Kizashi Club

Your Kizashi Owners Club and Forum 

Non-Suzuki related topics. Anything can go here.
 #43852  by Ronzuki
 Sun Mar 26, 2017 9:47 pm
Not Good:
https://twitter.com/fresconews/status/8 ... 4563281922

Good:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... pe-arizona

Personally, I'd be looking passionately ruin anyone associated with putting that unguided weapon on the road. It would be my life's mission. Everyone. Including the hardware/software suppliers/developers, Volvo, uber and especially the All-unknowing regulatory agencies allowing this crap to be "tested" on public roadways...essentially anyone stupid enough to tie their boat anchor to an endeavor such as that. No joke, EVERYONE. And then to really make a statement, with the proceeds, l'll start looking at developing some autonomous defensive counter-measures to bring to market. Why not?

I don't ever want to see any of those damn things anywhere near me. There is no way that this technology can be reliably and safely employed on the everyday American road, Certainly not at a price-point the average consumer could ever hope to afford.

Like I said before, the only winners with this non-sense in the end will be the lawyers.
 #43854  by BLyons
 Sun Mar 26, 2017 10:06 pm
The accident was caused by a human driver. Someone raised an interesting point about would it have happened at all if both vehicles were autonomous?

The technology isn't perfect, and it never will be because that's impossible, but it still appears to be much safer than many human drivers on the road today and is continually improving. I don't know that I would ever want to give up control of my car, but I can certainly see many benefits to it.
 #43857  by KuroNekko
 Mon Mar 27, 2017 2:34 am
BLyons wrote:The accident was caused by a human driver.

Fact.

Proof:
"The Uber SUV was not responsible for the crash, police said. The other driver failed to yield to the Uber and caused it to flip on its side."
http://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/tempe/uber-grounding-self-driving-vehicles-in-arizona-after-one-is-involved-in-tempe-crash

The article below actually discusses the pros of automated driving and how the facts repeatedly prove human error is the real risk. An excerpt from the article below:
"More than 30,000 people die on US roads annually; that number spiked to 40,000 in 2016. Human error causes more than 90 percent of the crashes that, globally, kill more than a million people every year."
https://www.wired.com/2017/03/uber-self-driving-crash-tempe-arizona/

The real risk when you're on the road or even sitting on the couch at home is embodied in the article below. However, these sorts of things are commonplace and largely ignored by society. However, an automated vehicle gets hit by a driver and it becomes news and criticism of automated driving... though the human driver of the other vehicle was at fault.
http://jalopnik.com/intoxicated-man-showing-off-new-subaru-wrx-runs-it-into-1793653912
 #43862  by Ronzuki
 Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:54 am
Too much "confusion" around who, or what, is responsible for driving. Period.
 #43863  by Ronzuki
 Tue Mar 28, 2017 12:29 pm
How 'bout that reversing high-speed escalator in Hong Kong eh? A potential plethora of reasons why that happened. Once again, the KISS principle was quite obviously not employed. I'm certain the thing was completely integrated in to the building's 'automation system'. Can't even hop on a simple escalator anymore and expect it to work. More busy lawyers...

A shame the humans involved with the maintenance part of the operation were a bunch of jokesters easily able to defeat the safeties while it was in operation. Another example of computer controlled 'stuff' that doesn't need to be computer controlled.
 #44568  by Ronzuki
 Tue Aug 01, 2017 2:59 pm
In keeping with the theme of this thread, more ridiculousness and..."The Internet of Things":

http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2017/08/01/ ... pants.html

Once again, the man-made software safeties (which should have been designed as HARDWARE safeties) were easily defeated. Again, too much faith in the cool-code dude technology. :facepalm:

At least someone thought it a good idea to test hack the stupid thing. However, none of this nonsense comes free of charge. So, don't beotch when a simple, plain-Jane car wash to rinse the crud off every couple weeks during winter costs you 25 or 30 bucks a pop. At least you'll know why. Simply put, a freaking car wash's control system DOES NOT NEED TO BE CONNECTED TO THE FREAKING INTERNET!

As an industrial automation engineer, I find it absolutely ridiculous that this much time, energy and money must be put into so many things in our lives to "protect" us from the stupidity we insist on injecting into the simplest endeavors. Sort of like, I have to get a new fridge because it doesn't link to my dumb-phone anymore. :lol: ,or, more seriously:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=4326
 #45376  by Ronzuki
 Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:02 pm
Shockingly :roll: , I suppose this is why we must elevate vehicle pricing further by installing yet more tech such as auto pilot...

http://abc27.com/2017/10/05/new-cars-in ... echnology/

Well all I can say to the article is no-chit-Sherlock. What exactly did everyone think was going to happen as soon as manufacturers started stuffing PCs in their dashboards? Like I needed a AAA study to explain the obvious. Expensive vicious cycle. No thanks.
 #45382  by KuroNekko
 Thu Oct 05, 2017 6:17 pm
Ronzuki wrote:Shockingly :roll: , I suppose this is why we must elevate vehicle pricing further by installing yet more tech such as auto pilot...

http://abc27.com/2017/10/05/new-cars-in ... echnology/

Well all I can say to the article is no-chit-Sherlock. What exactly did everyone think was going to happen as soon as manufacturers started stuffing PCs in their dashboards? Like I needed a AAA study to explain the obvious. Expensive vicious cycle. No thanks.


I do want to point out that the article discusses the dangers of infotainment features in cars which is completely different than autonomous driving. In fact, autonomous driving would make the use of infotainment systems safer given the driver isn't the only thing controlling the car. The article is about people getting distracted by their screens while driving which is a completely different thing than a car driving itself. Like I said, autonomous driving would actually be beneficial in this case.

As for the increasing cost of vehicles, yes, I agree. However, many automakers offer base models or lower trims without the features to keep costs lower. I specifically sought a GTS given I neither wanted the leather seats nor the navigation. Also keep in mind that autopilot and self-driving technology isn't really driving up the cost of most cars given it's not implemented in most normal cars. It's largely luxury cars and high tech Teslas that have them. If you can afford one of those, than you're probably not going to mind the premium cost to have the car driving itself somewhat. Furthermore, it's obvious that some of the major investors and players in the technology aren't really too concerned about it being a feature for consumer vehicles. For one, Uber is all about it so it can have a future fleet of driverless cars. I don't think they really give a crap about the technology being in cars a consumer can buy. In fact, I bet Uber's position is more on the side of people not owning cars and rather using their fleet to get around which is something many people already do in big congested cities.

Lastly, I think the dangers of technology in vehicles is a matter of how you use it. Let me give you an analogy with something more rooted in American conservatism; guns. Some people don't like guns and think they are unsafe in society. The recent tragic shooting in Las Vegas is one of many examples of the dangers of guns in society, some would claim. However, those who defend firearm ownership point out that the vast majority of gun owners in the nation are responsible and law-abiding, including those who own AR-15's and similar kinds of rifles. They argue it's a matter of how the gun is used by the individual. In essence, it's not so much the gun that is dangerous but the man who wields it, they argue. Same point for accidental shootings. It's not the gun but the irresponsible owner who is to blame when a toddler or a child finds their parent's loaded gun chambered without the safety engaged.
My point here is to say that the same logic can be applied to technology in vehicles. One can choose to program their GPS while they drive or not. One can choose to link their hands-free Bluetooth calling to their car or not and continue to hold the phone while driving their late model car. So is it the technology that's the danger or the driver?

P.S. I don't mean to turn any aspect of this into a gun control/ gun debate or off-topic so any discussion on that should be in a different thread. I was simply using an analogy.
 #45383  by Ronzuki
 Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:14 am
I completely and fully understand the differences between the two, AND, their perpetual dependencies upon one another. I wonder if you, as well as others not profiting from said technology, understand the dependencies? The never ending use of distractions while driving (or even walking around) caused by the mere presence of non-essential technology in vehicles that we just can't live without. These 'infotainment', dumb-phones, nav-gadgets, whatever, distractions, are to be countered by more technology, autonomy...automation. And if it one thing I know intimately is automation. All of which will be jammed down our throats in the name of received 'safety'. Why? Because of the distractions, which are profitable and permitted for use in vehicles. Hence the vicious, absurd and expensive cycle. A repeat drunk needs an ignition permission to operate a car. But an increscent dumb-phone user...no problem, let-er rip on down the road. I personally don't view either any differently.also really

As far as base models go, believe me, I seek them out and buy them when I'm in the market. The pickin's are less than slim for anything functional, affordable or worth a damn especially in the "ultimate driver's machine" category. The lots are not, and were not, overflowing with manual trans GTS/SLS Kizashis for instance. The K is/was the perfect blend of what a driver's car should be. Not packed terribly full of techno annoyance, was affordable and surprise, doesn't exist any longer. However the lowest model POS's all have a touch-screen jammed in the dash as standard equipment. People that can't afford a real and dependable mode of transport have to have a screen ya know. It's practically a God-given right anymore. The autonomy may not drive of the purchase price of the car (by intention), yet as many are experiencing, it's the fixing it when its busted aspect that is not only expensive, it's usually a long, drawn-out time consuming and frustrating ordeal.

How anything is used, well, bottom line is you simply can't fix stupid and technology sure as hell can't fix it when, in fact, all technology is accomplishing is perpetuating stupidity. Yes everything has its uses for good, then excessive use comes along as a 'natural progression' and generally breeds trouble.

I'd suggest not bringing up 'the firearm topic' then if you don't want that discussion as I'm afraid we'd likely disagree horribly on the subject. Once again, it's all about safety...
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 15