Pros/Cons of Ford Co-Pilot360 Smart Tech in the 2019 Ranger

[Geoff]

That's the thing though, people don't understand the technology limits. That's not just my opinion, there is quite a bit of easily accessible research. It's quite possibly even worse. People unrealistically relying on technology (to be even more distracted) AND not developing proper driving skills.

Like I said, it won't matter in the future. We are in the very early stages on the way to fully autonomous where driving skills will be irrelevant.

Glad I was born when I was

You will not convince me and I'm sure I won't convince you. But you've likely never used lane assist and or emergency braking and anyone who relies on this technology to "take over" and be lazy is gonna be one dead dumb bastard.

Sponsored

 

[FX4Offroad]

You will not convince me and I'm sure I won't convince you. But you've likely never used lane assist and or emergency braking and anyone who relies on this technology to "take over" and be lazy is gonna be one dead dumb bastard.

And may unfortunately take someone with them.

 

[khyros]

I seem to be in the minority here on my point of view. I don't believe tech is making people worse at driving. I would be surprised if the majority of Ranger owners are going to go and say "oh, I don't need to pay attention to traffic, my vehicle has automatic emergency braking. S'all good!" Instead, the standard driver is going to continue driving just as they would, distractions and all, and then when they fail to pay attention, because they're busy texting their beau, the Ranger will intervene and prevent a rear end collision (er, does the Ranger prevent a collision or just minimize the impact after it determines a collision is imminent?).

Same thing with lane keeping assist - no one's going to go around and be like "my car's got this! I can take a nap, or take my hands off the wheel to text with two hands." Instead, they're going to continue texting and driving as they always do, but instead of drifting into the next lane and side swiping someone, they're going to be redirected back into their own lane.

Having accident avoidance features should not reduce driver's skills, these are not autonomous vehicles that will minimize actual driving experiences (and therefore reducing opportunities to practice driving).



And also, onto the original question - my understanding is that the vehicle monitors your driving habits within the first 5 minutes to establish a baseline. And then if it determines your alertness/responsiveness has decreased, it gives that warning. I'm not sure what all it uses to determine that (my guess would be rate of input of steering wheel / brakes, indicating a more immediate action required, likely due to a slower reaction time). With that said, I'm going to make a few statements of facts that may seem irrelevant. Plenty of DUIs occur when the driver thinks he's fine to drive (https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving ~20% of fatalities occur under the legal limit). Driving sleepy is on par with driving drunk (https://www.sleepfoundation.org/articles/drowsy-driving-vs-drunk-driving-how-similar-are-they).

So, now for an inference instead of facts... If people drive drunk (or even sober by the legal limits) under the guise of they're fine to drive, but they're really not fine, and driving drowsy has the same impact on one's driving skills and reactions as driving drunk, then one could infer that one could be driving drowsy to the point where it's dangerous, but they think it's fine. This is almost a larger concern than the borderline DUI concern, as there isn't the public stigma (or awareness) of the effects of driving drowsy. Therefore, if my vehicle is alerting me to my drowsiness, it could be a life saving alert.


Now, what you do with that alert is up to you. I've gotten it several times on my old 2013 MKZ when I was commuting home for the weekend after a long Friday (6hr drive after 10hr shift). And I would pull over, grab a coffee, stretch my legs, and then finish up the drive. If it went off on my standard 30min commute home after a long day, I probably wouldn't do anything at all about it.


So, as I said, I probably have a different view point on both of these things than most. I'm excited to get adaptive cruise again just for the convenience of not having to constantly change from 73 to 72 back to 73mph, the rest of them I don't plan on ever using, but I will guarantee that there will be plenty of times that the LKA will keep me in my lane, and god forbid that the emergency braking ever goes off... But if/when they do, I will be glad to have that feature. And this is coming from someone who has been driving for 15 years, averaging about 25k miles a year, over 100k of trailer driving, and no accidents.

 

[Geoff]

I seem to be in the minority here on my point of view. I don't believe tech is making people worse at driving. I would be surprised if the majority of Ranger owners are going to go and say "oh, I don't need to pay attention to traffic, my vehicle has automatic emergency braking. S'all good!" Instead, the standard driver is going to continue driving just as they would, distractions and all, and then when they fail to pay attention, because they're busy texting their beau, the Ranger will intervene and prevent a rear end collision (er, does the Ranger prevent a collision or just minimize the impact after it determines a collision is imminent?).

Same thing with lane keeping assist - no one's going to go around and be like "my car's got this! I can take a nap, or take my hands off the wheel to text with two hands." Instead, they're going to continue texting and driving as they always do, but instead of drifting into the next lane and side swiping someone, they're going to be redirected back into their own lane.

Having accident avoidance features should not reduce driver's skills, these are not autonomous vehicles that will minimize actual driving experiences (and therefore reducing opportunities to practice driving).

That's what I've been trying to say as well....good post.

 

[DHare]

I seem to be in the minority here on my point of view. I don't believe tech is making people worse at driving. I would be surprised if the majority of Ranger owners are going to go and say "oh, I don't need to pay attention to traffic, my vehicle has automatic emergency braking. S'all good!" Instead, the standard driver is going to continue driving just as they would, distractions and all, and then when they fail to pay attention, because they're busy texting their beau, the Ranger will intervene and prevent a rear end collision (er, does the Ranger prevent a collision or just minimize the impact after it determines a collision is imminent?).

Same thing with lane keeping assist - no one's going to go around and be like "my car's got this! I can take a nap, or take my hands off the wheel to text with two hands." Instead, they're going to continue texting and driving as they always do, but instead of drifting into the next lane and side swiping someone, they're going to be redirected back into their own lane.

Having accident avoidance features should not reduce driver's skills, these are not autonomous vehicles that will minimize actual driving experiences (and therefore reducing opportunities to practice driving).



And also, onto the original question - my understanding is that the vehicle monitors your driving habits within the first 5 minutes to establish a baseline. And then if it determines your alertness/responsiveness has decreased, it gives that warning. I'm not sure what all it uses to determine that (my guess would be rate of input of steering wheel / brakes, indicating a more immediate action required, likely due to a slower reaction time). With that said, I'm going to make a few statements of facts that may seem irrelevant. Plenty of DUIs occur when the driver thinks he's fine to drive (https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving ~20% of fatalities occur under the legal limit). Driving sleepy is on par with driving drunk (https://www.sleepfoundation.org/articles/drowsy-driving-vs-drunk-driving-how-similar-are-they).

So, now for an inference instead of facts... If people drive drunk (or even sober by the legal limits) under the guise of they're fine to drive, but they're really not fine, and driving drowsy has the same impact on one's driving skills and reactions as driving drunk, then one could infer that one could be driving drowsy to the point where it's dangerous, but they think it's fine. This is almost a larger concern than the borderline DUI concern, as there isn't the public stigma (or awareness) of the effects of driving drowsy. Therefore, if my vehicle is alerting me to my drowsiness, it could be a life saving alert.


Now, what you do with that alert is up to you. I've gotten it several times on my old 2013 MKZ when I was commuting home for the weekend after a long Friday (6hr drive after 10hr shift). And I would pull over, grab a coffee, stretch my legs, and then finish up the drive. If it went off on my standard 30min commute home after a long day, I probably wouldn't do anything at all about it.


So, as I said, I probably have a different view point on both of these things than most. I'm excited to get adaptive cruise again just for the convenience of not having to constantly change from 73 to 72 back to 73mph, the rest of them I don't plan on ever using, but I will guarantee that there will be plenty of times that the LKA will keep me in my lane, and god forbid that the emergency braking ever goes off... But if/when they do, I will be glad to have that feature. And this is coming from someone who has been driving for 15 years, averaging about 25k miles a year, over 100k of trailer driving, and no accidents.

In complete agreement with you, and I've been driving for over 50 years. No matter how good of a driver we think we are, we all make mistakes, whether it is getting drowsy and wandering out of lane, or thinking about that jerk at work or an argument with the spouse which takes your attention away from the car coming up in your blind spot or slowing down in front of you. Most of the time we catch the mistake and correct it before disaster strikes. But there is always the possibility of not catching it in time. The safety features built into this truck may give you an extra few seconds to catch a mistake and save your's and someone else's life. Well worth the cost.

 

[Tommy Oberon]

So falling asleep or nearly so twice? Have you been tested for sleep apnea?

 

[BobStrauss]

Humans have always been terrible drivers, and have had to regulate or innovate to account for it. Statistics on road deaths over time bear that out very clearly. It’s only recently that car accidents stopped being the leading early cause of death.

Thanks, fentanyl!

 

[Floyd]

I think BLIS should not replace the blindspot mirror. In fact it probably should be incorporated in it. That would likely make it both better and cheaper to make. They could use the same regular mirror and just change the blindspot mirror portion for the upgrade.
I really like the built-in blindspot mirror on my TC and I think it is better than any "stick-on" that I have had.
Having both the warning light and the mirror would be really nice.

 

[RedlandRanger]

I think BLIS should not replace the blindspot mirror. In fact it probably should be incorporated in it. That would likely make it both better and cheaper to make. They could use the same regular mirror and just change the blindspot mirror portion for the upgrade.
I really like the built-in blindspot mirror on my TC and I think it is better than any "stick-on" that I have had.
Having both the warning light and the mirror would be really nice.

I agree - I like the blind spot light, but I also like the blind spot mirror - we have one on our CMax and I really like it. Wish the Ranger would have the same setup.

 

[Akshon]

So my stepson backed into the Ranger this morning. We have a T shaped driveway. He was parked in front of the garage and my truck was on the opposite side. He managed to clip the passenger side of the rear bumper with his left front fender. Bumper on the Ranger held up pretty well. I think I can buff most of it out. The fender on the Fusion is Taco’d. I asked him WTH he was doing. He said he was starring at the backup camera screen. All while turning and trying to maneuver out. The Fusion has parking sensors so I have no clue why he didn’t heed a warning. Too busy concentrating on a tv screen. My point is too many rely on technology instead of using there senses. Had he been looking in his mirrors, The ranger rear end right next to his drivers door would have been totally obvious. This is his one get out of jail free card. Only has had his license for 2 months.
Technology is only as good as the dipshit that sits between the screen and the seatback.

 

[Bubbabiker]

I agree. Driving aid technology is creating a worst group of drivers. Drivers relying on technology for driving aids and losing their situational awareness. Worst is the false sense of security thinking they can do other things like jack with the cell phone and texting, reading a book, etc.

My Dad and I had the same discussion last weekend about today's pilots loosing their piloting skills due to relying on the technology in the cockpit.

 

[VAMike]

This is nostalgic BS. Deaths caused by automobiles peaked in the early 70s at more than 50k per year--long before any kind of autonomous safety systems could be blamed for the bad driving. When the big bad government forced the car manufacturers to put in seat belts and started to crack down on drunk drivers and other such "nanny" actions they reversed the trend and the numbers started falling both in absolute terms and in terms of deaths per mile driven. What we haven't been able to do is get the numbers under the mid THIRTY THOUSANDS of people killed every year. What's weird is that even though an entire good size town worth of people die in cars every year, and people constantly complain about how bad everyone else drives, the vast majority of drivers rate their own driving as better than most. The human brain is oddly able to simply ignore any data it doesn't want, such as awareness of one's own bad habits behind the wheel. It's always been like that, and it will always be like that until the cars start driving themselves. Every single day I can see people looking down at their phones, but they are just "really good at doing that while still paying attention". Every single day I can see people speeding through a residential neighborhood well over the speed limit "but the speed limit is too slow, and I can react faster than most people". Every single day I can watch people making right turns on red without stopping and without looking toward their right, etc, etc, etc. I'd much rather have an automatic braking system in some other guy's car than rely on him stopping while he's doing god knows what other than paying attention--maybe playing with his phone, maybe eating, maybe shaving, maybe (30 years ago) reading the newspaper.

It ain't the cars, and it ain't anything new.

 

[t4thfavor]

In Ontario, there has been some groaning since the Police can ask for a breathalyser at anytime now. They don't need to smell it. They don't need to see you driving erratically. They can just assume everyone is drunk and request you blow. The constitution says we should be free of that kind of accusation, by taking away protections against unreasonable search and seizure, by taking away protections against arbitrary detention, removing a right to counsel. In this province, if you blow over, you lose your car and licence immediately, no court case required. Same as if you refuse to blow. You're guilty as per a roadside test administered by traffic cop.

Without a doubt, you can see how automobile technology has helped make a drunk driver a better driver and possibly outwit the Police and the wary public, on spotting someone impaired quite easily.

I'm torn on the technology and torn on the new policy. Its a grey area where if you support your constitution you're a supporter of impaired driving, which isn't the case. But the technology is sure making it hard for the obvious to be noticed.

Sounds like you guys "north" of the border are a few years ahead of us in progression towards thought crime and the realization of 1984 type rule. Good luck in your endeavors, I'd fight against this until the end if you want to remain with at least the illusion of freedom.

Would you trade one innocent persons freedom to save someone else's life? How many lives would it take? Who decides which innocent is traded?

 

[khyros]

In Ontario, there has been some groaning since the Police can ask for a breathalyser at anytime now. They don't need to smell it. They don't need to see you driving erratically. They can just assume everyone is drunk and request you blow. The constitution says we should be free of that kind of accusation, by taking away protections against unreasonable search and seizure, by taking away protections against arbitrary detention, removing a right to counsel. In this province, if you blow over, you lose your car and licence immediately, no court case required. Same as if you refuse to blow. You're guilty as per a roadside test administered by traffic cop.

Without a doubt, you can see how automobile technology has helped make a drunk driver a better driver and possibly outwit the Police and the wary public, on spotting someone impaired quite easily.

I'm torn on the technology and torn on the new policy. Its a grey area where if you support your constitution you're a supporter of impaired driving, which isn't the case. But the technology is sure making it hard for the obvious to be noticed.

Seems like you're having the same issue as we do with our 2nd amendment rights. No one wants to support gun violence when they advocate for their rights to bear arms, but by standing by your fundamental rights, you "side" with violence. And if you side with restricting rights, your leading down the path of complete gov't control.

The difference though with a breathalyzer, is that using roads is not a native right, and therefore, the gov't can impose whatever rules they want on using the roads. The gray ground comes into how does restricting access to roads conflict with other rights and freedoms, since in today's world, usage of the road is a requirement to go anywhere... but that's a more gray area.

 

[t4thfavor]

Seems like you're having the same issue as we do with our 2nd amendment rights. No one wants to support gun violence when they advocate for their rights to bear arms, but by standing by your fundamental rights, you "side" with violence. And if you side with restricting rights, your leading down the path of complete gov't control.

The difference though with a breathalyzer, is that using roads is not a native right, and therefore, the gov't can impose whatever rules they want on using the roads. The gray ground comes into how does restricting access to roads conflict with other rights and freedoms, since in today's world, usage of the road is a requirement to go anywhere... but that's a more gray area.

Look up "Fundamental right to travel" and see how it conflicts with the "government owns the roads" Plus your taxes fund the roads, so if you pay taxes, the road is as much yours as it is anyone else's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_v._Thompson

Sponsored