Intel are working on the idea of intelligent cars.
The car, which is being developed by researchers at computer chip giant Intel, will record information about the vehicle speed, steering and braking along with video footage from inside and outside the vehicle.
This would be automatically sent to police and insurance companies in the event of an accident to make it easier to determine the cause of car crashes and identify the person responsible.
Great, terrific. I’m sure that while this might help the police and insurance companies, don’t expect premiums to come down any-time soon. However, apart from my general dislike of ordinary vehicles being fitted with black boxes, more worrying are the plans to take control from the driver.
Camera systems that can recognise street signs and then take over control of a car if the motorist tries to drive the wrong way up a one-way street, for example, are being developed for use in vehicles.
I don’t care how intelligent these cars are made, ultimately, it is the driver who is best placed to make decisions about prevailing conditions and the appropriate action to take in the event of an incident – including a mistake on their own part. A car that suddenly takes over is potentially highly dangerous. The justification offered for this is given later in the article:
With vision systems on cars, it is perfectly reasonable for a car on its own to see the sign that says ‘wrong way’ or ‘do not enter’ and bring the vehicle to a halt at the side of the road so we don’t have these senseless accidents where someone has failed to recognise a sign.
And just how many of these accidents are there? Enough to justify taking control of our vehicles? I very much doubt it. And, frankly, I’ll never buy a vehicle that has the capability to take away driving control.
The intelligent vehicle is what we are talking about here. Once a car is connected, more or less on a continuous basis, all sorts of interesting possibilities present themselves.
Including unexpected consequences. Unexpected for them, anyway. For those of us with common sense, they are entirely predictable.
Insurance companies are expected to welcome on-board car systems that will reduce the risk of accidents.
A spokesman for the Association of British Insurers said that aviation style black box technology for recording the circumstances around accidents could also help speed up payouts by reducing delays in determining causes of accidents.
He said: “Insurance companies are always looking at new in car technology. A system like this could certainly help speed up the process of determining the cause and responsibility of an accident.”
As a general rule of thumb, if insurance companies like something, it’s likely to be a bad idea. They’ve floated this idea of black box technology before and doubtless will again. I will never allow my movements to be tracked by these people no matter what justification they try to come up with.
Don’t get me wrong; technology can be really useful – the idea of picking up vehicles in the blind spot, for example, is fine. But any attempt to track our movements or take over control of the vehicle while it is being driven is way off limits.
If such ‘intelligent’ cars were commonplace, just think of the fun one could have in turning round road signs!
Best regards
Unexpected consequences, eh? 😉
If they could just get one to signal when the meatsack in the driver’s seat forgets to, I’d be happy!
Hel, we can not trust these bastard car companies to build vehicles with an accelerator pedal that functions properly, what make them think they can be trusted with THIS?
I don’t see it happening so don’t worry. Technology is not at that stage yet and if you were to try and turn and the system thinks you are turning into a one way street so brakes and a massive pile up occurs. The manufacturer would be sued. The driver could, and would say, it was safe and could prove it. The insurance companies would not be willing to pay and it would end up in the car manufacturers software companies claims department.
No. I think that it will beep and squeal if it detects something but not take control with street signs but will take control if it detects something like a stopped vehicle in front and no driver reaction.
In the long term when technology improves we won’t drive at all. We will jump in, state our destination and the car will drive all the way for us. We could do this now but it would be too expensive and we wouldn’t need that much intelligence. We will drive just for pleasure and with major restrictions.
What Lort T said.
These articles always prompt one simple question from me:
Where’s my f***ing jetpack?
AJ
A vapid press release from a PR company copied verbatim by a lazy Telegraph sub editor being taken overly seriously by Longrider….
This one first reared its ugly head about 12 years ago and led to the “Mulhouses Declaration” penned by Neil Liversedge the then chairman of MAG.
It will keep cropping up no doubt, but both MAG and the FEM are on the case lobbying against funding being granted to the wackos that are pressing for it.
Oh yes, forgot to mention, it’s currently being pushed under the label of ISA – “Intelligent” Speed Adaptation.
Bad enough in a car, but having control taken from the rider of a motorcycle in the middle of a change of course is asking for disaster.
I don’t care how intelligent these cars are made, ultimately, it is the driver who is best placed to make decisions about prevailing conditions and the appropriate action to take in the event of an incident …
Now that sounds a bit Luddite, LR, something I’m sometimes accused of.
“speed up the process of determining the cause and responsibility of an accident”
Yeah, right. Can you imagine all of the delays, court costs and general pissing about involved in determining who was driving the car—the human or the car.
Get fucking stuffed.
DK
Intelligent cars? Yes, highly laudable, but will the improved technology do anything to improve the Drivers?
I think not.
Relax.
Do you think the State really wants to forgo all that revenue it gets from speeding fines?
A point that raises an interesting possibility Andrew.
Initially I was going to disagree with you, pointing to the examples started by Swindon Council in no longer providing funding to theft camera partnerships and the new government stating that it also will provide no further funding.
Then I reaslised that the government stated at the same time that they were not going to prevent new cameras being installed. Hmmmmm…..
Are we looking at the first steps towards the privatisation of this particular form of revenue collection?
Purely speculation, but you read it here first.