Member Info for ShortWhacker

I think most prospective buyers of any vehicle will want more information than is currently available before deciding which make and model to buy. Then they will want an extensive test drive to see how it all works.

That can take a long time, if you look only at the drivers seat. Lumbar support, forward and backward adjustment, up and down, tilt back. Headrest adjustment, massage settings, heated seats and any monthly subscriptions payable for any of those options.

Then the part which most buyuers will likely have less of an understanding of. The seat vibration alarm system. If that has a monthly subscription as well, personally, I would have had enough and ask if there are any good used models available with less possible failure points and greater ease of operation.

That is for one seat. That is my opinion, we will see what happens when the motoring press do their real-world testing.

Yes, I know that. Every prospective buyer is going to want to know all the findings. Before they decide which car to buy and which systems to choose. Should that be left until the test drive?

Thanks Nathan, if you are replying to my post. The point of testing a safety system extensively is to provide as much information to anyone who has to use that system. Professional test-drivers and driving instructors would do better at that and it would be quicker and a lot more informative. 20 2 - 3000 mile tests over 2 weeks would probably produce better test results than current testing. That could be done alongside the existing system.

There is little time left to get everyone fully up to speed before 2024 when the decision time comes.

It would be good to get more information on what test-drivers think of DMS, maybe over a 2 week road test over 2 - 3000 miles. Testing every function in as many situations as possible is essential for any safety system.

For instance, is DMS as effective in a convertible vehicle, with a tall or short driver, if the driver is wearing spectacles, sunglasses, a wide-brimmed hat, or any other possible combinations of all the variables that DMS may have to contend with.

This would be best achieved with a professional test-driver. Ideally with an experienced driving instructor or examiner, a motoring journalist and a cameraman in my opinion. Keep the rear view clear for visibility, so only 4 occupants. There should be plenty of conversation.

That would speed up the testing process and produce far better results.

There will be more to discuss after the next update. Drive safely.

No de-ramping here, just pointing out that the DMS may not be as widely accepted as most on here believe. Right now, I think SEE is a strong buy.

No conspiracy theories here. While these debates heat up over the next 12 months and beyond there will be plenty of opportunities to assess how the World's motorists view DMS and the other driver assist systems. Right now there are very few balanced views.

Or you could look at it this way, when or where do you think hands free mode could help you?

I have done plenty of research and don't believe there is any situation where hands free mode helps in any way, freeway or not, anywhere.

What are your views on the rest of my posts?

Then a rear seat passenger asks if you know how DMS works. The unexpected event grabs your attention and the 18-wheeler coming the other way flashes it's lights, the over-taking vehicle directly alongside you starts an emergency stop, so you grab the wheel and floor it, 52-90 in 0.3 and the over-taking driver veers back in behind you and all is well. Adrenalin levels subside and you get back to checking the traffic flow on the east-west road you intend to join, the seat vibrates again.

The same rear seat passenger asks you if you know when we expect to arrive, mirror, signal, ....

When the motoring press really start to take an interest in DMS there will be more balanced views and more statistics to study. What proportion of the World's drivers are aware of all this at the moment? Let's hope all of the reviews are optimistic and no-one finds any problems.

Here is another, You are in ''hands free mode'' taking front, rear, and side observation, 30-40 degree scanning left and right checking traffic flow on a road you intend to join. The seat vibrates but you know the DMS could never understand why you are looking there or that there is often no need to stop moving your eyes while scanning back across the vehicles directly in front, the seat vibrates again.

And, still in ''hands free mode'' something unexpected happens.

TheLongestShot, there is a LSE username, ''littlefella'' , why do you reply to me using that name?

To All - There is one other sudden emergency situation I have experienced due to another driver making a serious mis-judgement that I don't think any amount of cameras or eye-tracking would have helped me escape. I think any auto driving function would have made the wrong decision and it would have been irrelevent what eye-tracking systems thought of where I was looking. That would certainly have been a situation impossible to test unless it happened unexpectedly. We can discuss that after the next update.

There are many reasons for a driver to look at the road ahead out of the range of front mounted cameras. If an audible alarm or seat vibration occurs during any of those normal observations, I think it would become annoying after a short time.

How many of the 1,000,000 or so cars on the road with DMS installed actually use it? And for what percentage of the total mileage covered?

How many of these vehicles are being driven by professional test drivers?

These are all questions that any shareholder would be asking, IMO of course.

I look forward to the update soon and some statistics.

A far shorter time than I have and probably up to 1 Billion other experienced motorists. What are you views on the rest of the post?

Go with what works and keep it as simple as possible. The dipping mirror issue was a simple question. Let's hope it always works, 0 errors, for all time.

DMS technology is still in the early stages of development and testing. It is better to cover all potential problems as early as possible. What if a situation develops on the road ahead that may not have been programmed into the software systems and the DMS makes the wrong decision? For instance, a vehicle comes out of a bend ahead and strays onto the wrong side of the road? There is also no other option than to swerve violently out of its path, into the rough vegetation, off the road. The alternative was an impact with combined speeds of approx. 150mph.

Would you want to be in autonomous drive mode or manual drive mode? No camera sysyem or processing system could have possibly anticipated the incident quicker during the above scenario. It does not matter what the driver is looking at during that.

I don't think the shorters love this share. That would have little to do with small automatic trades.

Thanks for your answer.

What would happen if the driver is dazzled by full-beam headlights from the rear and has to dip the mirror? Or if that isn't possible, the driver has to move their head in order to escape the blinding light. Is there an over-ride system that kicks in?

Is it because they have a keen eye for when something isn't right, or may not be exactly right?

Going back to the point on financial journalism earlier. From reut.rs at approx 16.30 GMT+1, ''rising bond yields push Cathie Wood's ARK ETF down 20% on month'' , a very short bulletin.

So, reut.rs is a new shortened URL and not me trying to avoid any AI-bot driven anti-copyright systems which may or may not be in operation, or may arrive at any moment over the next 10 years.

I am thinking of writing a clear summary of events over the last month that could have affected the ARK ETF and attempting to destroy reuters credibility. It may just work.

Let's examine that again, ''rising bond yields push Cathie Wood's ARK ETF down 20% on month''. Is there a sign of complacency, laziness, arrogance maybe?

I wonder what the sage of Omaha would make of this discussion?

If anyone else here ever chooses financial journalism, it can be fiercely competitive. I advocate being ruthless where appropriate. If possible, lay bare your rivals biases and flawed logic. Do not flinch at character assassination or even destroying their careers completely. Make the financial sector a better place.

My post - ''7.2%'' and ''Covid new variant vaccine'' was a quick news summary in case it helped anyone. Aside from that, there would have been other journos writing about it yesterday. Maybe something else happened? There are a lot of news items every day, written by professionals who seem to pick and choose which points to emphasise and which to ignore.

Remember the ARM re-listing media storm and all the commentary? A classic example. I might write a column about that, and a couple of other media feeding frenzies. Some of the professional commentators could risk losing a lot of credibility by jumping to conclusions.