5 ms·

I love the absurdity of this and arbitrariness. You'll happily drive in a car, one of the most dangerous machines people use regularly. But if it has a computer

I love the absurdity of this and arbitrariness. You'll happily drive in a car, one of the most dangerous machines people use regularly. But if it has a computer in it, no siree, that's when things get too deadly to deal with. All of the other thousands of moving parts, like the thing that takes energy-dense hydrocarbons and ignites them several thousand times a second in hot, high pressure tubes - that's fine and totally safe. It's the ECU that makes the car dangerous. The fact that the only thing separating you walking on the sidewalk from death from a two ton metal box is the convention that we'll all stay within the lines painted on the ground. That's fine. It's the ECU that you're afraid of. Absurd.

tinco 11y ago
You make it seem silly. But the energy-dense hydrocarbons get combusted in steel/aluminium enclosures that have been battle tested in millions of systems for over 60 years. For it to go wrong billions of atoms need to be displaced at huge energies (much higher than the single combustion). The ECU however, was probably made ~10 years ago by a team of highly incompetent software developers trained as electronics engineers, with no access to any previous attempts by other companies and progressively getting worse over time (instead of being perfected). To make the ECU do something it wasn't made to do all it needs is a mere low voltage event just enough to flip a crucial bit, and many bits are crucial. Not that I don't agree that it's silly to not drive cars with an ECU, but just saying that his point has merit.
- mikeash 11y ago
  That battle testing also killed millions of people. Modern cars are vastly safer. Demonstrably so. Computers in cars may make them more dangerous. But this is far outweighed by the greater overall safety in the cars that have them. You can't buy an otherwise modern car with no computer control, so your choice is either to buy a modern car with computers, or buy an old car without them. If you're avoiding computers then you're buying an old car, and the result is greatly decreased safety. This is typical human risk management, of course. The mostly imaginary scenario where your ECU goes nuts and causes you to crash helplessly into a concrete barrier is assigned great importance, where the sadly common scenario of some drunk or texting (or drunk texting) idiot killing you in an accident that modern safety design would have allowed you to walk away from is assigned very little importance. It's much like people who are afraid of flying but are happy to drive, because the thought of plummeting to their death from 30,000 feet is much more vivid than the thought of being randomly run over by a tractor trailer even though the latter is much more likely.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    I actually know three people who were run over by a tractor trailer! While I don't know anybody killed in a plane crash. One was rushed to the hospital with a skull cracked like an eggshell. Almost fully recovered except he can't smell anything. One had a tractor/trailer fall over while turning a corner, onto his car. He happened to lie in the gap between tractor and trailer, leaving a little uncrushed cell with him in it. No injury. One was slowing to turn right on a highway; sleepy tractor driver ran fullspeed into the back of his old American car, crushing it utterly up to the back of the front seat. Unhurt. So old American cars have something going for them?
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Sounds like any passengers in the rear seat would have been doomed in that last crash. A modern car probably would have fared much better. Your second story is pretty amazing! Sometimes it's all about luck.
dmschulman 11y ago
You could easily extrapolate this argument to the Internet of Things if you need a way to understand the poster's point differently. Do you want or even really need a toaster with a computer in it? A refrigerator with a computer in it? Analog toaster and refrigerator technology has been working quite well for us for almost a century.
Spooky23 11y ago
It's not absurd at all. For the questionable benefit of the ECU, you get a black box system that may or may not be garbage controlling the primary engine input, that may or may not fail safe. Give me the thing that grandpa designed 75 years ago. In the olden times, the throttle was controlled by a mechanical device and tensioned springs. The failure characteristics were studied for 150+ years, and the state of the mechanical components could be assessed by visual or physical inspection. The failure scenarios for open throttle are also non-obvious things to workaround. What do you do? Pump the brake? Take the car out of gear? Depress the accelerator to reset? Turn the key? It's a complex decision matrix with life-and-death consequences, and the correct answer will vary by car configuration and vendor. The ridiculous positions taken by posters here are indicative of how engineering fail like this happens.
- lalalandland 11y ago
  It's absurd because the reported incidents are so few. In 2010 worldwide 1,24 million people died in car accidents. Over 3000 a day. In 2010 the US 36,166 died. The number of incidents related to speeding Toyota's is pretty insignificant to that number.
- drbawb 11y ago
  You speak of the olden times like they're long gone? My car is from 2001, has side curtain airbags which will render most common crashes non-fatal, and it still has a fully mechanical throttle and no electronic brake controller of any kind. I don't consider it all that old. Yes it has an ECU, but EFI is not the problem in my opinion, and the computer by itself doesn't frighten me. EFI was a fantastic invention as far as I'm concerned. Also despite it being a "black box" I find it much more pleasurable to tune and maintain EFI systems over fickle carburetors. The real problem was making the ECU an _active control system_ which directly controls the engine, throttle, brakes, etc. in response to your inputs; as opposed to a passive one which merely _reacts in response to changes in its environment_ (e.g: more air moving through the intake, wheels locked up, losing traction on one side.) So yes, my '01 Toyota has a black box, but it's simple enough that it could be replaced by a handful of aftermarket controllers, many of which have their source freely available, or available for a modest licensing fee. --- Also I'd like to disagree that reacting to WOT is a "complex decision matrix." -- My instinctual reaction would be as follows. First you open the clutch and/or put the car in neutral. Disconnecting the motor from the wheels is the most reasonable solution to this problem. When I was taught to drive stick the very first thing I was told, before I ever moved the car an inch, was: "when you need to stop, clutch and brake." (Of course if it's an automatic transmission: "going into neutral" is just controlled by another black box. Sucks to be you if you hit deadly bugs in two separate powertrain management controllers.) (As an aside I do personally know people that commute every day in the US, and they don't even know what a transmission does. Why are we licensing these people as skilled motorists?) If I somehow found myself without even the most basic control of my transmission then you just press the brakes as hard as you can and you stop in ~300 feet.[1] If that didn't work, or if I had stopped but hadn't regained control of the vehicle, I would then kill the ignition. (To be fair: I'm told this is not quite so simple in modern cars! Apparently someone thought "pushing and holding a button for 3 seconds" was a better idea than "turn a key." -- However I also wouldn't agree to drive a car if I didn't know something as basic as how to kill the ignition under duress. I'm the sort of guy that reads the manual cover to cover for fun.) If killing the ignition doesn't work[2] and your transmission is somehow stuck engaged then today is really not your day. I don't see how any of this requires any more skill than driving does normally. To me this is not some complex decision tree, it's reflex at this point. (Also there is a good reason I would brake before killing the ignition. Brakes and steering are mechanically assisted by the engine. It would be extremely irresponsible to cut the ignition in a vehicle w/ power steering and power brakes on a public motorway in my opinion. -- Again I don't think this is some complex decision, I believe it should be requisite knowledge for being licensed to operate a motor vehicle under such conditions.) tl;dr: the complexity in this matrix is inherent in the task itself. If this is "too complex" then maybe we should work to improve our driver training and licensing programs; or better yet consider having more people take public transit, instead of handing out licenses like candy. [1]: http://media.caranddriver.com/images/media/51/braking-results-photo-319716-s-original.jpg http://media.caranddriver.com/images/media/51/braking-result... [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NRaqgab0_w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NRaqgab0_w

tinco 11y ago

You make it seem silly. But the energy-dense hydrocarbons get combusted in steel/aluminium enclosures that have been battle tested in millions of systems for over 60 years. For it to go wrong billions of atoms need to be displaced at huge energies (much higher than the single combustion). The ECU however, was probably made ~10 years ago by a team of highly incompetent software developers trained as electronics engineers, with no access to any previous attempts by other companies and progressively getting worse over time (instead of being perfected). To make the ECU do something it wasn't made to do all it needs is a mere low voltage event just enough to flip a crucial bit, and many bits are crucial. Not that I don't agree that it's silly to not drive cars with an ECU, but just saying that his point has merit.

mikeash 11y ago
That battle testing also killed millions of people. Modern cars are vastly safer. Demonstrably so. Computers in cars may make them more dangerous. But this is far outweighed by the greater overall safety in the cars that have them. You can't buy an otherwise modern car with no computer control, so your choice is either to buy a modern car with computers, or buy an old car without them. If you're avoiding computers then you're buying an old car, and the result is greatly decreased safety. This is typical human risk management, of course. The mostly imaginary scenario where your ECU goes nuts and causes you to crash helplessly into a concrete barrier is assigned great importance, where the sadly common scenario of some drunk or texting (or drunk texting) idiot killing you in an accident that modern safety design would have allowed you to walk away from is assigned very little importance. It's much like people who are afraid of flying but are happy to drive, because the thought of plummeting to their death from 30,000 feet is much more vivid than the thought of being randomly run over by a tractor trailer even though the latter is much more likely.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  I actually know three people who were run over by a tractor trailer! While I don't know anybody killed in a plane crash. One was rushed to the hospital with a skull cracked like an eggshell. Almost fully recovered except he can't smell anything. One had a tractor/trailer fall over while turning a corner, onto his car. He happened to lie in the gap between tractor and trailer, leaving a little uncrushed cell with him in it. No injury. One was slowing to turn right on a highway; sleepy tractor driver ran fullspeed into the back of his old American car, crushing it utterly up to the back of the front seat. Unhurt. So old American cars have something going for them?
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Sounds like any passengers in the rear seat would have been doomed in that last crash. A modern car probably would have fared much better. Your second story is pretty amazing! Sometimes it's all about luck.

dmschulman 11y ago

You could easily extrapolate this argument to the Internet of Things if you need a way to understand the poster's point differently. Do you want or even really need a toaster with a computer in it? A refrigerator with a computer in it? Analog toaster and refrigerator technology has been working quite well for us for almost a century.

Spooky23 11y ago

It's not absurd at all. For the questionable benefit of the ECU, you get a black box system that may or may not be garbage controlling the primary engine input, that may or may not fail safe. Give me the thing that grandpa designed 75 years ago. In the olden times, the throttle was controlled by a mechanical device and tensioned springs. The failure characteristics were studied for 150+ years, and the state of the mechanical components could be assessed by visual or physical inspection. The failure scenarios for open throttle are also non-obvious things to workaround. What do you do? Pump the brake? Take the car out of gear? Depress the accelerator to reset? Turn the key? It's a complex decision matrix with life-and-death consequences, and the correct answer will vary by car configuration and vendor. The ridiculous positions taken by posters here are indicative of how engineering fail like this happens.

lalalandland 11y ago
It's absurd because the reported incidents are so few. In 2010 worldwide 1,24 million people died in car accidents. Over 3000 a day. In 2010 the US 36,166 died. The number of incidents related to speeding Toyota's is pretty insignificant to that number.
drbawb 11y ago
You speak of the olden times like they're long gone? My car is from 2001, has side curtain airbags which will render most common crashes non-fatal, and it still has a fully mechanical throttle and no electronic brake controller of any kind. I don't consider it all that old. Yes it has an ECU, but EFI is not the problem in my opinion, and the computer by itself doesn't frighten me. EFI was a fantastic invention as far as I'm concerned. Also despite it being a "black box" I find it much more pleasurable to tune and maintain EFI systems over fickle carburetors. The real problem was making the ECU an _active control system_ which directly controls the engine, throttle, brakes, etc. in response to your inputs; as opposed to a passive one which merely _reacts in response to changes in its environment_ (e.g: more air moving through the intake, wheels locked up, losing traction on one side.) So yes, my '01 Toyota has a black box, but it's simple enough that it could be replaced by a handful of aftermarket controllers, many of which have their source freely available, or available for a modest licensing fee. --- Also I'd like to disagree that reacting to WOT is a "complex decision matrix." -- My instinctual reaction would be as follows. First you open the clutch and/or put the car in neutral. Disconnecting the motor from the wheels is the most reasonable solution to this problem. When I was taught to drive stick the very first thing I was told, before I ever moved the car an inch, was: "when you need to stop, clutch and brake." (Of course if it's an automatic transmission: "going into neutral" is just controlled by another black box. Sucks to be you if you hit deadly bugs in two separate powertrain management controllers.) (As an aside I do personally know people that commute every day in the US, and they don't even know what a transmission does. Why are we licensing these people as skilled motorists?) If I somehow found myself without even the most basic control of my transmission then you just press the brakes as hard as you can and you stop in ~300 feet.[1] If that didn't work, or if I had stopped but hadn't regained control of the vehicle, I would then kill the ignition. (To be fair: I'm told this is not quite so simple in modern cars! Apparently someone thought "pushing and holding a button for 3 seconds" was a better idea than "turn a key." -- However I also wouldn't agree to drive a car if I didn't know something as basic as how to kill the ignition under duress. I'm the sort of guy that reads the manual cover to cover for fun.) If killing the ignition doesn't work[2] and your transmission is somehow stuck engaged then today is really not your day. I don't see how any of this requires any more skill than driving does normally. To me this is not some complex decision tree, it's reflex at this point. (Also there is a good reason I would brake before killing the ignition. Brakes and steering are mechanically assisted by the engine. It would be extremely irresponsible to cut the ignition in a vehicle w/ power steering and power brakes on a public motorway in my opinion. -- Again I don't think this is some complex decision, I believe it should be requisite knowledge for being licensed to operate a motor vehicle under such conditions.) tl;dr: the complexity in this matrix is inherent in the task itself. If this is "too complex" then maybe we should work to improve our driver training and licensing programs; or better yet consider having more people take public transit, instead of handing out licenses like candy. [1]: http://media.caranddriver.com/images/media/51/braking-results-photo-319716-s-original.jpg http://media.caranddriver.com/images/media/51/braking-result... [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NRaqgab0_w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NRaqgab0_w