. But that might be inconvenient and cost a bit more so...

degnaw

Well the big difference is physical access. The Iranian centrifuges were disabled entirely remotely via software. The demonstration at DefCon, as far as I could find online, involved the hackers literally pulling off the dashboard to get to the ECU, in which case isolation would be no help (they can just connect directly to the isolated computer).

asmac

At some point 'physical' access is required whether it's over the internet or a LAN or via a usb or serial port. I believe that Stuxnet (the centrifuges) relied on usb keys that were left lying around and plugged in out of curiosity. The usb keys did their thing by changing the software which was designed to autonomously destroy the machines. This was only possible because the same US made industrial control unit and its makers were available. Bank machines require a key for physical access but it is the same key for every machine so there you go. Every auto shop would presumably have access to the physical upgrade port so pretty much anything would be possible on a one-off basis. Bluetooth is a bit of a red herring. If physically connected to the control system it could potentially allow someone who hacked the software to actually control the car remotely but without it there could still be damage done. It's an interesting possibility but not, as I think someone else said, not exactly a dystopian vision. Fear not!