There is a school of thought that says that the more you build in safety features into cars to protect the driver from any eventuality, the more careless that driver will become - literally care, less, they will not care for their safety (because that is now guaranteed) so why should they care for the world outside of their windscreen ?

That same school of thought also carries the theory that back in the olden days things were a lot safer on the roads because there were no safety devices in cars, in fact most cars used to be death traps.

*Puts flat cap on and draws on his pipe*

Now when ah wor nobbut a lad the first vehicles I drove after passing my test were the Mk1 Ford Escort vans that the company had, vans with seatbelts that no-one used unless they wanted to be labelled a big pufta, vans with steel dashboards that would offer complete resistance if you hit them, steering wheels and steering columns that would not collapse if you hit them, and windscreens that would shatter like normal glass and cut you to ribbons as you passed through them - basically in an accident you were as protected as an egg in a tumble dryer.

Did that make us drive more safely ?

No, it just killed more of us.

Humans are stupid.

I already have this feature, if I'm within ten miles of the Owlcoates M&S a voice next to me beloows directions until I'm in the car park...

<robot control voice>
''It's good to see we already have you in our pocket earthling.''

My car is fitted with the same, adaptive cruise control and automatic braking.
The latter DOES work! A few weeks back I was driving at 30mph in a built up area when an eejit pedestrian decided it would be a good idea to cross the road from behind a parked car without looking (Sorry, he WAS looking, but at his 'phone

)
I went to brake, but the car beat me to it.. the seat belts tensioned and brakes applied a split second before I could react!) The car stopped in time.
I do feel much safer now, but my only concern is will I in future take driving awareness less seriously knowing full well that the car should react? Thats the worry.
As to going the whole hog, and let it also do the steering, I'm not sure? However, having used the current speed control and braking technology, I'd certainly be more open to that idea now than I would have been previously.

You say this as if it were a bad thing, at least the higher number of deaths on the road provided greater potential numbers of organs for donation. Health and safety gone mad.

the question is whether you would be absolved from blame should your vehicle not take the right corrective action.

If you drive into someone because the automatic braking doesnt work, is the driver liable for the insurance claim or the car manufacturer??

Yes, always has been various databases but these have become more and more 'joined up'


I am pretty cynical about insurers and wouldn't be surprised if there was a red flag "in case of claim" on a policy where something was undeclared. However, they don't have access to DVLA conviction records, and they would I think argue that they can't reasonably do an in-depth investigation of every prospective new policyholder without huge expense, and should be entitled on someone wanting to enter into a contract to tell the truth voluntarily.

I am sure that for anyone with an accidents or claims record, they must have easy pre-policy access to what details are available for you, you address and the vehicle reg.no., if they wanted to use it.

Two separate things. As the driver, it's up to you, you screw up, you pay the penalty. If you fail to take reasonable action to avoid a collision that your average reasonable driver would have avoided, then usually that is driving without due care and attention.

However, you might I suppose then have a claim against the car manufacturer who sold you something on the basis that if you failed to take action to avoid a collision, then it would, but it hadn't. It would be an interesting argument. Maybe the manufacturer could argue that they were primarily liable for the defective auto-steering; but should pay you nothing as you were 100% contributorily negligent!

Was a case reported this week of a man being awarded $14m in USA where car went off road and side airbag (which was not a compulsory fitting) failed to deploy. Though tbf he was a passenger so couldn't be guilty of contrib. It does show though (as if we didn't know) that technology if fitted will (with 100% certainty) from time to time fail. But your passive airbag going off, or failing to, is one thing; your car suddenly and violently steering you in a different direction is quite another.

On Tuesday a [url=http://www.bigclassaction.com/lawsuit/toyota-prius-pre-collision-system-class-action.phpclass action was begun in USA[/url against Toyota claiming that this feature in the Prius doesn't do what it says on the tin

I'd like to see a "motorway driving" mode, whereby control is taken by the car, allowing people safely to have a coffee, read, eat, put on make-up, brush their hair, chat on the phone, send texts ... you know, all the stuff they already do.

In town centres, I'd simply ban all private wheeled vehicles that are capable of being used at a faster-than-walking-pace (i.e. wheelchairs and prams would be OK), and only allow deliveries between strict hours.

On housing estates and suburbs, I'd have limits at 20mph or even 10 mph in some places.

Taxis would be subject to the same rules as private cars, instead of being allowed wherever buses can go.

... and that's just for starters ...

I thought the objection to this system could turn you into said idiot by avoiding one accident and causing another?

A genuine "must see" for anyone interested in the contribution of scientists, doctors and engineers to car safety is last night's edition of Horizon. Impact! A Horizon guide to car crashes. It's available on BBC iPlayer, BBC Channel 4. Fascinating how these people have worked together to continually deskill the driver