Overall you misunderstood my post. I'm not for shutting down the tech. I laugh at anyone thinking this is the end of automated driving. However, I'm against shutting down the extra layer of protection called human action. A quick search on piloting will turn up pilots work in tandem with the autopilot. Tech is not there to make people lazy. As I said, only there to make things easier. There is a difference between those things. Also if you notice, planes try to have 2 or more things for a reason (ie. two engines, two pilots along with the autopilot, two sets of gauges, 2 radio sets, 2-3 hydraulic systems, 2-3 fuel lines with crossfeed valves, etc.). Its called being redundant. It works. 
I have no proof in saying this exact part here but there is no doubt in my mind yet uber reps told the driver everything is fine. This car drives itself. Causes her to lower her guard. Pays attention to the phone. We all know the rest. If you're by yourself and need to sleep, drunk, or pay more attention to your phone, take a real taxi or bus please. Basically saying err on the side of caution. This is yet another case to build on this wise saying. Certainly won't be the last. 
To put it simply, your implication is impractical. Put anyone in a car that drives itself and after a while, EVERYbody is going to drop their attention at times. AS IT IS, we can't even be assured that people who have full driving responsibilities will pay attention. Just look at the issues arising from mobile phones.
Anyway, that's not the topic of this thread.
Full automation of anything when lives are on the line is impractical in and of itself. Actually let me rephrase this. Having the computer bare all the work load is impractical. I also say again, having the best tools, like a computer, doesn't excuse one from using their brain. Dropping attention is negligence at its finest.
Automation will continue to exist just not in full form. At least not until we develop a system that separates people from vehicles. Actually thats exactly why we have trains. We also have ABS. But these are besides the point. Onto the my main point. Again.
As for topic, this is highly related plus Dave clearly titled it "How?" not specifically "How did those fancy sensors fail?".
It would be very unwise not to look at something that already has experience before. Its disappointing that you would ignore this. You might as well just ignore what the NTSB, BEA, AAIB, ATSB and other transportation boards has to say. As the saying goes, "ignore history, history repeats". Again, the airline industry already has the answers working with flight computers.
I highly encourage you to talk to a Quantas pilot, flight engineer, or mechanic at the very least. I also would like to see Dave follow thru on this topic by having a discussion with Quantas. If you can't meet up with one I suggest you at least look and compare air disaster cases. I'll give you a start. Air France Flight 447. This is just one of many where either the sensor or flight computer failed while the pilot put in full trust into a faulty auto system. End result, many people died.
As for solutions and recommendations, I have one. Make not only a detection system for the computer but an independent detection system for the driver. Have it vibrate (like a stick shaker during a stall) or alarm (like TCAS). Put it on the phone even. Have it activate when the cross-sectional heat of a poodle comes across a separate FLIR camera feed. At least make the driver aware. It wouldn't stop the accident but she could have swerved to the left or slowed down. Could have left the victim live with injuries instead of I assume flying several yards along with her bike. Redundancy works.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
