Car Warranty

Submitted: Sunday, Sep 21, 2014 at 16:35
ThreadID: 109570 Views:2636 Replies:6 FollowUps:21
This Thread has been Archived
Geraldton WA has had a violent storm this morning and still very ugle this arvo so nothing better to do than to muck arround on the net.During lunch saw an add for a car with park assist where the vehicle parks it,s self look Mum no hands job.
IF the parking assist fails ands you bang into a Mercedes does the car company cover panel beating of both or either vehicle.Could be very expensive exercise air bags along cost a heap I know at the speed traveling they should,nt go off but WHAT IF.
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Bob Y. - Qld - Sunday, Sep 21, 2014 at 17:42

Sunday, Sep 21, 2014 at 17:42
Assuming you, as the driver, are in the driver's seat of said car with park assist, then I'd reckon the Law would deem you as "in charge" of the vehicle, so you are responsible for this vehicle, and it's actions ie: damaging the Merc.

Bob

Seen it all, Done it all.
Can't remember most of it.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 539355

Reply By: Ron N - Sunday, Sep 21, 2014 at 18:38

Sunday, Sep 21, 2014 at 18:38
It's only more garbage you don't need, for dumbed down drivers who can't even reverse.
Buy a car without it, keep your driving skills up - and if you do actually hit another car, you only have yourself to blame.

I can see lawyers fighting over these claims that "the parking assist did it!", so they can buy new Beemers from the proceeds of the multitude of court cases.
Then all the additional costs will come back to all of us, in the form of increased insurance premiums.
AnswerID: 539359

Reply By: AlbyNSW - Sunday, Sep 21, 2014 at 18:42

Sunday, Sep 21, 2014 at 18:42
The key word is ASSiST you are still responsible for your actions, the rear mirrors, cameras etc are all driver aids only to make it easier for the driver
AnswerID: 539360

Reply By: Slow one - Sunday, Sep 21, 2014 at 18:52

Sunday, Sep 21, 2014 at 18:52
Newby,
If you have comprehensive insurance both vehicles will be covered and you will have to pay the insurance excess, seeing it was your vehicle that damaged the merc.

As for dumbing down, I think insurance companies will welcome park assist, as I believe they will have less damaged vehicles from parking incidents.

AnswerID: 539361

Follow Up By: Slow one - Sunday, Sep 21, 2014 at 18:59

Sunday, Sep 21, 2014 at 18:59
Have a look at this vid. If you are in the car I would be very happy to have the Volvo behind me.

Nice auto brakes
2
FollowupID: 823977

Follow Up By: wombat100 - Sunday, Sep 21, 2014 at 19:08

Sunday, Sep 21, 2014 at 19:08
Good one 'Slow one'.
Wonder what would it be like on a wet or icy road???

0
FollowupID: 823978

Follow Up By: Ron N - Sunday, Sep 21, 2014 at 19:18

Sunday, Sep 21, 2014 at 19:18
I haven't got too many problems accepting the new collision-avoidance systems that apply the brakes in heavy traffic - once every vehicle is fitted with it - but I wonder how they go if it spots a 'roo, slams on the anchors - and the bloke behind hasn't got the same system fitted??

Or - you spot an animal approaching the road, you decide to gun it and swerve around it (done that, more than a few times) - but the system decides it needs to hit the brakes, just as you decide to gun it and swerve?? It could get interesting, to say the least.
0
FollowupID: 823979

Follow Up By: Slow one - Sunday, Sep 21, 2014 at 20:11

Sunday, Sep 21, 2014 at 20:11
Wombat,
Here is the wet and slippery road.

2
FollowupID: 823981

Follow Up By: Slow one - Sunday, Sep 21, 2014 at 20:22

Sunday, Sep 21, 2014 at 20:22
Wombat,
I should have said watch the 2nd video all the way through and Volvo did have a bad failure when they did a media demo of their collision avoidance system.
They will get over that embarrassment and fix any gremlins.
0
FollowupID: 823982

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Sunday, Sep 21, 2014 at 20:50

Sunday, Sep 21, 2014 at 20:50
Collision avoidance systems have been getting trailed and developed over the last 10 years by most of the component and systems manufactures.

There is even talk of identifying what you may hit like different animals types and applying different strategies for these.

Inferred night time systems that can see up to 1km in distance and adaptive headlight with up to 100 pin point LED's that can illuminate certain danger and not dazzle on coming vehicles are just a few of the new technology we will see in the next 2 years.

Soon we will have a GPS system that can alter the vehicle dynamics to suit conditions like multi level ABS/traction control/vehicle stability control for varying weather conditions.

The good thing about computers is they can analyse multiply inputs in a fraction of a second and they never make a mistake....... Unlike human intervention that can only handle basic inputs, take time to process and make mistakes.

0
FollowupID: 823983

Follow Up By: Slow one - Sunday, Sep 21, 2014 at 21:59

Sunday, Sep 21, 2014 at 21:59
Yep,
olcoolone, that has been proven by the military jets of today. The planes virtually fly themselves and the computers make very rapid decisions on what should and shouldn't happen next.

Not many pilots can fly at 100 feet at those speeds and not hit something. Even the crop duster pilots clout things at very low speed by either, not seeing the obstacle or not having the reflexes. This ground hugging technology is now many years old. Mustering chopper pilots are exempt, as they have a few cogs broken in their control centres.

It may not be common to see driverless vehicles on the road in my time but this will happen in the not to far distant future. Love to see road rage between the computer controlled vehicles, they may have to carry a darlek for protection. Ha. Ha.

Newby, sorry I didn't mean to hijack the thread and will stop now.
0
FollowupID: 823985

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Monday, Sep 22, 2014 at 08:37

Monday, Sep 22, 2014 at 08:37
QUOTE [Love to see road rage between the computer controlled vehicles]

As long as they all use a common operating system we will be fine....... you don't want a windows operating system or a Mac operating system try to prove dominance over one and other in an emergency....... my system is fast.....my system is more stable...... my system is more reliable......

In the future they say all vehicles will be running on a network where one vehicle can talk to another vehicle to get things done.

1
FollowupID: 823998

Follow Up By: Member - PhilD_NT - Monday, Sep 22, 2014 at 09:07

Monday, Sep 22, 2014 at 09:07
The Hackers are going to love that idea. Mass chaos on he roads.
0
FollowupID: 824001

Follow Up By: Member - Richard L8 - Monday, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:43

Monday, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:43
Parking assist is the (WORD). Being a Service Manager of a new car dealership with Parking assist vehicles it drives me nuts because owners do not read the instructions or want to learn how to use the system during new car delivery. They jump in the vehicle & expect it is going to park itself by pushing the button as seen on TV.
Parking assist is great if used as it is designed. There is a procedure that must be followed before pressing the GO button. It controls the steering, but not the brakes. Can you easily hit things or other cars? Yes you can. The manufactures clearly state in the owners manual, parking is the drivers responsibility. Personally I find the parking systems too slow (Can take over a minute to fully park) & I don't like not having full control of the vehicle. Letting go of the steering wheel is very unsettling. Once you touch the steering wheel it cuts the system out, then you have to start again. For people that struggle to park correctly, then yes it is a great system once you learn how to use it correctly. But for the majority of drivers it will never be used, but hey it looks good on the broucher.
1
FollowupID: 824006

Follow Up By: Ron N - Monday, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:43

Monday, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:43
I'd love to see how all this total computerisation works when you want to head bush!
I can just see it now - you aim for a rough creek crossing - you go to gun it, the brakes are slammed on, and it chucks itself into reverse - and you get a computerised metallic voice stating; "Pull Up! Pull Up! Vehicles capabilities are being exceeded!! Cease attempts at exceeding vehicle capabilities, or vehicle will be shut down!!" LOL

It's like the old joke about areoplanes of the future; the cockpit will contain a pilot and a dog. The pilots job is to feed the dog and the dogs job is to bite the pilot if he tries to touch any of the controls.

The problem with ever increasing automation is the constant reduction in human skills required to operate anything.
We still have plane crashes, despite vast amounts of automation. There's a new group of young pilots they call "The Magenta Line".
The name comes from the magenta line used to illuminate flight paths on electronic screens.

These young pilots lack basic, hand-flying skills, where you understand what the aircraft is doing when a control input is made. This younger generation of pilots are trained to just set all the flight controls and allow the flight control computers to do everything.

When things go wrong, they can't figure out what the controls are doing and they do not have enough hand-flying skills to recover an aircraft that is out of control.

Look at the Air France 447 flight, that crashed in the Atlantic. Despite an experienced crew of two co-pilots and captain, they flew a perfectly good aircraft into the ocean because they lacked basic hands-on flying skills, and they didn't understand their control inputs when they tried to hand fly the aircraft.

AF447 crash

I know numerous blokes over 30 who have never even changed a flat tyre on any car they have ever owned.
They'd be struggling to figure out where to find the jack and tools, and how to use them.

There are many truck driver who cannot change a wheel and tyre.
This is because they're told they mustn't do so, because they're not trained tyre fitters, they lack the "proper tyre-handling equipment" and they might injure themselves if they attempt to change a flat on their truck. They have to sit tight in the cabin and call Bureaurepaires. It's a pretty sad world we live in today - and it isn't going to get any better.

This all reminds me of the bloke the brother found, shivering, on a broken-down motorbike, on a cold winters day, beside the Coolgardie-Norseman road.
He was puffing on a fag and the brother said, "why haven't you lit a fire to keep warm?" - and the bloke replies, "because I couldn't find any wood!" (he was surrounded by enough fallen timber to keep a small town warm for a year!). [insert face-plant symbol here]
0
FollowupID: 824007

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Monday, Sep 22, 2014 at 13:03

Monday, Sep 22, 2014 at 13:03
Our 200 series has a switch that disables the air bags when 4x4ing, if on to much of a lean the air bags can deploy.

I think many young pilots are very skilled and in some cases more skilled then the older generation due to many playing life like flight simulator games as a kid.

QUOTE[There are many truck driver who cannot change a wheel and tyre.]

There is a very good reason for that, in this current world of legal prosecution and liability for most it lowers the risk and financial impact if something goes wrong........ both for the general public and the driver.

With the targeting of heavy vehicles over here in South Australia and one before the courts for lack of maintenance that killed a driver there is a big emphasis on who performs the maintenance and their qualifications meaning many owner drivers who do their own work if unqualified or unprofessionally trained and incompetent can be jailed if something goes wrong...... even if someone is not hurt.

Many of our big customers are asking for in-depth reports on a regular basis on our staff training, qualifications, licences and insurance. It's the sign of the times.

Comparing the Air France crash to lack of skills is like saying every vehicles crash is a result of an experienced driver..... when it's not.

0
FollowupID: 824011

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Monday, Sep 22, 2014 at 13:10

Monday, Sep 22, 2014 at 13:10
Should be...

Comparing the Air France crash to lack of skills is like saying every vehicles crash is a result of an inexperienced driver..... when it's not.

Be great when they have an edit button.
0
FollowupID: 824012

Follow Up By: The Landy - Monday, Sep 22, 2014 at 13:27

Monday, Sep 22, 2014 at 13:27
Ron

Having been involved in aviation for a considerable amount of time flying planes, and a lot of time studying Human Factors in Flight - your comments are way off the mark!

Well, apart from the joke about the pilot and the dog, bit its oldy these days!



0
FollowupID: 824013

Follow Up By: Ron N - Monday, Sep 22, 2014 at 13:37

Monday, Sep 22, 2014 at 13:37
And I've seen a lot of "professional" and "trained" mechanics who should be working in the meat section of Coles and wearing blue-and-white-striped aprons!
Their toolboxes most used items are a hammer and chisel!

The whole system is designed around more and more bureaucracy that doesn't result in lower accident rates - it just results in much higher costs due to vast amounts of inspectors, paperwork, and petty rules and regulations.

In the case of crashes caused by poor maintenance - we have one of the most stringent national heavy vehicle maintenance schemes in the world - yet we still have major truck crashes every day - such as the Cootes tanker crash, the sewerage truck crash in the Adelaide hills, the ANFO truck explosion at Charleville, and truck rollovers every day of the week.

The largest proportion of these crashes are caused by poor driving skills, and the smallest percentage by poor maintenance.

What happens when electronic systems degrade and sensors fail to operate due to wiring harness damage/faulty connectors?
It's foolhardiness to rely totally on 100% computerisation, there has to be a high level of human operator skills as the last-resort backup at all times.
0
FollowupID: 824014

Follow Up By: Ron N - Monday, Sep 22, 2014 at 16:01

Monday, Sep 22, 2014 at 16:01
Landy, there's nothing "off the mark" in my comments, as any basic research shows that the official response to the AF447 disaster (to all airlines, but Air France in particular) was directions to ensure that pilot training was to be modified to enhance hands-on flying skills and to ensure that pilots became more able to understand what to do when all the computerisation failed them.
0
FollowupID: 824017

Follow Up By: The Landy - Monday, Sep 22, 2014 at 16:20

Monday, Sep 22, 2014 at 16:20
"These young pilots lack basic, hand-flying skills, where you understand what the aircraft is doing when a control input is made. This younger generation of pilots are trained to just set all the flight controls and allow the flight control computers to do everything. "

Way-off the mark my good friend!
0
FollowupID: 824018

Follow Up By: Ron N - Monday, Sep 22, 2014 at 18:24

Monday, Sep 22, 2014 at 18:24
Well, I won't continue with the thread drift, but the following (lengthy) article about AF447 (written 4 days ago) gives a very good insight into how over-reliance on automation that reduced the basic responses of the so-called "experienced" and "highly trained" AF447 flight crew to the equivalent of learner pilots, is a pointer as to how automation is dumbing down our society.

The Human Factors in the crash of AF447

You can point to "cognitive bias" or "expectation/confirmation bias" as a major factor in many aircraft crashes - as well as AF447 - but the problem basically is; extreme levels of automation are bringing with them, lower skills levels, and greater confusion when things go seriously wrong - as they do when automation has failures that designers never imagined could happen, and for which they never provided automated solutions.

You have surely to admit, that THREE, so called, "experienced" flight crew, who ignored a loud, audible stall warning - that went off no less than SEVENTY FIVE times during the fall from 35,000 feet to the ocean surface - are seriously lacking in basic flying skills? - not just suffering from a cognitive bias problem?

Back on the ground, we have the increasing problem of drivers today who have never driven on a gravel road, due to the major increase in road sealing that has taken place over the last 30 and 40 years.

This alone means a major decline in driver skills - let alone automation that can only lead to even more reduced skills amongst drivers.
0
FollowupID: 824025

Follow Up By: get outmore - Monday, Sep 22, 2014 at 19:32

Monday, Sep 22, 2014 at 19:32
lets not forget the 17yo girl that died a few years back.
her parents were taking the hyden norsman road to avoid fires on the geh.
her mother took over the driving and promptly rolled the car killing her due to a complete inability to drive on a gravel road despite it being almost bitumen quality
0
FollowupID: 824028

Follow Up By: The Landy - Tuesday, Sep 23, 2014 at 07:37

Tuesday, Sep 23, 2014 at 07:37
Hi Ron

Yes, whilst an interesting topic it is diverting from the original thread.

So I’ll close off with a couple of thoughts.

Automation in the cockpit has improved safety 10-fold, if not more, over the past 20 years. Instead of pilots being “tunnelled visioned” concentrating on the “act of flying” they have a suite of information available to them to monitor all flight paramenters, thus increasing situational awareness and safe conduct of the flight.

And when it comes to Airliners, flying an airplane is nothing. Safely managing a flight is everything.

Basic flying skills may not be practised as much in a modern cockpit, although this is not to suggest they are not taught or reinforced. But like any skill based undertaking, it does need to be practised. Often in a simulator.

Noting, at the end of a long-haul flight would you prefer reliance on a tired flight crew who have travelled through the night to land a 747-heavy at Heathrow down to the runway in fog, or let the aircraft do it? The aircraft will do it far more precisely, besides the pilots cannot manually fly it to the runway below minima’s – that is the reality.

On the Air France accident – it may well be that it was because of the pilots’ basic flying skills rather than a lack of it that caused them to be counter-intuitive to the aircraft. But that is a big discussion on its own.

The Airbus is a very high tech aircraft that is capable of recovering the aircraft from very unusual attitudes. And yes a stall warning horn was going, but it has been proven that under high workload (adverse weather) and an aircraft not responding in the way it should you could have three horns blaring and not hear one of them. If you take a good look at the findings this has been hinted at and suggestions made for alternative warnings.

Each year there are circa 30-35 million commercial flights on modern “glass cockpit” airliners. Accident stats are extremely low.

On driving skills – do we teach drivers to “drive” on dirt roads, or do we teach drivers to approach the any driving task to be based on the conditions prevailing, along with recognition of their own ability?

Cheers, Baz – The Landy
0
FollowupID: 824040

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Tuesday, Sep 23, 2014 at 07:54

Tuesday, Sep 23, 2014 at 07:54
QUOTE[In the case of crashes caused by poor maintenance - we have one of the most stringent national heavy vehicle maintenance schemes in the world - yet we still have major truck crashes every day - such as the Cootes tanker crash, the sewerage truck crash in the Adelaide hills, the ANFO truck explosion at Charleville, and truck rollovers every day of the week.

The largest proportion of these crashes are caused by poor driving skills, and the smallest percentage by poor maintenance.]

Sorry Ron disagree about the maintenance, many have good standards but there are many who don't.

Truck accidents have been happening since the invention of the truck...... so does that make the older generation just as unskilled as the newer generation.

One thing I do agree with is the lack of skills of the general population in driving and the older generation who think they have the skills.

Anyway I with Landy as it is diverting from the original thread.
0
FollowupID: 824041

Reply By: Freshstart - Monday, Sep 22, 2014 at 14:42

Monday, Sep 22, 2014 at 14:42
To get back to the original question; If (a big IF) it can be proven that the crash was caused by an error or fault with the park assist then you may be able to get the manufacturer into court and get all paid by them. It would have to be a fault in the design or an error with the software. Like a software fault that gives you full forward instead of reverse slow and you end up driving into the shops.

I wonder when the last time was that 100% error free software was produced for the commercial automobile market. At work we did lots for the space industry (great job) and the cost of testing and integration was HUGE. They wouldn't spend gazillions on family cars.

I go to the bush to drive not be a technical and electronics wiz. I think the balance we have in our 100 series is fine. But then I don't use any of the selectable bits apart from cruise control. I do like the cruise control when it takes us more than a week to drive home, on the bitumen, from places like the CSR.

AnswerID: 539395

Reply By: Shaker - Tuesday, Sep 23, 2014 at 08:13

Tuesday, Sep 23, 2014 at 08:13
On a similar note, if you can be fined for walking away from a vehicle that has a turbo timer fitted, will they fine people for remote starting a vehicle?
In both cases the vehicle is running unattended!

AnswerID: 539418

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (13)