You have a very extreme view of driver/safety aids. That's your choice to enable or disable them.
Just go ahead and observe what happens around you in the real world.....I see MUCH poorer examples of 100% human manual driving then if safety aides are being used. Perhaps its because I drive hundreds of miles per week for my job and am a defensive driver, but its not even close.
The problem with your attacks on safety aids is you disregard all human error from the view.
I'll stand totally behind my belief the aids Mazda has incorporated are a GOOD thing and not some half baked system that makes driving more dangerous.
First, I'll ask again, who is deeming these novelties as safety rated? There are very specific criteria involved in automation to imply, deem, or install systems rated as such. I see zero evidence that any of these systems comply with any regulatory body certifying this garbage as 'safety' rated. So please, cease referring to this "stuff" as safety! You are spreading mis-information.
I have a
very realistic view of what automation does to any skill set in the REAL world. It promotes the human error you and everyone else are so concerned about, like it or not, want it or not. You apparently aren't getting it...the more humans do not do
anything for themselves, the less capable they become at the task, any task, should they need to. The more nanny-minders added to cars, the worse the operator's driving skills become at executing the task, because they don't have to...until they must. Too late. As I say I've been involved in every level of automation for far longer than the automotive world has thought about it. I've designed it, programmed it, installed it, commissioned it, fought with it, lived w/ it, trained operators how to use it, taught maintenance on how to troubleshoot and fix it, and most importantly, in all that time, observed and learned what tech works what doesn't, when automation provides beneficial assistance, and under what circumstances and when it doesn't. Experience. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. I've lived the results, the re-designs, the expense, the lawyers, all to fix stupid. It's a viscous cycle that can't be won. Throw in schedules, budgets and profitability into the equation, and you end up w/ half-baked systems more times than not. You're attempting to explain to me that which I've already been experiencing my entire working career. I'm attempting to open YOUR eyes to the reality.
The
real problem no one is addressing, here or elsewhere, is: what are all of the operators to do when the automation fails because their skills, well, suck? Oh yeah...it's called crash. What happens to an aircraft when the automation fails (or was efed right from the start) and the operators in the planes (no longer pilots since they really don't fly the things anymore) really don't have the experience to fly the plane, or as we are beginning to see in the spotlight, simply can't because the designs are overly reliant on the automation to keep the plane in the air? Oh yeah...crash.
I agree, I see the degredation of human driving skills every day as well (don't know how exactly you would know who is driving 100% manual, or not, distracted, or not). I sit behind people daily sitting at lights not moving, holding up traffic, because they're pre-occupioed looking at their dumb-phone. People can't back out of my driveway w/o weaving all over the place, even w/ a back-up camera. Then there's that...tech can't fix the real problems here. This poor performance is being
supported by distraction promoting technologies (because all that marketing crap sells cars, phones etc.).
Ever go to a store and hand someone additional change along w/ the larger bills to get an even dollar in return as opposed to a handful of change? You know, after they've already prematurely keyed in the cash tendered? The results for any task are the same...brain freeze, can't comprehend, they give up, and storm off to go find the manger. 15-20 years ago I used to think it was funny. Not anymore. Technology isn't going to fix that. The cash register is progress technology that has assisted in turning our brains to mush. Then we get to my age and I have to hear about brain exercises...that's funny in terms of human progress wouldn't you agree?
When I said "
I actually get lulled into going slower than I want to and for that reason I prefer "regular" cruise control." I am not in any way distracted by RAAC or do I think it aids distraction. I have the HUD and stay alert to road conditions. The problem is that following traffic that is GRADUALLY slowing down is sometimes imperceptible due to the smooth ride and the fact that RAAC is also accurate in maintaining a set distance. I prefer to SEE that I am gaining on slowing traffic and make the decision to slow down myself or pass the traffic and therefore like standard cruise control on long distance highway trips. I think RAAC is great in stop and go traffic or where there are traffic jams on a highway trip or commute trip.
Agreed. Only difference, my car doesn't have a HUD. I've mentioned this little automation issue before as well...lack of automotive automation standardization. It's a problem from an automation perspective. So your HUD isn't there or stops working, now were equal. Your foot and brain aren't connected to the throttle and you're gaining or slowing w/o conscious awareness. Foot and Brain are the human I/O and processor which is now not controlling the task. OK. but you are technically distracted, your thoughts are elsewhere because your brain isn't focused on the act of driving. I realize it is happening after the fact as well when I'm utilizing the RACC.