Honda Crash Detection System

MImeKillEr writes "MSNBC is reporting that Honda Motor Co. unveiled an early crash-detection system for one of their vehicles. The system is unique in working even before the driver responds. A radar in the front of the car stashed behind the Honda logo detects vehicles within a range of about 300 feet ahead. It then taps the brake and tightens the seatbelt. A buzzer goes off and a light on the dash is illuminated. If the driver responds, the braking power is boosted. If the driver fails to respond, the system kicks in and brakes more while also tightening the seat belt. Unfortunately, Japanese regulations don't allow for the system to fully stop the vehicle."

Comments

DOes it work ?

[dargaud]

Now I write radar software and I really don't have a clue how such a system can work reliably. A non-moving car 100m ahead ? That happens every time there's a parked car in a curb. Car radars are not like aircraft radars. The latter only has to see something ('anything') in the middle of a big mass of air. Nothing else around. A car radar would have to sort out lots of echos at various doppler: the ground is coming towards you (when it's far ahead), other cars going the same direction (slower in the right lane, faster in the left lane), cars coming the other way, parked cars, things hanging overhead (bridge, street lights. advertisement...)

Just imagine driving on a mountain road and out of a right curb comes a car driving the other way. The radar sees it right in front of you, coming your way. How does it react ? I'd hate to see it break suddenly, particularly if the road is wet or snowy.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Brento]

Just imagine driving on a mountain road and out of a right curb comes a car driving the other way. The radar sees it right in front of you, coming your way. How does it react ?

It works fine. Check out the radar-based cruise-control from Mercedes, now available on a few models. You can set your cruise to follow a vehicle ahead automatically. You just steer, and the two (or more) of you can pass cars and go through tunnels just fine without the cruise control panicking.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

indeed, it only responds to fast moving cars..just like the active cruise control in the new bmw 5series

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're assuming this is an all or nothing, one-time decision. This thing probably re-evaluates the situation 40 - 100 times per second.

I doubt it will jump to any rash decisions. If a car pulls out in front of you a ways a way, the system knows that in 2.4 seconds there will be an impact if things don't change. It taps the brakes (no big deal) and tightens the seatbelts in preparation for that possibility, then reassesses the situation another 100 times before it makes any decisive action.

I think it's great. I'd have it in my car in a second. Honda is one of the best innovators there is in the car industry, and one of the safest and most reliable (yes, I drive a Civic). They wouldn't release something that's half-baked. They simply don't have a history of doing it. They're also about the only company that has a viable upright-walking robot, and have been for 10 years. They have the technology.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can set your cruise to follow a vehicle ahead automatically

Think about that for a minute.

Now, how would this cruise control work if it was supposed to follow something that's not there?

It doesn't panic, because it's not expecting the car in front of you to disappear for a long period of time, and then suddenly re-appear out of nowhere.

There's a huge difference in the design of these two systems.

Re:DOes it work ?

[WARM3CH]

I think there are ways to reduce false alarms a lot. But basically the way is to have a very narrow antenna pattern. On the other hand, how many accidents are of the type that you hit something directly in front of you? Also what if you're sleepy and suddenly a tree 'jumps' in front of the car? All in all, while I think it's possible yet I don't think it can be very helpfull considering all possible scenarios.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It only has to save my life during any one of the possible scenarios before it's worth it to me...

Re:DOes it work ?

[cayenne8]

Yeah, something like this scares the living sh*t out of me...I just don't trust a car to do the driving for me...

First time I came across an ABS system, was in the '97 C5 Corvette...When I hit the brakes in that thing the first time at speed...and it started clattering, and I didn't know what was going on...thought it would never stop!!

I just don't think that we're far enough along to have the car make judgements....what if a weird situation comes up...and the car starts braking at the wrong time..I'd hate to have this thing malfunction and lock it up in the middle of an intersection or train tracks...

I'm perfectly happy in my older 1986 car......Porsche 911 Turbo...no airbags, no ABS...not much computer at all...just a car that handles like it should and stops on a dime when you need it. And...it is now up to just over 10 mpg!!! The Vette had WAY too much computer in it....alas, I think this is the way of things in ALL new cars......

Re:DOes it work ?

[daviddennis]

This is a pretty interesting problem, but remember that the system can be fed inputs from the steering as well. So the radar can constantly adjust to check the angle at which you are driving. That's still not good enough for twisty roads, on which it would probably shut itself off.

I think most people can stay awake when they're on twisty roads; the big hazard is the freeway. Most drivers spend a lot of time on freeways, and a lot of it is spent when tired. In those conditions, the system can quite literally be a lifesaver, so I think it's a cool idea even though it won't work in all conditions.

D

Re:DOes it work ?

[Fred IV]

I doubt it will jump to any rash decisions.

I'm not sold, it jumping to even one rash decision is one too many.

I drive on the NJ Turnpike to and from work. Drivers there are always moving at high speed, making sudden lane changes and/or tailgating.

If it thinks someone suddenly pulling in front of me is good enough reason to hit my brakes, there's going to be a thirty car pile-up behind me as all of the tailgaters come smashing into me at 90 MPH.

No thanks.

Re:DOes it work ?

[TopShelf]

There's no doubt that this presents enormous technical obstacles. But taking a look at this should give you at least a little confidence in Honda's engineers.

BTW, the wipers in the above movie activate automatically when the windshield gets wet...

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

stops on a dime when you need it

If it doesn't have ABS, it may stop on a dime when you need it, but it won't stop on a dime when you really need it.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

This just in... driver happy with turbo porsche! ;-)

Re:DOes it work ?

[letxa2000]

What if it brakes unnecessarily because of a false positive of an anticipated crash, and you get smashed by the semi following you? It only takes one false positive to potentially END your life.

Re:DOes it work ?

[servicepack158]

Umm maybe it's not air born radar, but fixed narrow radar. :) Or even a laser they are calling radar (hint). The point is, if a parked car is in front of you 100m it's not going to apply the breaks unless you're headed for it AND there is a dramatic approach vector. Mercedes has this in the AMG line already but it's more of a smart cruise control so u don't have to reset it all the time.

Re:DOes it work ?

[valkraider]

I just don't think that we're far enough along to have the car make judgements

Couldn't we say this about ANY technology? "I dunno about them newfangled self-powered wagons. Seems dangerous. I don't think we have the technology. We should just stick to old reliable horse drawn wagons."

We have to gain the experience *somewhere*.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Twylite]

It taps the brakes (no big deal)

Wrong. This is a huge deal if you happen to have seen the problem 125m ahead and are taking evasive action other than braking, for example changing lanes or even swerving. The slightest braking during a sharp direction change can throw your car into a skid.

It is illegal in most (all?) countries to interfere with the driver and/or the car's controls. Why should techology -- with less sensory input and a poorer decision making ability -- be permitted to do this?

Re:DOes it work ?

[Black Perl]

Let's say you're on a 6-lane highway. All three lanes in your direction have cars ahead. You turn this thing on, and it follows the car in front of you.

Now the highway turns sharply to the right. Suddenly oncoming traffic is directly in front of you. How does it know which car to "follow", i.e. keep a safe distance from? If it makes a mistake, thinking you need to keep a safe distance from oncoming cars, when you go around the bend it'll slam on the brakes and you'll get rear-ended (unless of course the person behind you also has this system, in which case he'd stop too. In fact all cars would stop at every sharp turn).

Even if the system somehow knows exactly how much the road curves in front of you (which I doubt unless the road has transmitters or other indicators), it would be very hard to maintain a lock on the same car. Police radar cannot distinguish between two cars that are one behind the other. And if it doesn't track a specific car, how can it tell the difference between an oncoming car and a car ahead slamming on the brakes?

Re:DOes it work ?

[Uart]

Wow. I wish I had that. I hate it when I turn the cruise control on and then some asshat in front of me decides to make sure his brakes still work.

I basically gave up on cruise control because of that.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Lumpy]

Now I write radar software and I really don't have a clue how such a system can work reliably.

Oh come on... either you are lying to us and you just obviousally told all of us that by making that statement or you dont have enough coffee to think this morning...

There are 2 ways of doing this.

1 - simply measure the speed of the car in front of you relative to you. if the car is doing 50mph toward the radar source, hit the breaks! you simply have a threshhold setting for distance to trigger and speed. and simply adjust that according to the car's current speedometer reading.

2 - to hell with the speed of X Y or Z look at the doppler shift. if I detect a positive doppler shift of a magnitude above the setpoint... trigger ..

this way no matter what the distance it will trigger if it senses the target is closing fast to react.

It wont stop you from bumping the guy in front of you at 10mph... but it will stop you from flying into your parking space at 70.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Proaxiom]

I don't think so. This is way different.

It's fairly easy for a radar system to pick something up in front of you, and for a computer to track it. What we're talking about is picking out all the things in your path, and figuring out if you're going to hit any of them.

The trouble the previous poster was referring to is that so much depends on context. For instance, what if I'm in a left turn lane drive directly toward a car in an oncoming left turn lane? We're not going to collide, but does my car know that?

Re:DOes it work ?

[Spokehedz]

Well, what I propose would be two radar emitters and defectors on the sides of the car. That way, using the Doppler effect, you can tell:

• where the car(s) are. (i.e. to the left, right, or straight ahead.)
  
• Their relative speed based on your current speed (i.e. if the signal coming back is 60MPh, and your current speed is 50MPh--don't slam on the brakes.)
  
• when the car moves in front of you from another lane (so that when a car in the right hand lane wanders into yours (and theyâ(TM)re travelling the opposite direction) it will know to stop, and when to let the person merge otherwise)
  

The only real problem I see with this is that now all the radar detectors in cars will go absolutely nuts--therefore causing lots of accidents when a 'cop' is 'right on top of you' and the resulting slam on the brakes... in cars without this system. ;)

p.s. I know that you don't need two for the Doppler effect--its how radar works already--but you need to for detecting their position. so that's why I said it.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Jad LaFields]

The smart thing would be if the 300-ft limit was not hardcoded, but depended on the speed you were traveling. 300 ft seems somewhat reasonable if you're going 80 on the freeway, but really dumb when you're crusing at 30 on residential streets.(actually, I still don't think most people give nearly that much room between cars on the highway, but they give more).

Re:DOes it work ?

[American AC in Paris]

To be perfectly frank, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they could get this to work. It'll require years of testing, tweaking, trial-by-error, and careful design, but I can easily see the day arriving where they've successfully addressed enough "what if" scenarios that they have a highly reliable product.

To take your example: Honda engineers discover that an oncoming car in a right curve that appears out of "nowhere" (from around the side of the mountain" causes the device to activate unnecissarily. Solution? There are lots of possible solutions. Is the vehicle approaching you at greater than your own speed? If so, it's oncoming traffic, and automatic braking is an inappropriate response (though a warning light/buzzer -may- be.) What is the four-second history of the angle of your car's wheels? If it suggests that you're on a right curve, it would make sense that an oncoming vehicle would appear to be directly in front of you; no alert necessary. Heck, you could even disable the entire system whenever your steering angle is greater than some small angle--it's safe to assume that if you're engaged in a turning maneuver, your attention is on your driving (whereas if you're bombing down the Interstate in Nebraska, it's much more likely that your attention will wander.)

I'm not saying that we shouldn't expect stringent and rigorous development and testing of such systems, but I find it a bit disingenuous to question the ability of such a system to work successfully because one can imagine scenarios where it wouldn't work. There are umpteen-thousand potential scenarios in which it wouldn't "work". That does not mean, however, that Honda cannot produce a system that provides a very real safety enhancement without putting drivers at risk from unnecessary activation.

Airbags, when they first came out, did their job pretty darn well, but there were still a small number of cases--very short people, overly-sensitive triggers, overly-forceful deployment, etc.--where they were problematic. These kinks got ironed out. Today, airbags are really, really, really reliable, they make cars considerably safer, and I'm glad we have 'em. I can see a system such as the one Honda is developing having a similar history--pretty good launch, a few rare but highly-publicized problems, second and third generation systems being excellent safety systems.

Re:DOes it work ?

[pheared]

I too drive a Honda (Accord) but I'm not so enamored with the engineering that I would put so much blind faith in them.

I don't understand the people who are going on and on about how much they would like to have the children of Honda engineers since they make cars and robots. Those feats are not indicative of the ability to create intelligence that is smart enough to keep you, the sentient and totally unpredictable being, safe.

Re:DOes it work ?

[darkpixel2k]

Police radar cannot distinguish between two cars that are one behind the other.

That's where you're wrong.
LASER is a form of radar and is able to pinpoint one vehicle out of a pack from at least half a mile away.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Dachannien]

Why should techology -- with less sensory input and a poorer decision making ability -- be permitted to do this?

You're assuming an awful lot about the driving ability of the average person out on the roads.

Re:DOes it work ?

[digidave]

Radar-based tracking is a fairly proven technology. It knows the difference between two different objects, so it starts tracking the car in front of you and should operate fine even if it switches lanes, so long as it's within radar range and whatever side to side, up and down tolerances are programmed.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called a brakecheck. It's punishment for all the a$$holes who use cruise control on busy roads any highways with no consideration for the drivers around them.

Re:DOes it work ?

[nojomofo]

Doppler shift? Do you have any idea how little doppler shift there is at 50 miles/hr? And to figure out relative speeds using doppler shift, you need to know what wavelength (color) the light should be. How do you do that? Mandate that all cars be the same color blue?

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

if you weren't tailgating the asshat in front of you, that wouldn't be such a problem

Re:DOes it work ?

[tmhsiao]

Why should techology -- with less sensory input and a poorer decision making ability -- be permitted to do this?

Because a lot of people have an inexplicable confidence in technology. They think computers are infallible. Airbus jets, for example, are programmed to override the pilot in crisis situations.

Re:DOes it work ?

[danheskett]

You just need to follow the proper distance. That's all. I routinely drive several hundred miles at a time on cruise control. Passing, changing lanes, etc without ever braking or accelerating.

The key is proper following distance and good use of space. Anticipate those cloggy ramps/exits. Give yourself a car length for every 10 mph. Yes! That's 60-70 feet or more between you and the "asshat" ahead of you.

Chances are you are following too close.

Re:DOes it work ?

[notque]

you dont have enough coffee to think this morning...

I blame all of my poorly thought out slashdot posts on that, and I've already had 5 cups.

Re:DOes it work ?

[valkraider]

Many people are misinformed about the newest radar systems. With new technologies, police can do a lot more with "regular" radar than most people think. Check out Radartest.com for more in depth info and some good links.

Re:DOes it work ?

[GreyPoopon]

Wrong. This is a huge deal if you happen to have seen the problem 125m ahead and are taking evasive action other than braking, for example changing lanes or even swerving.

You know, the article doesn't say so, but I'm guessing this puppy is only engaged with cruise control, and is intended as a safeguard against highway hypnosis or simply falling asleep at the wheel. Otherwise, it just doesn't make sense. If you are taking evasive action, you probably don't have your cruise control on. And for last-minute evasive action when cruise control is on, I would guess Honda has already factored that into the device. It can probably detect sharp direction changes. Still, I'd want to be VERY reassured of those safeguards before I employed the technology. Let's wait and see how well the system works in Japan before we slam Honda too much.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Alan Partridge]

"I'd hate to see it break suddenly, particularly if the road is wet or snowy."

Have you not heard of ABS? Do you think - just maybe - that Honda may have actually TESTED their system? This sounds like it may save your life if you fall asleep at the wheel or are otherwise distracted.

Go Honda!

Re:DOes it work ?

[danheskett]

override the pilot in crisis situations

This is a real good thing, in my opinion.

I've flown planes - albeit much smaller planes. There are so many variables, and in a split-second crisis situation I can 100% guarantee that a pilot can not assess enough data to make a rational decision.

A lot of things can happen on an airplane in a very small amount of time. Microseconds can be critical. In many cases it is *impossible* that a human being could see the problem, realize it as a problem, consider options, choose a course of action, and follow through. In some cases - imagine rapid depreasurization or a critical area birdstrike - the time to avoid a fatal catastrophe is virtually instantenous in nature. You have 1.25 seconds to shutdown the left second turbine. The knobby switch for insta kill is 2.5 feet from your nearest hand. Do you feel lucky?

Re:DOes it work ?

[Xerithane]

The key is proper following distance and good use of space. Anticipate those cloggy ramps/exits. Give yourself a car length for every 10 mph. Yes! That's 60-70 feet or more between you and the "asshat" ahead of you.


Two lane freeway, 10 cars spaced approximately every 70 feet travelling at a rate of 60 mph. You have your cruise set at 65mph. Person in right lane changes in the back of the line, and proceeds at 61mph to pass those cars.

Tell me how you do that without adjusting your cruise control.
Chances are you are following too close.

Re:DOes it work ?

[RealityMogul]

Bad argument. The person behind you was too close to begin with if that's the case. Secondly, what if you had to step on the brakes yourself, you'd get the same effect if the person behind isn't driving safely.

Re:DOes it work ?

[JerkBoB]

BTW, the wipers in the above movie activate automatically when the windshield gets wet...

Most modern cars with nice accessory packages have rain-sensitive wipers. In my wife's car, though, I have to turn them on first. I'd much rather have to remember to turn them on, than to have to remember to turn them off. For example, think about going through an automatic car wash... Probably wouldn't be good for your wipers to be going when the big brush thing is rumbling over your windshield.

Re:DOes it work ?

[The Original Yama]

Just another excuse to fall asleep at the wheel...

Re:DOes it work ?

[Titusdot Groan]

How did this get an informative? This is an obvious (deliberate?) misreading of the parent post!

The work reliably part had nothing to do with speed it had to do with orientation -- how do you tell the parked car 100m ahead is in YOUR lane -- radar can't read the lines on the road and tell that your lane is about to curve and take you safely BY the parked car.

Re:DOes it work ?

[PD]

Not a problem, do what police radars already do. Don't measure the doppler shift, instead combine the waves of light with light of a fixed and known frequency. Then, you measure the beat frequency.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Alan Partridge]

I think that you've probably pegged it.

Re:DOes it work ?

[drudd]

That's the argument people always used to use with seatbelts... what if I were trapped inside the car and it was burning, and I couldn't get out because of the seat belt?

You just have to do a cost/benefit analysis... as long as the new technology saves more lives than it endangers, it's worth pursuing... you can always improve it to reduce the false positives.

Doug

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, when I'm on single-lane highway, and I pull into the oncoming lane to pass the slow car ahead of me, and traffic is pretty heavy, so there is an oncoming car approaching, but I know I'll make it back into my lane in time as long as I give it enough gas....... will this thing start hitting the brake for me?

Re:DOes it work ?

[afidel]

ABS is much better at braking then even the best driver. Car and Driver did several comparisons over the years and even professional race car drivers could not stop a vehicle faster than the ABS system could, and on top of that the ABS system will do it with near zero chance of brake lockup or steering fade from differing brake pressure (most good ABS systems will detect differences in braking force on different wheels and compensate so that the car tracks in the direction the wheels are pointing)

Re:DOes it work ?

[Rogerborg]

Cretinous counter. It doesn't matter who's at fault, just that you're dead because the car took a decision that you wouldn't have taken.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

We're not going to collide, but does my car know that?

If you were both doing 65mph, I'd say you were going to collide. If you were doing a much lower speed, the auto-braking won't engage because it only turns on at high speeds. Comprende? Quite simple, really - it's amazing how many people here can't understand it.

Re:DOes it work ?

[funkdancer]

LOL! That is funny as hell, where's my mod-points when I need them?

Re:DOes it work ?

[drinkypoo]

You didn't quote an important part of the comment above yours.

Wrong. This is a huge deal if you happen to have seen the problem 125m ahead and are taking evasive action other than braking, for example changing lanes or even swerving. The slightest braking during a sharp direction change can throw your car into a skid.

[...] Why should techology -- with less sensory input and a poorer decision making ability -- be permitted to do this?

You're assuming an awful lot about the driving ability of the average person out on the roads.

It's assuming a lot that the person is going to be changing lanes or swerving? That seems like about the most likely response... either that or just jumping on the brakes at full, which is why we have ABS; to handle panic responses from people who really have no business driving to begin with.

Now, this system definitely has less sensory input. It has only one sense - depth. We have five, at least two of which apply to driving in every situation; vision and touch. Hearing usually comes into play as well, unless you have the radio up so loud that you can't hear anything else. (This is generally only a problem when the windows are up.) And your brain is necessarily more complex than this auto-braking system.

It has been shown that some technologies that do things for the driver can be beneficial to yahoos who don't know how to drive. ABS is one of them. However it doesn't do anything on its own, it only comes into play when you actually do something. This system does not, and as such it is fairly worthless, and will most likely cause more harm than help. Another one is skid control, unless you are driving in a way that you probably shouldn't be on the street (Though my car is designed to slide, and I do it basically every time I drive, in a quite controlled fashion) skid control is a great thing. Of course, it builds on ABS, and is really just an extension of same. But you see, those things are good because they help you maintain traction and therefore control. The best thing about ABS is that you can slam on the brakes as hard as you can, getting "maximum" stopping force (ABS actually stops longer than a skilled driver with manual brakes of the same size) while still being able to steer.

So if your argument is that people might not be steering to avoid something, well, those people shouldn't be driving at all. This invention will harm both those who can and those who cannot drive. The only people it will help are those who are asleep, and I think we need to work on more technologies to keep them awake instead.

Re:DOes it work ?

[dargaud]

> Have you not heard of ABS?

Yes I have. And if you step on the breaks in the snow it won't save you if you're in a curve. Yes, I do a good part of my driving in snow and I have ABS. Same thing as 4x4, if you go too fast you go off the road just the same. A tiny car is actually much easier to regain control of than a heavy SUV.

> Do you think - just maybe - that Honda may have actually TESTED their system?

Like they tested the first airbags that killed or disfigured a lot of people ?!? Hah !

> This sounds like it may save your life if you fall asleep at the wheel or are otherwise distracted.

I don't really see the correlation between falling asleep and having a radar on board. If I drive off a cliff, I can just imagine waking up to the 'beep!'of the radar: "you are going to hit something". Hmmm, yes, looks like it's the ground.

But this raises an interesting point. Why aren't there any security device that make sure that you don't fall asleep ?!? That seems a lot easier to design and that's what really terrifies me on those long drive back home on empty highways at 2am after a WE of exhauting climbing.

A system the watches your eyelids, your pupil motion, your overall body motion, you body temperature, heart rate, melanin level, reflex speed, anything that can indicate sleep. And then beeps, changes the radio channel, fglashes lights, changes the temperature, brew you a cup of capuccino, have your mother in law call you on the cell phone, anything to keep you awake...

Re:DOes it work ?

[f97tosc]

The trouble the previous poster was referring to is that so much depends on context. For instance, what if I'm in a left turn lane drive directly toward a car in an oncoming left turn lane? We're not going to collide, but does my car know that?

Perhaps the emergency system does not kick in until the car can calculate that a collision is inevitable or at least come very likely. In your left turn example, this would not be the case, because both of you are travelling at speeds where you have plenty of time to break or turn before hitting each other.

But if you came speeding into the intersection, the car could calculate that even if the driver would break, and/or turn, there would be no way to avoid a collision. Time to tighten the seat belt and try to slow down.

Generally speaking, I am surprised to see how negative Slashdotters are to new technology, especially before knowing much about how it works. The assumption always seems to be that the implementation will be completely useless, dangerous and insecure.

Of course there will be troubles to get this to work properly. Honda will solve those problems, and put the technology in their expensive cars. If it is efficent and cheap enough it will go mainstream. That's all there is to it, pretty much.

Tor

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's fairly easy for a radar system to pick something up in front of you, and for a computer to track it. What we're talking about is picking out all the things in your path, and figuring out if you're going to hit any of them.

Please use this technology to find the doomsday asteroid. I'll do my own driving.

Thank you.

Re:DOes it work ?

[GoofyBoy]

It tightens the seat belt and applies the brakes. Both shouldn't be a problem when you are waiting for the lights.

(also when other car gets close to you, it should detect its direction, which is going to pass you.)

Re:DOes it work ?

[jiminim]

>Tell me how you do that without adjusting your cruise control.

1. Take left shoulder and pass.
2. Do not die.
3. Return to left lane.

Re:DOes it work ?

[kyjello]

You are forgetting that when you are turning a corner, you are turning the steering wheel. You would think that a system like this would know which direction your are travelling! If it didn't, it would be a pretty dumb idea.

Re:DOes it work ?

[iocat]

But there are situations where a pilot may want to do somethinge "outside the envelope" -- far too much power on an engine, maybe, in a takeoff related emergency -- and the AirBus may not let them do it. Also, I have to assume that despite their best efforts, there are bugs in the AirBus software, somewhere. I just hope to God I'm never on a plane where they find one!

And that's why I only fly Boeing, if I have a choice. The 737 has been flown so many miles that nearly all the bugs are out of the system. Barring some real screw-up in maintenence, it's probably not going to just fall out of the sky. (Not that any other plane is going to either, but I'm paranoid.)

Re:DOes it work ?

[hesiod]

> If you were doing a much lower speed, the auto-braking won't engage because it only turns on at high speeds. Comprende? Quite simple, really - it's amazing how many people here can't understand it.

How do you expect someone to understand something THAT WASN'T TOLD TO THEM. It says nothing about that in the article, nor in the /. summary. Comprende? It's amazing how some people can open their mouth for the sole purpose of boosting their own ego with baseless insults towards others.

In fact, I have no reason to believe you have a fucking clue what you are talking about. But, I should have known that, Coward.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Uart]

You obviously don't drive on the NJ Turnpike to often...

Re:DOes it work ?

[alienw]

How the hell do you think radar works? It usually measures doppler shift of a reflected radio signal. That's how, say, police speed guns work, which do basically this exact thing. "Lidar" guns (laser) simply bounce a laser beam off a car a few hundred times a second and count the number of nanoseconds it takes for it to bounce back. It's millions of times easier than measuring doppler shift of light, anyway.

Re:DOes it work ?

[cens0r]

I'm thinking any car advanced enough to have this system would also have some sort of ASC (Advanced Stability Control) system as well. I have it in my Audi and it uses telemetry to indvidually brake each wheel variying amounts to avoide any skids during evasive action. The computer can do a much better job of controlling a skid than all but the best driver.

It is illegal in most (all?) countries to interfere with the driver and/or the car's controls. Why should techology -- with less sensory input and a poorer decision making ability -- be permitted to do this?

Where did you get this nonsense? ASC interferes with the drivers control. If I do something crazy and would spin my car it ignores my throttle information and makes corrections to save my stupid ass. If you drive a newer mercedes you have brakes that brake harder than you tell them to if it doesn't think you're doing a good enough job. Even antilock brakes themselves interfere with your control. The car has much more sensory control than I ever could. It nows how fast each wheel is spinning, the perciese amount of G's I'm generating, and can calculate what's going to happen 100's of times a second; not to mention respond almost instantly. The only thing that worries me about these systems is the fact that the auto makers tell you they are there. People tend to drive even stupider when there car is loaded up with saftey features.

Re:DOes it work ?

[dbrutus]

I can really see this go to pieces in most major US cities during rush hour. Is *anybody* 300 ft away from the car in front of them then?

Re:DOes it work ?

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Wrong. This is a huge deal if you happen to have seen the problem 125m ahead and are taking evasive action other than braking, for example changing lanes or even swerving. The slightest braking during a sharp direction change can throw your car into a skid.

Ok. Good points. But I have a few observations:

a) if the vehicle has ABS (I assume it has), then a skid is unlikely

b) The system should be able to detect the cornering and adapt to it anyway to a large degree

c) in most cases a modest reduction in speed will greatly improve cornering anyway- maximum cornering goes as the square root of your speed- a reduction of 10% gives ~5% tighter cornering whilst reducing the energy of the car by ~20%.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Tackhead]

> > [ Airbus jets, for example, are programmed to ] override the pilot in crisis situations.
>
>This is a real good thing, in my opinion.

Your points on some events - turbine blades about to shred the passengers in the cabin - notwithstanding, might I suggest you read Pilot in command, or computer in command?? Some birdstrikes are bad. Most runwaystrikes are worse.

(If nothing else, I learned a new joke today: What are an Airbus pilot's first and last words? The first: 'What's it doing now?' The last: 'It's never done that before!'. :)

Re:DOes it work ?

[hesiod]

> you're dead because the car took a decision that you wouldn't have taken.

And you are more likely to survive because of this device than without it. Life is a big game of chance. If you don't want to improve your odds at life, don't buy this product. That simple.

Re:DOes it work ?

[cyber0ne]

You're assuming an awful lot about the driving ability of the average person out on the roads.

Exactly. It occurs to me that tha vast majority of "accidents" are personnel problems rather than technical problems. People who don't want to drive safely never will.

While I have nothing against such a new technology, it doesn't really solve anything.

Re:DOes it work ?

[RealityMogul]

Here's a tip - cars on the road stop or slow down for various reasons.

If you're so worried, lobby that every manufacturer implement this system so everybody slows down at the same time and you don't have these 40 car pileups because people want to drive 80 mph in the fog.

Driving relatively safely is everyones responsibility and my original point was that you can't control the other people on the road anyways.

Re:DOes it work ?

[cens0r]

the article says it only engages at high speeds. 300ft is probably acceptable for anything over 60 MPH. Considering at 60 MPH the braking distance is probably around 130 ft (under full braking), and your car is travelling at 88 ft/s, 300 ft would be just about right. Also, 300 ft might be the limit out to which this is effective.

Re:DOes it work ?

[The_K4]

And you obviously don't drive I-80 from Penn. to CA much. :)

Re:DOes it work ?

[bkr1_2k]

And let's not forget driving in heavy city traffic. I routinely drive within 2 or 3 carlenths (far less than 100m) of cars on the DC beltway at 70 miles an hour, whether I want to or not. Granted it is more common to be bumper to bumper at 10 miles an hour, but the problem still exists. How does this thing differentiate between acceptable traffic and dangerous conditions?

bkr

Re:DOes it work ?

[Zebbers]

with that ability, or lackthereof comes liability, blame

who do you blame when this system fucks up.

Im against automated anything with cars. Do you know how often small electrical sensors go bad in cars and start to cause it to run unreliably. Up till now it meant your mixture control got fucked up and you started running lean, now it could mean your car suddenly decides to lock them up doing 85 on the highway.

People drivers aren't perfect. But its easy to counter their imperfections. When driving, a good driver is aware of everything around them and can tell when someone is not in command of their vehicle. You cant tell when some automagic sensor is about to fail.

Im sorry. I havent done the research admittedly, but I dont think traffic accidents are quite bad enough to say we're assuming an awful lot about the driving ability of the average person out on the roads. Id say youre underestimating it. Drunk driving. Now theres a crazy real problem, and no system like this could fix it.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Lewisham]

This system would be used in conjunction with traction control, anyway (a car that expensive simply *must* have it). As I'm sure you know, traction control during normal conditions would make it pretty hard to skid the car if you weren't trying. However, I would hope it turns off during turning at high speeds. I don't fancy testing out my traction control at 70mph on a sharp turn with brakes.

The question you're asking is quite valid: At what point does technology stop being an assistant (such as traction control, ABS) and start intefering with the driver's wishes? Personally, I don't think this does affect the drivers intentions. I'm sure your driving instructor (at least mine in the UK) tapped the brakes on your car more than once whilst you were taking lessons. Personally, as long as I didn't hit anything I was fine with it! As long as the car is pointing the way I tried to put it, I don't think I could fault the vehicle itself in the event of a crash.

Re:DOes it work ?

[tmhsiao]

This is a real good thing, in my opinion.

I can see your side of things, but with computers becoming more and more ubiquitous, I think there's a real danger to assuming that a computer is always going to do the right thing. Especially as a programmer, I find my trust of computer programs to do that "Right Thing" declining every day.

The Airbus problem can be even worse than your usual Microsoft Word spell checker screwup, because of the complexity of the interface. In this case, it got some 250 or so people killed.

Re:DOes it work ?

[hesiod]

> the article says it only engages at high speeds.

I've seen a couple of people say this, but the article doesn't mention anything about the speed. AFA the article says, it would be at any speed.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Jerf]

Oh come on... either you are lying to us and you just obviousally told all of us that by making that statement or you dont have enough coffee to think this morning...

No, the problem is you obviously have no experience dealing with real world data. Writing software is a lot harder then "seeing a way to do it". For instance...

1 - simply measure the speed of the car in front of you relative to you.

Not even all the way through your first sentence and you've already hit major problems. First, all measurements have noise in them; you can't know the "speed" with perfect reliability, and how you determine the speed from the incoming data is a non-trivial problem. Since lives are on the line, it's important to get it right. A simple "moving average", for instance, won't work because it will slow the reaction time of the system down unacceptably.

Also, we have a problem with "car in front of you". Now, "thing in front of you" may work, but A: how do you know it's a car? and B: how do you know it's truly in front of you? Maybe you're just turning and that "thing" you see coming at you is just a mailbox.

Pop quiz: You are a radar system. You detect something coming at you at 70 mph from a hundred feet away. You're turning slightly, but not much. As a radar system in a car, this is all you know. Do you slam on the brakes?

Yes? Oops. Turns out that you're on the left lane of a three-lane highway, and somebody's parked their car on the right shoulder due to car problems. The car gets rear-ended by a tailgaiting Mack truck and the driver dies. You get sued because your system was not supposed to hit the brakes then.

No? Oops. There was a Mack truck jackknifed across the road which the driver wasn't looking at and didn't see. In the .4 seconds it takes for the driver to react that you could have been braking, the car continues at 70 mph. By the time the driver reacts, its too late to slow the car down to a survivable speed. The driver hits the cab of the truck and dies. You get sued because your system was supposed to hit the brakes for the driver.

This isn't so easy, is it? The car only has a very limited number of senses; in human terms it's blind except for one whole pixel, deaf, and can only feel limited information about it's own state ("I'm going 50", "I'm turning", etc.). It's not like the car has a picture of the whole road to work with... and of course the reason it doesn't have that is we wouldn't know what to do with it if we did. Computer vision is still a very limited technology; it can not handle the real world to any significant degree yet.

if the car is doing 50mph toward the radar source, hit the breaks!

How hard? What threshold for distance? Does the distance threshold change if the relative velocity changes? How does the brake hitting relate to the relative speed? What if I'm driving down the road at 60mph, I go into a turn, and a mailbox momentarily looks like it's coming at me at 55mph? Do I slam on the brakes then, or wait until I'm sure it's a car? How can I be sure when all I have is a distance and a relative velocity anyhow?

If you're wrong and you "hit the brakes", you may end up killing the user. Lives are on the line; you can't gloss over any of these questions. One wrong answer and people die.

you simply have a threshhold setting for distance to trigger and speed.

That is naive beyond words. The real world is much more complicated then that.

and simply adjust that according to the car's current speedometer reading.

How, exactly? "adjust" is an empty word until you give more specification. It's damned easy to say "simply adjust", but there are hundreds of plausible way to "simply adjust", and most of them are wrong. (It's even possible all of them are wrong; there's no guarentee this system is even possible, you know.)

2 - to hell with the speed of X Y or Z look at the doppler shift. if I detec

Re:DOes it work ?

[Jerf]

This is completely different. "Self-powered wagons" are driven by humans. Automating a technology is completely different then simply creating it.

So no, fear that we can't successfully automate something does not apply to all technology, it only applies to attempts to automate things, and we have not had success in automating real-world applications, only relatively "easy" things like factory-line robots, doing the same thing in the same circumstances every time with humans standing by to take over if there's a problem of any kind, and nobody dies if there is a problem.

Concern over automation is quite justified; this kind of AI has been defeating us for 50 years now and frankly the situation hasn't changed much, nor does it seem likely to change terribly soon.

Re:DOes it work ?

[cens0r]

If there is a car withing 300ft of you, you better be hitting the brakes! at 60mph you're both travelling at 88 ft/s. So it would take all of 2s for you to collide.

Re:DOes it work ?

[netsharc]

Maybe the car should have a radar at the back as well, taking into account what will happen if it suddenly brakes. A predictive system should probably turn on the brake lights (although no actual braking is taking place) just in case it really needs to break soon right after.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Lurch00]

Yes and no.. I'd love it if the average driver weren't allowed near the wheel, or if we stepped up driving requirements to requre agressive testing in skid control, poor weather driving, etc. But I'd still trust a human, any human, more than I'd trust this thing.

We've got plenty of safety critical technology aids in cars already. Witness ABS brakes, automatic transmissions, cruise control, etc. They all all aid the driver (in most cases) but don't drive for him. This system starts to drive the car instead. Would you want the computer to jerk the wheel on you? I think controlling the throttle (cruise control) is a bad enough idea. Anything that requires the driver to concentrate less on the path and speed of the vehicle is bad, imho..

Actually, I worry that a system like this could make the driver LESS effective in avoiding the crash than alerting him to it. A sudden acceleration of the body is FAR more disconcerting than a noise or light going off. The time it takes the brain to understand why it just got jerked is probably more than it'd be to just realize the situation and take corrective action with the aid of a buzzer or something. This is moreso when the driver isn't paying attention. If the driver is actively monitoring the impending situation and the car takes action prematurely, he's likely to be less surprised. But if he's already paying attention, then you don't need this stupid thing anyway. An unfocused driver isn't going to be expecting a jerk like that, and is likely to spend more time in the "what the heck was that" mode than "move my limbs we'regunnadie!!!" mode. I'm not a physiologist, I'm just guessing..

Re:DOes it work ?

[bubblegoose]

I liked this one better (from your article)

What will the cockpit crew be like in the commercial aircraft of the future?

Pessimists in professional circles already know the answer:
A pilot and a dog. Yes, you heard me correctly: The pilot's only job is to feed the dog and keep him awake; the dog is supposed to make sure that the pilot doesn't touch anything.

Re:DOes it work ?

[CaseyB]

You're trying to find the pathological case, so you might just refine it to make it impossible, but my solution would be to note that the car at the back of the line is going faster than the other left-lane traffic, realize that he is going to have to pass them, and accelerate above 65mph long enough to pass him before he makes his move. I do this sort of thing routinely.

You have to think ahead, not just react to the current situation. Predicting other drivers' behaviour is actually very easy with enough experience.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

you seem like the kind of guy who would complain that just cause they didn't say this sytem does something it won't and then turn around and critisize a movie for being to obvious.

Re:DOes it work ?

[cens0r]

Yes I have. And if you step on the breaks in the snow it won't save you if you're in a curve. Yes, I do a good part of my driving in snow and I have ABS. Same thing as 4x4, if you go too fast you go off the road just the same. A tiny car is actually much easier to regain control of than a heavy SUV.

That all depends on how advanced your car is. I too drive in the snow. I have AWD and ABS. I also have a ASC system that will individually brake each wheel to keep me from skidding or spinning when cornerning. It works wonders. I would think that any system complex enough to do what this honda system does would also incorporate the current state of the art. Of course there is a switch on my dash that allows me to turn my system off as well, perhaps honda will do the same.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Exedore]

Here's what I hate:

Relatively straight and flat interstate, cruise control set at 70, I slowly start to overtake a vehicle going 69 or 68mph. I switch to the left lane, pass the vehicle, and move back to the right lane once I'm far enough ahead. I never touch the accelerator or brakes, just steady cc'd speed of 70. Now the nimrod in the vehicle I just passed starts to speed up a little, passes me, pulls in front... AND SLOWS BACK DOWN TO 68 MPH! Lather, rinse, repeat.

Keep in mind I haven't changed my rate of speed at all through the whole process, and the guy in the other car is looking at me like I'm some kind of retard. Ugh.

Re:DOes it work ?

[elmegil]

I am surprised to see how negative Slashdotters are to new technology

Perhaps because many of us have seen it fail miserably despite glowing claims?

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

learn to drive with more distance, if they rearend you thats the other guys fault, he will stop tailgateing after about 4 wrecks that he has to pay for.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

BZZZT!! Wrong, ONE airbus was programmed to do as such, then it went up in a BIG ball of flames and the airbus designers decided that losing experienced test Pilots, or losing lives in general was a really bad I dea, so all airbus not will warn pilots but still give them the final say, even if it thinks the pilot is wrong.

I think it was the A320 demo at the paris airshow that crashed, although I am not sure about it.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Xerithane]

You're trying to find the pathological case, so you might just refine it to make it impossible, but my solution would be to note that the car at the back of the line is going faster than the other left-lane traffic, realize that he is going to have to pass them, and accelerate above 65mph long enough to pass him before he makes his move. I do this sort of thing routinely.

No, I drive in Oregon and this happens constantly. I'm not making anything pathological, I'm just saying in a lot of circumstances it's bullshit to be able to drive using your cruise control without adjusting.

You have to think ahead, not just react to the current situation. Predicting other drivers' behaviour is actually very easy with enough experience.

In a two lane freeway, you will run into the pigeon hole principle very quickly. It is impossible, no matter how accurately you can predict other drivers, to not have to adjust your speed.

Re:DOes it work ?

[vladkrupin]

exactly my point. How about a couple more confusing scenarios?

1. Some dork cuts you off on the freeway and steps on gas. You don't want or need to break even though the idiot is only 20 feet in front of you.
2. Wet pavement, your friend is tail-gating you. Now you neighbor's cat runs across the street. You would rather run over the stupid thing (and remove stupidity from the gene pool as an added benefit) than get rear-ended by your friend.
3. You are merging into a tight spot on the freeway. If you push the breaks, you are likely to "clip" the car in front of which you are trying to merge.
4. Some dork didn't bother looking when merging/fell asleep/whatever-else and is drifting into your lane on the freeway. Behind you is a semi truck. The only way (besides honking) to avoid a collision is to downshift into second gear and step on gas even though the car in front of you is closer than 300 feet.
5. Your example of the left-lane turn is very good too. It's a classic "looks like a head-on" scenario.

Also, sudden breaking under some circumstances (steep turn, slippery pavement, poorly distributed load in the vehicle, etc) drastically reduces responsiveness and maneurability of the vehicle.

Re:DOes it work ?

[CaseyB]

note that the car at the back of the line is going faster than the other left-lane traffic

By which I mean right-lane traffic.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Alan Partridge]

"I also have a ASC system that will individually brake each wheel to keep me from skidding or spinning when cornerning. It works wonders."

Amen.

Re:DOes it work ?

[lamz]

Generally speaking, I am surprised to see how negative Slashdotters are to new technology, especially before knowing much about how it works. The assumption always seems to be that the implementation will be completely useless, dangerous and insecure.

I may not speak for all SlashDotters, but perhaps our negative attitude comes from having seen the little man behind the curtain a few too many times. Although I am a web application developer, I still do my taxes with paper forms, and refuse to sign up for receiving bills by email instead of regular mail. I'm perfectly willing to order t-shirts and books on the web, but for the important stuff, I want to see paper documents. And there are few things more important to me than the performance of the vehicle I'm riding in.

Perhaps it is the typical SlashDotters familiarity with the concept of probability that makes us suspicious. What percentage of false-positives would be acceptable for a car that applies its own brakes?

Also, I just keep picturing some driver getting creamed by a truck while looking back, asking: "Who's pulling on my seatbelt?"

On the bright side, pay attention to the technologies that SlashDotters are excited about. Linux, Open Source, Macs, TiVOs, MySQL, PHP -- good stuff!

Re:DOes it work ?

[lamz]

I call those "Pace Cars." The best solution I have found is to speed up to about 50% over the speed limit, until you are well ahead of them.

Re:DOes it work ?

[corren]

You're assuming an awful lot about the driving ability of the average person out on the roads.

That's being addressed shortly with Honda's new Stupid Asshole Detecting and Ranging or SADAR which disables the car before they even touch it. Coupled with the new Crash Detection system, it stands to eliminate all auto accidents.

Re:DOes it work ?

[rworne]

Depends on the driving habits of your local city.

Here in Los Angeles, I always try to maintain a safe distance and keep several car lengths between me and the car I am following.

Unfortunately for most drivers, just one "car length" means "I can change lanes and drive here" and cut you off.

So basically you have to keep hitting the brakes because asshats decide to use your buffer zone because they decided that your lane is going .01 MPH faster than the one they were in originally.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Uart]

Why would anyone want to do that?

Re:DOes it work ?

[tompaulco]

This system has an inherent flaw similar to the current weather radar systems on airplanes. If you have a decent rain a half mile ahead, you can't see through it to the level 6 thunderstorm on the other side. Similarly, the crash detetction system may be able to see the car in front of you travelling at the same speed, but 1 billionth of a second later when that guy crashes into the stopped car in front of him, coming to an almost instant stop, you're screwed.

Re:DOes it work ?

[eyeye]

What if it brakes unnecessarily because of a false positive of an anticipated crash, and you get smashed by the semi following you?

If the semi behind you cant cope with gentle breaking (which is what the system does) then its probably going to kill you anyway.

I suppose you dont use cruise control or ABS or any other similar technology since you and others are so disparaging of losing control.
I suspect that is the problem, a lot of people dont even like the concept that they won't be 100% in control all the time.

Re:DOes it work ?

[jhunsake]

Usually cruise controls don't keep the same speed, especially on hills. I, however, do keep the same speed on hills.

So in that case, I would be the guy in the other car getting pissed off.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoops, relatively flat interstate. My bad.

Re:DOes it work ?

[0123456]

"You just have to do a cost/benefit analysis... as long as the new technology saves more lives than it endangers, it's worth pursuing"

Not if it increases the danger to me: if we could all have completely computer-controlled cars with 10% less chance of crashing than the average driver, then you'd want them, whereas you'd be condemning anyone who was more than 10% less likely to crash than the average driver to live with more danger than they would by driving themselves.

This is why I'm happy with passive systems like seat-belts, ABS and so forth, but do not want any of these active systems that interfere with my driving.

Re:DOes it work ?

[shotfeel]

The computer can do a much better job of controlling a skid than all but the best driver.

The computer can do a better job of breaking than even the best driver. Unless someone knows of a driver who can simultanously monitor all wheels and continuously adjust breaking force on each individually.

Re:DOes it work ?

[jellomizer]

1. Slighty annoying but no major safety hazzards
2. Durring an accident from tail gating the person who is tailgating you is responcible.
3. Dude wait for a safer enterence.
4. The semi-truck is tailgating you. See #2 and if you have an automatic downshifitng is not much of an option so you still have to slow down. If you crash into the car the semi truck will still run over you.
5. How fast do you do your left turns.

Please remember that they dont put you in a compplete stop just slow you down.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny. From where I was sitting in the driver's seat in 1993, it's called "my daughter's dying and I really need to get to the hospital" and I'm not really sure why some a$$hole like you decided to punish me then and there.

Your Civic was totalled, I broke my leg, and we lost her to anaphylactic shock. But thank God you were there to punish me.

Re:DOes it work ?

[f97tosc]

Perhaps it is the typical SlashDotters familiarity with the concept of probability that makes us suspicious. What percentage of false-positives would be acceptable for a car that applies its own brakes?

Not very many false-positives. Put the point is that Honda knows this.

It is probably safe to say that Honda understands just as well as you or I what is an acceptable failure rate. Furthermore, they know tons more about how this technology works and what is feasible to achieve. Given all of that, they have concluded that it is worth pursuing.

That tells me that it is probably going to work. Otherwise, you have to assume that you have a better understanding of customer preferences and this radar technology than does Honda. I am surprised to see how many Slashdotters that are willing to draw that conclusion after just reading the two line summary about the technology.

Tor

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Until of course, you experience throttle lift oversteer and wrap yourself around a tree at 85 mph - backwards.

Re:DOes it work ?

[lankyb]

It taps the brakes (no big deal) Wrong. This is a huge deal if you happen to have seen the problem 125m ahead and are taking evasive action other than braking, for example changing lanes or even swerving. The slightest braking during a sharp direction change can throw your car into a skid. The system should, and probably does, also monitor the steering wheel position. Unless you really pull the wheel to the limit, a little braking shouldn't hurt you. It can even help by giving you a litle weight transfer to the front wheels to help you steer, and your reduced speed would reduce the amount of traction needed from the tires avoid the accident.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

you can't infer the direction of the vehicle from just the steering input angle, and seeing through a mountain is a neat trick anyway.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's LIDAR, not LASER or RADAR

http://www.lidar.com/

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure any fool can slam on the brakes and have ABS engage. But ABS still doesn't make them a good driver or automatically avoid an accident. You still need to know how to drive to use ABS effectively.

I don't know how many times that I have heard of people who have ABS and still pulse their brakes manually.

Most people on the road today can't parallel park or back into parking spots, let alone know what to do in the case of an emergency.

Re:DOes it work ?

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

I really don't have a clue how such a system can work reliably

Since the fifties, IR/Radar guided AA missiles use(d) a simple algorythm: try to keep angular velocity at zero to intercept a plane, that is adjust your direction, such that the target remains in the same direction relative to your "12 o'clock".

You can use that to detect that an approaching object is on a collision course.

On top of that you would have to calculate other things (on collision course AND closer than my breaking distance)

Actually, you can observe this, look at approaching you in the curb, it will appear in on the left part of your windscreen, move to the middle, then start moving to the left again. If It remains in the same spot on your windscreen, AND it's getting bigger and bigger, start worrying ;-)

Re:DOes it work ?

[mjmalone]

"The system has already been tested successfully on a simulator and on the highway. Proximity-Controlled Cruising is relaxing and safe.The system has already been tested successfully on a simulator and on the highway. Test drivers have said driving with Proximity-Controlled Cruising is relaxing and safe."[http://www.mercedes-benz.com/e/innovation/r d/forschung_feb97.htm]

You trust these guys with your life?

Re:DOes it work ?

[jandrese]

Aren't you supposed to turn your car off for those carwashes? It's not like the wipers are going to run when your car is off.

Re:DOes it work ?

[drudd]

I seriously doubt that for any driver these systems will add more risk than they reduce.

Yes you're adding the very small chance that they system will not function properly in some contrived situation where the driver would have been able to compensate properly, but in the vast majority of the time, the system will kick in when the driver is not paying proper attention to what they are doing.

You also have to consider your risk from other drivers on the road when determining your risk. Even if you are a perfect driver, any aid which reduces the probability of someone else hitting you should noticeably reduce your overall chances of being involved in an accident.

Doug

Re:DOes it work ?

[cens0r]

Well, I've seen aritcles in road and track where pro drivers were able to shave a few tenths of a second of their lap time by turning off the ASC, so obivously they were a little better than the system. But the average Joe is not Micheal Schumacher and has no business turning off the system (unless they're doing some sort of auto cross event).

Re:DOes it work ?

[The Clockwork Troll]

Though my car is designed to slide, and I do it basically every time I drive, in a quite controlled fashion

Ah, there it is.

I was with you up until this line when you gave yourself away as just another "I drive better than anyone else" fuckwit who thinks that running in SCCA tournaments and knowing what the traction circle is makes him road lord.

Here's a tip from someone who was where you were mentally about 15 years ago: On the street, there is an absolute limit to how good a driver you can be because you ultimately cannot predict what other people are going to do no matter your "experience." That being said, throwing your own dick-swinging driving style into the mix is driving on borrowed time.

Cheers, and regards to any family you might prematurely abandon while driving better than the rest of us :-D

Re:DOes it work ?

[erik1474]

I've always wanted to hack the brake lights in my car and wire them to a button on my dashboard that I could press whenever some jackass is tailgating me. Anyone ever done this??

I also daydream of mounting paintball guns under the hood to shoot those fuckers who drive on the shoulder in traffic jams - but that's another story...

Re:DOes it work ?

[LostCluster]

For instance, what if I'm in a left turn lane drive directly toward a car in an oncoming left turn lane? We're not going to collide, but does my car know that? First of all, at the start of the situation you and the other car are going to collide. That is to say, if you keep going at the speed you're going, and they keep going at the speed they're going, the two cars will eventually meet. We all hope that both cars are going to slow down, stop, and turn left without meeting. Now, most likely you already have naturally put your foot on the brake. If that's true, then this system can relax because it knows that you're in control of the car. However, if you don't put your foot on the brake and you let that other car get too close to you, then the alarm goes off and it starts slowing down the car for you. If in response to that alarm you move your foot over to the break, then the system has done its job and can relax. However, if you STILL haven't gotten the clue that you're on a collision course and really should be be slowing down here, then the system really has to take action, and hits the breaks even harder. The system could bring the car to a complete stop, but regulations presently prevent an automated system from doing so.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Drakonian]

Generally speaking, I am surprised to see how negative Slashdotters are to new technology, especially before knowing much about how it works. The assumption always seems to be that the implementation will be completely useless, dangerous and insecure.

Of course there will be troubles to get this to work properly. Honda will solve those problems, and put the technology in their expensive cars. If it is efficent and cheap enough it will go mainstream. That's all there is to it, pretty much.

Now that was insightful. Great post. I've often wondered that myself.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Fascist Christ]

... other cars going the same direction (slower in the right lane, faster in the left lane) ...

These factors are unreliable and inconsistent.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Dachannien]

Actually, I had intended that my previous comment might get modded as funny, because the vast majority of people who drive suck at it. I can't help it that people are about as good at modding comments as they are at driving :p

Re:DOes it work ?

[lostchicken]

ABS is far from passive. Neither is traction control. Neither are airbags.

However, they all allow the car to do things that the driver cannot. Even the best driver cannot react to things as fast as ABS and traction control can. Don't think you can. Some things these devices (like Traction Control) do, like brake single wheels, are things you couldn't do, even if you were a perfect, superhuman driver.

Don't condemn things that are automated. They might just be better than you, no matter how good you are.

Re:DOes it work ?

[artemis67]

Just imagine driving on a mountain road and out of a right curb comes a car driving the other way. The radar sees it right in front of you, coming your way. How does it react ? I'd hate to see it break suddenly, particularly if the road is wet or snowy.

You're right. I'm scared of any system that takes over driving.

More effectively, I'd rather see the car detect another car 300 ft. ahead of me, pop out a couple of missle launchers and clear the road.

Re:DOes it work ?

[UniverseIsADoughnut]

"Relatively straight and flat interstate, cruise control set at 70, I slowly start to overtake a vehicle going 69 or 68mph"

You're the type of driver that pisses off the mass population. What you just described is one of the reasons cruise control needs to be banned. It takes you forever to make that pass. In the mean time all the traffic behind you is getting jammed up because both lanes are blocked. You are suppose to get around cars quickly even on the highway. Otherwise congestion occurs. A curtious driver would accel enough to get around the other car quickly then go to their normal speed. In PA it's now ilegal to take to long to pass a car, if you don't do it quick enough your considered to be blocking the passing lane or just hogging it and you will get ticketed, you must over take a car rapidly. If there is only a 1 mph diff between you, and often it's less when you get dueling cruise controls, it will take you a long time to pass. Fortently there is now cops that can point out this problem to you personaly.

Re:DOes it work ?

[drinkypoo]

You are a troll. As such, I should not feed you. However, I am going to go ahead and do so.

I didn't say that I slid around every corner. I said I do it just about every time I drive. I am exceptionally careful not to hot-dog when I am in a situation that could bring harm to others.

Furthermore, I have never driven in a SCCA road course, nor any other sponsored event.

I do not street race, and I do not think I am the best driver on the road. However, I firmly believe that I am a better driver both in terms of skill and the amount of attention I pay to the road than over 99% of the people out there.

Furthermore, I do happen to know that you cannot predict what others will do on the road. This is actually a key argument against the automatic braking technology. If a person with a great deal of experience can't tell the difference, a computer system can't tell either.

So please, don't make assumptions about my overall driving style or my attitude based on the fact that I like to drift. It only makes you look like an ass.

Re:DOes it work ?

[mark_lybarger]

50% over the speed limit

that's my kind of driving!! unfortunately there's always a set of eyes in the passenger seat peering over at the speedometer saying "aren't you going a little too fast?" i don't understand how women like to drive w/i 5 mph of the speed limits, but their mouths can easily vocalize well past 50% over any stated speed limits i've ever seen.

Re:DOes it work ?

[[Zappo]]

It's assuming a lot that the person is going to be changing lanes or swerving? That seems like about the most likely response... either that or just jumping on the brakes at full, which is why we have ABS; to handle panic responses from people who really have no business driving to begin with.

ABS makes a simple interface work as advertised with fewer exceptional cases, and lowers the amount of experience needed to achieve proficiency.

It corrected a flaw in the interface, not in the user. The same is true of traction control. The brake and the steering wheel now, "do what you mean," much more often than before.

Re:DOes it work ?

[dirkdidit]

What? Your commute doesn't take three days?

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd hate to see it break suddenly, particularly if the road is wet or snowy.

Well, you'd like it to break suddenly if you were concerned that it may brake suddenly.

Re:DOes it work ?

[heli0]

t is illegal in most (all?) countries to interfere with the driver and/or the car's controls.

Really? Every time I try to lock up my brakes my car prevents me from doing so (ABS). When I try to fishtail around a turn my vehicle prevents me from doing so (VSC).

Re:DOes it work ?

[Darkninja666]

The problem Tor, is that there is a well-known formula about car recalls (could be made up, I suppose. But it has that familar, cutting edge of reality.)
if (cost_of_lawsuit_settlements - cost_of_recall) >0
exec recall
else exec just_settle_lawsuits

This begs the question: How do they determine what an acceptable failure rate of a new gadget.

I'm guessing something like:
if (potential_profits - cost_of_failure_and_lawsuits) >=0
exec new_gadget
else exec remove_new_gadget

Pessimistic attidute(sp?) I know, but thats me.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's BRAKE, not break, you fucknozzle. Learn to speak English.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You wouldnt be using cruise control if you were in the left turn lane. I dont think i see any problem with this system if it can tell the difference between other cars on the street and also the walls of a freeway.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Titusdot Groan]

Not quite the same -- the seatbelt argument was moronic (I've been wearing seatbelts for over 30 years) from the get go. What if I crash AND my car burst into flame AND my seatbelt locks up and can't be undone!

I used to disagree with ABS because the first generation was NOT as good as my own threshold breaking ability, certainly on ice/snow. Now I have ABS in my Camry because it's better at breaking than I am.

The radar thing will probably be a good idea someday -- just the version they talk about here seems lame.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

4. ??? 5. Profit!

Re:DOes it work ?

[Kaz Riprock]

This is my guess too, in fact, in almost every car I've ever been in, the cruise control is disengaged if the brakes are touched. So, if you're in cruise control and you get closer than 300 ft to something (hopefully bigger than a crow) the car will hit the brakes and you'll lose your cruise control, which isn't a bad thing, since you can assess the situation and get away from whatever it was and then get back into cruise control.

It's also pretty clear that this is going to be in an automatic transmission...which is also fine with me, because I'll always drive manual.

Re:DOes it work ?

[skaffen42]

People drivers aren't perfect. But its easy to counter their imperfections. When driving, a good driver is aware of everything around them and can tell when someone is not in command of their vehicle. You cant tell when some automagic sensor is about to fail.

But machines are better at a lot of things than humans are. According to your logic you should never have ABS in a car because the driver will be better than ABS at keeping the car under control during heavy breaking. This might be true for really good drivers, but is definately not the norm.

And if good drivers are always better than machines why do they ban traction control and ABS racing? If traction control can help Michael Schumacher then it is sure as hell going to make a difference to my driving.

Re:DOes it work ?

[nojomofo]

Is that actually measuring the doppler shift, which is the change in the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation? I don't see how that's the same thing as measuring the time it takes different pulses to come back. I agree that it's "millions of times easier than measuring doppler shift of light", my point was that using doppler shift would be difficult....

Re:DOes it work ?

[alienw]

Because a lot of people have an inexplicable confidence in technology.

Or, a distrust of people. A person cannot be trusted to do the right thing in a crisis/panic situation (for example, pulsing the brakes instead of slamming them). A computer, properly programmed, can be relied upon to do the right thing. Problems occur only when the computers are not programmed properly or assumptions are made which are not always true. Both issues are rare when proper development practices are followed.

As for Airbus jets: most airplane crashes occur due to pilot error. Others occur due to mechanical failure. Very few accidents of any sort have ever occurred due to computer failure. Therefore, I would think that a computer, which probably has a much better grip on the situation, given that airplanes have hundreds of sensors that a pilot could not possibly monitor simultaneously, is better prepared to make certain decisions.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an excellent idea. After all, everyone knows that asians can't drive.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Jerf]

The difference is that figuring out whether the wheel is slipping is merely a hard problem (it is not an easy problem, and there are a lot of tricky parts, but it is solvable), and it can be done in the domain of "the speed of the wheel".

Deciding whether to stop or not require knowlege of the outside world, which not surprisingly is a lot more complicated then the problem of whether you're slipping. That's a four-dimensional problem, one speed reading on each wheel. Deciding to stop, especially the way we do it with our vision system, is an n-dimensional problem, where "n" is some big number. (Easily thousands.) Extrapolating our success with a four-dimensional problem that doesn't even need heavy AI to solve into thinking that we can equivalently solve a multi-thousand dimensional problem (with only two or three of those dimensions available to our system, no less!) is quite overconfident, to say the least.

Re:DOes it work ?

[kill -9 $$]

I don't see whats so hard about all this and/or visionary on Honda's part. Crash detection is very easy. Set some sensors up around the car, when they crumple, you crashed.

Crash avoidance...thats another problem entirely.

Sorry, couldn't resist...

Re:DOes it work ?

[eclipsemgp]

I agree with the other poster, you were going very well until you put you're 'I'm a better driver that you' attitude. Skilled driver with manual brakes better that ABS? What is a skilled driver and how many of them are out there? Maybe F1 drivers, professionals who drive for a living. But for average joe shmoe, ABS is good. You can pump you the brakes to the threshold of a skid and get full braking power, but you can't do it 15 times a second no matter how hard you try. ABS can. ABS is good for the common person regardless of driving experience and ability as long as they know how to use it. I bet you don't like power brakes and steering because there interfere with your 'driving skill' as well.

Re:DOes it work ?

[RealErmine]

Car radars are not like aircraft radars. The latter only has to see something ('anything') in the middle of a big mass of air. Nothing else around.

How can you "write radar software" and still write that? I work for a company that makes most U.S. mililtary radar systems and many civilian ones (boats, weather services, etc.). I'm not sure what part of the world you live in, but all the sky I've ever seen has stuff in it besides air. Ever hear of birds, rain, clouds, mountains, waves, trees or tall buildings? Any radar needs to take at least some of these into account when operating.

I understand that you are trying to make the point that a radar system in a car will have to sort clutter in a different, and possibly more difficult, manner, but nobody should be told that "normal" radars don't have to deal with similar issues. Clutter detection and handling is probably the most important feature of any radar system. Not only does it define how useful a system is, but clutter detection/handling determines what the radar is used for. A weather radar will have vastly different clutter management software than an anti-aircraft system radar. One has to look for clouds and precipitation while the other has to ignore them.

While it may seem difficult to intelligently program a system that tracks cars on a highway, it is probably not that different than what is done in other radar applications. Our company's most widely-known radar system can pick objects of interest out of large areas of chaff or debris with high accuracy.

A car radar would have to sort out lots of echos at various doppler: the ground is coming towards you (when it's far ahead), other cars going the same direction (slower in the right lane, faster in the left lane), cars coming the other way, parked cars, things hanging overhead (bridge, street lights. advertisement...)

You're right, it would! My question then is: So what?

It obviously works since Honda is selling the systems in their cars while Toyota and Mercedes have similar systems available or in the works. The 30 year old ~20Mhz computer in the radar at work can track 100 targets. I think the one in these cars can probably handle that or more.

Just imagine driving on a mountain road and out of a right curb comes a car driving the other way. The radar sees it right in front of you, coming your way. How does it react ? I'd hate to see it break suddenly, particularly if the road is wet or snowy.

The article says that the car breaks lightly at first and then waits for the driver to respond. If the driver does not respond in a certain time-frame then the car will break more heavily. It doesn't sound like it would slam on the breaks all of a sudden. Also, if you wouldn't be able to safely brake in this situation, how do you expect to safely turn that corner? Certainly not without using your brakes.

I really don't have a clue how such a system can work

That should have been the only thing that you wrote.

Re:DOes it work ?

[f97tosc]

I agree that this is is the world from Honda's perspective. But, this may be a surprise, I actually think this is pretty much in the interest of the consumer also.

Take your first equation.

(cost_of_lawsuit_settlements - cost_of_recall) >0
exec recall
else exec just_settle_lawsuits


I know it is cynical, but what do you propose instead? One alternative is of course.
If (accident>0)
exec recall


Do you realize the consequence of this? Recalls every other day. Or, if you designed a car with this equation in mind, it would be so expensive that nobody would buy it.

By the way, the government uses basically the same equation when designing roads or considering safety projects. It is impossible to make everything perfectly safe - there is a limited amount of resources and money. So instead, you evaluate all possible improvements towards the same criteria, the estimated number of human lives that can be saved. Then you put a large but finite amount of money on that; in the U.S. the governement uses the figure around $2 Million, other countries use lower numbers. As the economy grows, we can afford better and better safety and we put a larger and larger premium on human lives. It may be cynical, but it is simply the most efficient way to spend money on safety.

Your second equation is probably right also:

(potential_profits - cost_of_failure_and_lawsuits) >=0
exec new_gadget
else exec remove_new_gadget


But remember that profits come from people being willing to pay extra for the gadget. If many people are willing to pay a premium for it, and it rarely fails catastrophically, then they will build it, otherwise not. Why would people be willing to pay for it if it did not work? Isn't this a reasonable criterium for evaluating the gadget? What would the equation be in your ideal world? If you made a businees out of that equation do you think you would get any customers?

Tor

Re:DOes it work ?

[valkraider]

You would be suprised. For example - Volkswagen has had Electronic Skid Prevention for several years in their cars. It monitors all sorts of things, yaw - acceleration - speed - steering wheel position - wheel locks. Then if it "detects" skids - it applies the breaks to the wheel best suited to prevent the skid. I am pretty sure Cadillac and Mercades have had them as well, for some time. I don't see this new Honda system as being much different. I am sure there is much more involved details then what we know or what they talk about in press releases. Their engineers are good at what they do, and they don't put something out there without having thought of and tested far more than we /.ers could come up with...

Re:DOes it work ?

[Daetrin]

Why would people be willing to pay for it if it did not work?

Marketing.

Re:DOes it work ?

[neurojab]

You obviously don't live in urban CA or the eastern seaboard. You can drive quite safely in mid-america and still get where you want to go. That isn't true for me, however.

Re:DOes it work ?

[f97tosc]

Why would people be willing to pay for it if it did not work?

Marketing.

I don't buy it. Look at cars around you. What picture do you find most accurate:

1 Cars get more and more safety features that don't work, but people buy them anyway because of marketing.

2 Cars get more and more safety features that do work, and as a result car safety has improved dramatically over the past 50 years.

Tor

Re:DOes it work ?

[Richy_T]

It varies. My Windstar keeps the needle bang on at all times. The crappy rental Cavalier I have at the moment varies by 2mph and I've even caught it falling to 4mph under the set speed on occasion.

What is it with Cavaliers here anyway? Over in the U.K. (and Oz), they're nice cars, here in the U.S., just cheap and crappy.

Rich

Re:DOes it work ?

[kyjello]

you can't infer the direction of the vehicle from just the steering input angle, and seeing through a mountain is a neat trick anyway.

Of course not, there are many ways that they can approximate which direction the car is traveling. G-forces of a turn, tire traction, a compass...

In the future they could perhaps even have roadmaps downloaded into the car, so it would know where the curves in the road are before you do. And with gps they would know pretty much where you are relative to the mountain you are driving around.

Seeing through a mountain isn't what this is designed to do. If you are about to crash into a mountain, then that is where this system would be useful in my opinion.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Stonan]

I see two problems:

1. In 16 yrs of driving the only time I've seen a football field length btw two cars is the middle of the night on weekdays.

2. One doesn't really avoid an accident with more powerful brakes. ABS came about because people were using too much power with the brakes and locking them up. Providing more power would most likely negate an ABS system (yes, ABS can lockup if you do a two-foot gorilla-stomp on the pedal)

I watched show on Discovery detailing what investigations are done after an accident. From the police, thru the doctors, to the car designers, they all said the same thing: until the human factor is removed there is no way to completely avoid accidents.

Their plan is to provide early warning to the driver so he/she can react in time. One idea was to have sensors all around the car and and an in-dash waning system when a vehicle is in a blind spot. Other ideas were to provide extra cushioning to the lower part of the dash and move it towards the knees so in a crash there is reduced 'travel' btw the knees and the dash. Also to allow the steering wheel and stick shift to be moveable so they can be closer to the driver so he/she isn't reaching and possibly taking their eyes off the road.

Ford has a simulator much like the Boeing simulator used for pilots. They have ordinary people driving and engaging in what is considered normal activities in a car (fiddling with the radio and AC, talking on a cell or CB, etc)They watch reaction times as well as where the driver's eyes are looking.

It's only in experimental stages but a car company (can't remember which one) was able to design an 'auto-drive' system that was able to drive from San Diego to Detroit with 98% of the driving done automiously including getting on and off highways, lane changes and avoiding road hazzards.

Re:DOes it work ?

[f97tosc]

It's BRAKE, not break, you fucknozzle. Learn to speak English.

I apologize for that. Misspelling "brake" is a characteristic of us fucknozzles. It has to do with English being our second language, and typing quickly. We do similar errors in our third and fourth languages as well.

Anonymous Cowards are inspirations for us, they always demonstrate perfect grammar, spelling and word choices and their second languages are flawless.

Tor

Re:DOes it work ?

[Richy_T]

You jump to conclusions. I can't answer for the parent post but if I am overtaking at a slow differential and it looks like I will start blocking traffic, I will accelerate a little so I can get out of the way. If the road behind me is clear however, and the differential is not so small that it would take a real long time to get past. I just let the cruise control handle it.

Nothing in the parent's post indicated that he made a habit of blocking traffic (though I will also agree that slow overtakers are annoying). Also add to my hate list overtaking lane campers (particularly those going *below* the speed limit on 4-lane highways), those who do not indicate and the speed-up/slow-down/still-overtaking-the-same-vehic le-after-10-miles truck drivers.

Rich

Re:DOes it work ?

[marauder404]

I'm a huge fan of cars and have a >300 hp sports car that will out-accelerate and out-handle most cars on the road. I also take it on the track regularly and I'm familiar with the way it handles in all kinds of situations. I do agree that you probably know more than the car and it's possible tht it could screw up. But, like all safety equipment, you kinda have to play the numbers and evaluate whether or not the benefits outweigh the risks. Seat belts are great, but it is possible that getting thrown clear of an accident instead of being securely held within the "safety cage" of the car could help you, but it's more likely that it will help you than hurt you. Stability control systems, like Porsche Stability Management (I see you're a Porsche fan) are incredible at making the car very predictable. You can go into a corner way too hot, pointed in the wrong direction, and STILL come out looking like a champ. I think the stability systems of today are much better than before. Get a test drive in a 996 and I think you'll be amazed at how well it works.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Steveftoth]

So you're saying that planes (military planes) should still be fly by the seat of their pants?

Military planes have been fly by wire for years. Totatly computer controlled, all the 'pilot' has to do is point it in the correct direction, the plane does everything else.

If automation can reduce the number of bad drivers on the road then I'm all for it. It's either more automation of cars, or a reduction of cars on the road. I live in LA and nobody wants to give up their car here to ride on some form of mass transit even though it would be better for all if we did.

Re:DOes it work ?

[theLOUDroom]

>>I just don't think that we're far enough along to have the car make judgements

>Couldn't we say this about ANY technology?


No. I'm perfectly happy to let a computer decide how long to microwave popcorn for. Yeah, it may mess up, but at least I won't get killed.

Letting a car automatically apply the brakes is a stupid idea. Computers are nowhere near developed enough to drive a car. Period.

There are probably hundred of things wrong with this idea:

• What about snow, mud, gravel (insert low traction condition here)?
• What if you're being tailgated?
• What if you're across from someone in a left turn lane?
• What if you're speeding up to try an avoid an accident?
• What if the system malfunctions?
• What if a bird flys in front of your car?
• What if you're making a sharp turn, and any braking will cause you to loose control?

This tecnology should be developed, but it should be up to the user to properly operate operate the car. Technology like this should be limited to making a lound "crash alert" noise. The driver of the vehicle should decide what to do. Computers today do not have the level of situational awareness necessary to operate a vehicle in a high traffic environment.

There are lots of people making analogies to ABS, power steeering, etc. To all those analogies, I say bullshit. ABS, power steering, power assited brakes all are under user control. The last thing someone needs to worry about in a crash avoidance situation is the car doing this they didn't specfically ask it to do. In those situations, you need to predict where you and everyone else around you is headed and when. Any sudden changes will completely trash your "survival plan".

I would love to see a car that really could drive itself, but let's be realistic about the current state of AI. Oh, and when I say drive itself i mean: aviod deer about to run out into the road, derbis in the road, not driving off a boat ramp, avioding accidents, and a bunch of other things that current self-driving cars just can't do.

Oh, and BTW, I work at radar/senors company. Without some kind of phased-array antenna hi-frequency radar setup (which would cost as much as the car itself) this thing is simply not going to be able to get an accurate picture of what's in front of you.
Picture this:
You're driving down the road. There's a sharp turn ahead. You are very close to it but have not yet started to turn. There is a big metal sign in front of you. You're just starting to turn you wheels when all of a sudden this system applies your brakes. The combined force of the turn and the braking is too much for your tires and you loose control of the vehicle (it spins out). You end up and the other lane in a head-on with a semi that was coming around the corner.

Re:DOes it work ?

[JerkBoB]

Aren't you supposed to turn your car off for those carwashes? It's not like the wipers are going to run when your car is off.

Nah, at every one I've been to the monkey running it has just asked me to put it in Neutral and keep my foot off of the brake. How else would I listen to the cd player? :)

NOTE TO /. COMMUNITIY: THIS IS HOW ONE SPELLS THE WORD FOR THE PEDAL NEXT TO THE ACCELERATOR!!! There has never been a 'Break' pedal in any car I've driven. Sorry, I've just seen that too many times in the comments for this story.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Belgand]

Slashdotters may be more accepting of technology than most. Then again we're also far more likely to make regular off-site backups.

Knowledge and acceptance of technology is one thing, but with that knowledge you also learn a great deal about the problems of technology. Things can fail easily and sometimes things designed to help end up merely causing more problems and work. In this case I think it seems far more likely that adding in a dangerous, unpredictable element that will only have limited knowledge of the situation and may not even be technically capable of doing what its job effectively into a dangerous enviroment is likely to cause more accidents. Anything that controls the brakes of the car that isn't directly driving it seems like a bad idea to me.

Re:DOes it work ?

[geekee]

On a related note, I believe Mercedes calls it radar-based cruise control rather than radar-based collision avoidance to avoid lawsuits in case the system fails.

Re:DOes it work ?

[drinkypoo]

I agree with the other poster, you were going very well until you put you're 'I'm a better driver that you' attitude. Skilled driver with manual brakes better that ABS? What is a skilled driver and how many of them are out there? Maybe F1 drivers, professionals who drive for a living. But for average joe shmoe, ABS is good. You can pump you the brakes to the threshold of a skid and get full braking power, but you can't do it 15 times a second no matter how hard you try. ABS can.

ABS might "pump" 15 times per second, but it still has a longer stopping distance than someone who is braking at threshhold. I didn't say no one should use ABS.

I bet you don't like power brakes and steering because there interfere with your 'driving skill' as well.

No, I like power steering. Power steering has basically no drawbacks; You can still steer when the power is off because the steering ratio is generally in the neighborhood of 25% steeper with power assist than without it, and besides, if you're moving, the amount of rotational friction is decreased.

Power brakes, on the other hand, are a fairly bad idea, mostly because they don't work when the power is not applied. In the old days, when you had a big vacuum storage tank, you still got to depress the brakes with power once after the engine died, but these days that particular feature has disappeared and when the engine cuts off when you are rolling, you cannot generally stop well. Using the emergency brake can be done in a fairly safe manner, but if you have to make a short stop, you will not be able to.

Re:DOes it work ?

[cayenne8]

Gotta love rear engine cars...I learned early not to let up on the gas in a curve...in fact, I generally hit the gas a bit to put some downforce on the rear end...

Re:DOes it work ?

[Quikah]

No, you just downshift. I drive down the 405 ofteen going from/to the valley and rarely hit the breaks, just downshift. I always keep 2-3 car lengths in front of me.

Oh yeah, I guess you would need a manual transmission for this. I always wondered why people would say something like I bet you hate your manual transmission on the freeway in rush hour. I am always say NO, that is when I gain the most benefit from it!

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now imagine a whole LA-sized freeway full of these cars. Yum, interference! Was that my radar signal, or that semi in the other lane? The channel capacity limit comes to automotive safety!

Now imagine driving down the 405 when traffic is "light". Every time somebody cuts you off, the brakes come on. Maybe every 30 seconds or so. Probably more often, because the car insists on having more following distance than is available on an LA freeway. Try to merge into another lane--do you really expect a 100 yard long opening? On come come brakes! Even if they can find the optimal solution for the collisions averted - collisions caused equation, there's a fortune to be made replacing brake pads on these vehicles.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Darkninja666]

Tor, I got the feeling from this: (from parent post)
It is probably safe to say that Honda understands just as well as you or I what is an acceptable failure rate. Furthermore, they know tons more about how this technology works and what is feasible to achieve. Given all of that, they have concluded that it is worth pursuing.

, that you felt it was fine to assume that Honda knew what it was doing, and that we should trust in them to provide a well-designed,safe gadget.

And the point I was trying to make was that Honda could give a flying fsck about any individual. Their only concern is money/profit.

You bring up a good point about goverment projects using a similar process. And you are correct, there has to be some kind of process to determine if something gets the go ahead or not. There are risks in all activities, especially driving. You can be killed from some freak accident, just because Nature decided it would be funny, if you just "happened" to trip on your shoe lace and land head first on a rock.

But I believe everyone should know what the risks are in any endevour, instead of "trusting" a profit driven entity.

Re:DOes it work ?

[tmhsiao]

A computer, properly programmed, can be relied upon to do the right thing.

You have high confidence in programmers.

As for Airbus jets: most airplane crashes occur due to pilot error. Others occur due to mechanical failure. Very few accidents of any sort have ever occurred due to computer failure. Therefore, I would think that a computer, which probably has a much better grip on the situation, given that airplanes have hundreds of sensors that a pilot could not possibly monitor simultaneously, is better prepared to make certain decisions.

Isn't one accident, one too many? I'm not insisting that the computer not have a part in the system--I'm suggesting that these fly-by-wire systems should not be so rigid as to completely lock-out the human factor.

When pilots can recount a few stories (enough to merit an entire television program) where they had to fight with the computer to either get it to recognize that either its input or actions were wrong, I'd say the system has some serious design flaws (linked article is long, but very informative).

And until we (as the human race) have acheived complete infallibility, the system will continue to have design flaws.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Thing 1]

Reminds me of a story from my college days. A friend had a suped-up El Camino, and we were going to a concert. He was behind someone going slow, so decided to pass. But that guy had decided to pass the guy ahead of him -- so my friend drove in the far shoulder, passing a car that was passing a car.

Haven't remembered that in years. Thanks! ;-)

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd ques that it's "written" in fuzzy logic like the helicopter pilot system which can land you when your tail rotor is malfunctioning/shot to hell or like Tokyo's metro system.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Alan Partridge]

I'm not picking on you for any particular reason, as there are about five comments on this story with the same error, but those things that you drink coffee in during the working day are BREAKS, those metal disc-things that turn kinetic energy into heat are called BRAKES.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Another key point/benefit about ABS is that it automatically porportions the brakes front-to-rear. The optimum brake balance changes with traction: frontward weigh transfer increases according to deceleration, so with increased traction you need more front brake and less rear brake. This is similar to how a skilled motorcycle or bicycle rider controls front and rear brakes according to conditions. So, a sports car with optimum brake balance for a dry road has premature front wheel lock-up on snow and ice. Even worst are trucks, vans, wagons and SUVs: the proper balance depends on the amount and placement of the load. ABS sets the brake porportioning automatically to whatever traction and loading exists. And with modern power braking systems having heavily damped (sluggish) brake pedal response, ABS probably can out-perform even an expert driver in most production vehicles. because it bypasses the "dashpot" which is your power brake booster.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Bandman]

where-as in OH, driving in the left lane is so frequent, it begins to resemble Britain.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Alan Partridge]

We haven't had a car called a Cavalier in the UK for a decade or more.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh, what are you talking about ?
Haven't heard about ABS and TCS before ... ?

Re:DOes it work ?

[Ajaxamander]

Don't you mean... 1. Take left shoulder and pass. 2. Do not die. 3. ??? 4. Profit!!!

Re:DOes it work ?

[EndlessNameless]

As far as curving roads and whatnot go, I would assume the radar system is able to monitor the steering wheel's degree of rotation (or just measure the distance off of center with sensors on the rack and pinion). If the vehicle is turning or moving around a curve, use a different set of collision prediction rules than you would use if it were driving straight (or nearly straight). As far as locking onto a given vehicle is concerned, acoustics as they pertain to radar tracking is not an area of expertise for me personally. Wouldn't there be some sort of pattern to the way in which the ground or large buildings echo the radar pulse? Healthy bats and dolphins don't general fly or swim into walls. Does anyone know how well technological radar sensitivity compares to biological radar sensitivity?

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens on sharp curves, or when someone cuts in front of you, as they invariably will if you follow at the recommended distance. I'd hate to see this thing in use on 128, with all the tailgaters, you'd wind up with numerous multiple car pileups.

Re:DOes it work ?

[n6mod]

ABS basically has no serious drawbacks. At least good ABS doesn't. If you're truly braking at the threshold, you're not triggering well calibrated ABS. GM's crap systems are another story, but I can threshold brake my BMW without the ABS getting in the way, and stopping distances are shorter than just mashing the pedal. Just mashing the pedal gives shorter stops than locking up the tires. No loss here.

But you're somewhat misinformed about Power steering and brakes, and I disagree with your conclusions. Power Steering is unfortunate in cars that don't really need it. I have driven two Miatas back to back, one with PS, one without. There is MUCH, MUCH more feedback through the steering in a manual steering car than PS. You're correct that cars that are equipped with power steering have quicker ratios, but the ratio doesn't change if the PS fails. In fact, many autocrossers use the PS rack but disable the pump to get the quick ratio without the "numb" feeling of the power assist.

Now, where do you get the idea that power brakes don't work the the engine off? I don't think power brakes have a downside either. The Vacuum reservoir is still there on modern cars, though smaller now. But the vacuum isn't required to stop the car: the hydraulic circuits are still there. If you turn off the car, and push the pedal, the car stops, and unless you have exactly zero lower body strength (how do you push the clutch?) it will stop much, much faster than using the handbrake.

And I'll chime in here. Those who have never been to an SCCA street school shouldn't talk about them. They *do* make a huge difference in the ability of the driver to control the car. It's the only real driver training available in this country, sadly.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know someone who's never driven on the Turnpike during peek rush hours, and or any other time of the day!

Re:DOes it work ?

[awtbfb]

The 300 ft (100m) limit is based on sensor range. Most of the sensors used for this appication become unreliable beyond 100m.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Darkninja666]

Here's a different picture for you:
1. Do people choose cars based on safety?
or
2. Do they chose cars based on color/comfort/racing strip/stupid "fins"(a la 70's)?


Ahhh, Marketing. She is a lieing b!tch.

Re:DOes it work ?

[drinkypoo]

There is MUCH, MUCH more feedback through the steering in a manual steering car than PS. You're correct that cars that are equipped with power steering have quicker ratios, but the ratio doesn't change if the PS fails. In fact, many autocrossers use the PS rack but disable the pump to get the quick ratio without the "numb" feeling of the power assist.

Sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that the steering ratio changed. I meant to say that cars with power steering tend to have about a 25% steeper ratio than cars without it.

I know about "disabling the pump", you just disconnect the pump and completely drain the system of fluid, which reduces the resistance of a power steering system as compared to having it be full of fluid and simply unpowered.

Now, where do you get the idea that power brakes don't work the the engine off? I don't think power brakes have a downside either.

It's not that they don't work, it's that they are much, MUCH harder to press down than when the power is on. Now I feel that you shouldn't own any car that you can't stop when the power brake system is not under power, but that's not how the world works, is it? Meanwhile a vehicle without power brakes is MUCH easier to stop than a vehicle WITH power brakes, when the power brake system is unpowered - Much in the same way (and for slightly similar reasons) that it's harder to steer a car with power steering when the power is off than it is to steer a car without power steering.

And I'll chime in here. Those who have never been to an SCCA street school shouldn't talk about them. They *do* make a huge difference in the ability of the driver to control the car. It's the only real driver training available in this country, sadly.

Having never been in one I am not really qualified to comment - But I don't disagree with you, except to say that there are other performance driving schools which I would argue can easily provide the same value as a SCCA street school. Of course, I'm sure they cost a lot more. But there are numerous performance driving schools which use street vehicles of various descriptions. The last one I recall hearing about used Taurus SHOs or something, which is a pretty reasonable car in that it's a modern unibody FWD vehicle (third generation unibody) though it is a little more powerful than most of the cars of its type out on the road today.

Certainly, the driver training available in high school is inadequate, and the various DMV (or DPS or whatever they're called in your state) licensing tests are inadequate to screen out people who really, really should not be allowed to drive without supervision.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Cromac]

If you're so worried, lobby that every manufacturer implement this system so everybody slows down at the same time and you don't have these 40 car pileups because people want to drive 80 mph in the fog

Any bets that this will be the case 20 years from now? All cars will have some kind of auto pilot, wether it's fully automated ("drive home car") or only partially where it controls the speed and you still steer.

Re:DOes it work ?

[f97tosc]

1. Do people choose cars based on safety? or
2. Do they chose cars based on color/comfort/racing strip/stupid"fins"(a la 7 0's)?

Yes. Most people look at both. But sure, some people think it is more important to have "fins"(a la 70's), than to have a good airbag. In our society people have the choice to make such priorities. People have always made such choices, it is not the fault of some marketers.

But the issue here is not style vs. safety. The issue here is chosing effective safety solutions versus useless safety solutions. And my point is that the latter tends not to be very successful commercially, and car companies know this.

Tor

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

That radar is actually made by Delphi www.delphi.com I think, not positive. I know the ones on jaguar are definately delphi products

Re:DOes it work ?

[Exedore]

I am the original poster, and yes, the situation I described assumes that no one else is behind me. If there is, I'll hit the gas and scoot around someone faster than the cruise control would otherwise.

I agree that people who don't are indeed anoying.

Re:DOes it work ?

[rjung2k]

Is the system from Honda or Microsoft?

Re:DOes it work ?

[Richy_T]

I was driving a Mark II Cavalier in the U.K. four or five years ago. It was an old, old (B-reg) car but it was twice the car the U.S. one is.

Come to think of it, I was thinking of upgrading to a newer Cavalier so your assertion smells funny. A quick search shows it was discontinued in 1995. Hardly a decade or more.

Regardless, the U.S. version is not a patch on the U.K. version.

Rich (liked his electrically heated wing mirrors)

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're assuming that the car that comes with auto-braking ability doesn't also have stability control, ABS, traction control, or any other technology now readily available that enables the car to avoid skids better than a human driver. I would think that a collision detection system coupled with traction control and ABS would work just fine.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Jellybob]

Hmmm... I tend to drink my coffee in a mug.

I've always been a strange child though ;)

Re:DOes it work ?

[indead]

Even if the system somehow knows exactly how much the road curves in front of you (which I doubt unless the road has transmitters or other indicators)

Couldn't it gauge this very simply by taking into account input from the steering wheel?

Re:DOes it work ?

[indead]

If you had turned your emergency blinkers on - like it says to do in most, if not all driving manuals in case of an emergency - then you would have been fine, everyone would have just gotten out of your way.

It's a shame your daughter had to die because of your ignorance.

Re:DOes it work ?

[whatch durrin]

Mod me down also if you like, but Clockwork has a point here.

Several years ago, I thought my driving skills were quite adequate. I went way too fast in bad conditions and other nonsense...I seemed to know the "limits" of my vehicle.

The limits get shifted, however, when some asswipe decides they want to do something stupid...like thinking their car is "designed to slide." In this situation, the rules get redefined for other people on the road with them.

Something that changed my outlook on my driving skills was having a head-on collision with someone that jumped the center rail over to my side of a major interstate highway. Let's just say I'm lucky to be sitting here typing today. My car had no ABS, or even an airbag. With either/both of these systems, I probably would have spent much less time in the hospital, and possibly walked away from the accident.

As a driver today, I don't follow too close, slow down in bad conditions, take a break when I'm tired, etc. The "other guy" is more often than not the problem, and driving conservatively and defensively is the best way to avoid him.

But when the other guy thinks his car is "designed to slide" and that he can handle it in "quite a controlled fashion," it adds alot of uncertainty and danger to the situation.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Alan Partridge]

"You are a troll."

He's still winning the argument, though, So what does that make you?

Re:DOes it work ?

[rworne]

I drive both an Auto and a Manual. The manual is not a problem at all in the city. In fact, it is considerably more fun.

It only becomes a hassle when traffic is stop and go from 0-4MPH then back to 0. Or to state it another way, advancing one car length at a time. Spend about 10-15 minutes in this and you and your clutch will be hating life.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Alan Partridge]

8 years IS a decade to my fuzzy-logical way of thinking.

Anyway, British Cavaliers (actually an Opel Vectra, of course) were terrible cars, so I can hardly imagine how shitty the US Cavalier was/is. Actually, I just have to ask my dad, who says things like "6.75 litres, 147hp - does that sound efficient to you?" in reply to any enquiry of mine on American cars.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Exedore]

"6.75 litres, 147hp - does that sound efficient to you?" in reply to any enquiry of mine on American cars.

No, it does not sound efficient. It sounds so unbelievably crappy that I have a difficult time beleiving it. Granted, American cars still somewhat lag behind Japanese and European nameplates in the efficiency and build quality areas, but not by that much. The U.S. Cavalier (2003 model) generates 140hp from its 2.2 liter engine... not bad power for that displacement. It gets about 25 mpg in the city, 33 mpg highway. Doesn't sound terribly inneficient to me. That said, it's still one of the crappier American cars you can find... cheap materials and horrendous build quality by all accounts.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Alan Partridge]

Michael Schumacher was faster with traction control, he just enjoyed it less.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Fastolfe]

What is with all of these pessimistic attitudes?

Can we please concede the possibility that car manufacturers will overcome some of the most basic issues you address before putting this into their cars? Nobody is going to drive a car that averages one accident a week. Think about this.

What about snow, mud, gravel (insert low traction condition here)?

If you are driving in conditions that light braking will send your car out of control, and the car is unable to detect and respond to this through other mechanisms (steering control, skid control, ABS, whatever), you are already fucked.

What if you're being tailgated?

I might accept this as an exceptional case. But even so, the light braking that this device does shouldn't be sufficient to cause a tailgater to crash into you. And even if it does, it's his fault. Chances are, if this system is activated and decides to apply some brakes, you're already in a high-risk situation (imminent accident) where this additional risk is probably acceptable.

But given that we have so little information about how these devices make their decisions, this is all possible perceived problems and conjecture pulled from our collective asses, yes?

What if you're across from someone in a left turn lane?

I would be shocked if this common situation were not addressed before this device is rolled out.

What if you're speeding up to try an avoid an accident?

What if the technology noticed this?

What if the system malfunctions?

What if ABS malfunctions? What if dynamic steering or skid control malfunctions? Which technology poses the greater risk here in the event of malfunction?

What if a bird flys in front of your car?

The radar profile of a bird (size, speed, likelyhood of collision) is probably significantly different than a large obstacle or a car. I wouldn't be surprised if a bird was ignored entirely. Even if it wasn't, there would be a tiny fraction of a second where the computer would like to see you slow down a bit. That might not be enough time for it to actually act on that. *shrug*

What if you're making a sharp turn, and any braking will cause you to loose control?

Again, I would honestly believe that a car manufacturer would look at these scenarios and come up with something that does not kill its passengers so easily. Additionally, most cars have features nowadays that will compensate for such actions. If it feels the car losing control, it will adjust your braking power or steering to compensate. So the logic is there. How well it integrates with some feature like this (by reducing or eliminating the braking, for example) isn't something I can speak to.

As smart as you think you are, please consider the likelyhood that the people designing these things might understand the issues better than you.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally speaking, I am surprised to see how negative Slashdotters are to new technology, especially before knowing much about how it works.

Many slashdotters are programmers who add the bugs to the code and make things like this fail...

Re:DOes it work ?

[bascheew]

I don't know about everyone else, but I only use cruise control on the highway when I'm traveling 70+ mph. If I'm traveling at that speed on any particular highway then there had better not be any sharp curves!

Both curve radius and elevation are taken into account when determining speed limit. Here's a calculator. So this alone should make tracking a vehicle in front of you a bit easier.

Re:DOes it work ?

[zCyl]

4. The semi-truck is tailgating you. See #2 and if you have an automatic downshifitng is not much of an option so you still have to slow down. If you crash into the car the semi truck will still run over you.

So when you are crushed completely by the semi-truck and die instantly you will complain to St. Peter that it was the semi-truck which was responsible, not you.

1, 2, 3, 5

I already know how to drive and avoid these situations, and since I have a human brain capable of parallel processing, I can effectively use the entirety of information available to determine the appropriate maneuver to survive the event. Having my decision overridden by a machine which knows less than me is just plain silly. I have no problem with a beeping light on the dashboard, sometimes humans get groggy.

In general we are fairly efficient image processors, better than anything we will be able to build for at least a decade or three.

Re:DOes it work ?

[theLOUDroom]

Honda engineers discover that an oncoming car in a right curve that appears out of "nowhere" (from around the side of the mountain" causes the device to activate unnecissarily. Solution? There are lots of possible solutions. Is the vehicle approaching you at greater than your own speed? If so, it's oncoming traffic, and automatic braking is an inappropriate response (though a warning light/buzzer -may- be.)

Still would workn't. The problem is much more diffcult than you think. What if that oncoming traffic is actually in the wrong lane, head right for you?

Simply put, the computer does not have enough information to make reasonable decisions, even if the software was smart enough to. Try to put yourself in the computers shoes:

All of a sudden you're in the driver's seat of a car. It's a dark and rainy night. Your headlights don't work, so you don't know anything but where other cars are. You can't hear anything. All your windows are painted black. You have 6" tube that you use to see forwards. Every car's brake lights and turn signals don't work, so you have to wait until you can see the cars slowing down or heading towards you, before you know that they are. All the lights on the cars are the same color, so you have a really tough time telling the front from the back.

The System just does not have enough information to make good decisions. Can you see just how pooly informed a computer would be of the state of the world around you now?

The system should beep loud if it thinks there's trouble. That's it. It's nowhere near good enough to make inportant decisions like applying the brakes.


I'm not saying that we shouldn't expect stringent and rigorous development and testing of such systems, but I find it a bit disingenuous to question the ability of such a system to work successfully because one can imagine scenarios where it wouldn't work.

What? That's exactly why one should question the ability of any system to work. There are reasons cars don't decide when to turn, go and stop on their own: Those decisions are really hard.

You airbag example just doesn't even compare. An airbag system is really simple: "Is the car deccelerating faster than it ever could on it's own (or being crushed), if so set off the air bag." Heck, if you wanted to be really ghetto, you could just put a switch on the bumper and wire it right to the airbag. No computer necessary.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your analysis is a bit of an oversimplification. While ABS does prevent skids due to locking up the brakes, it's not a magic system that prevents every kind of loss of traction in all situations. ABS can do a great job of preventing skids due to overbraking, which means that the bottom surface of the wheel is no longer moving as fast as the car. This is great if you are travelling in a straight line, because the only reason for a skid is if the wheels slow down too quickly.

Cornering is a whole different story. In cornering, the force is not front and back but instead is lateral. Here, a skid happens when the car crosses a certain threshold: the point where the grip of the tire (force due to friction) can no longer match the force due to the lateral component of the car's acceleration. I contend that when swerving, at least in my (real) experience of swerving to avoid an accident, an experienced driver familiar with his car will operate very near that threshold. The problem with braking is that it increases the total force on the tire. There is only a certain amount of grip that the tire can deliver. There is no such thing as separate braking grip and cornering grip because there is just one patch of rubber in contact with the road. The point is that the extra force on the tire due to braking will change the direction and increase the magnitude of the force vector, and that can cause it to go over the threshold (magnitude of the vector) and start to slide.

Now, you may say that ABS will still not cause a skid, because it's designed to prevent skids. The trouble is that ABS doesn't prevent skids. ABS lets the braking torque increase until the tire slides for a split second, and then it very quickly reduces braking torque. When travelling straight, this is no problem because the tire is very light and the forward motion of the car will easily cause it to start spinning again. And when travelling forward, spinning again translates to having grip again.

But when most of your force is lateral instead (as when swerving hard and braking little), it is a whole different story. Once your tire has begun to skid, you have left the realm of static friction and have entered the world of dynamic friction. A sliding tire has less grip than one that is not sliding. (This is the whole reason for ABS -- if it were the other way around, the quickest way to stop would be to lock up the brakes.) What this means for swerving is that, once you've crossed the threshold and the car is exerting more force on the tires than the grip can offset, you're just going to start sliding sideways. The ABS can reduce the torque of the brakes all it wants, but since a LARGE component of the force isn't in that direction anyway, it doesn't help nearly as much.

All of this is a long-winded way of saying that, should the driver make the decision to swerve hard (instead of braking) and should the car come near the limits of its lateral acceleration, any brake action at all -- and ABS is not immune -- is going to significantly increase your chances of sliding sideways. Even if you can regain control of the car, or even if you don't totally lose control, you'll still wind up making a more gradual turn than desired, meaning you may hit what you could otherwise have avoided.

To quickly address another point: yes, braking does decrease your speed and decreased speed allows you to turn more sharply. But, applying the brakes while turning decreases your ability to turn sharply because of the increased force on wheels that are already very near maximum grip. You can brake beforehand, but while you are braking, you will be travelling forward and eating up some of the distance you could be using for turning. It's possible a combination of braking and turning is optimal, but it's non-obvious what the right balance is!

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

better yet, had you dialed 911 and had an ambulence take your daughter to the hospital chances are she would still be alive. Thats why they have red and white flashy lights and are called "emergency vehicles".

Maybe next time you will know better.

Re:DOes it work ?

[netsharc]

Sounds like you need James Bond's BMW, the one with the Stinger misilles.

A trick I learnt to fend off tailgaters; you can just turn on your lights and then off quickly, because the taillight share the same housing as the brakelights, it should be enough to cause panic to a guy moving at a high speed behind you. The brake light mounted on the back window doesn't light up, of course, but I guess seeing the main "brake" lights light up is enough of a distraction so that said jackass wouldn't be worrying why your third brake light didn't light up.

Re:DOes it work ?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

1. If he steps on the gas, then you are not approaching his car at a high rate are you? Why would the system go off?

2. I'm sure the system can tell the difference between a cat and a car, even if they are spelt similar. I'm also sure it takes surface conditions into account.

3. One would think that this system can dectect the rate of the object that it thinks could be a problem, else the entire system would be useless. Do you not think they would take this into account when designing it?

4. Unless he is descerating quickly, which means you may hit him (and get rear-ended by the semi, to), then I don't think it would go off. Do you not think they would take this into account?

Honda have been designing cars for a while you know. They didn't just pick up some geek from slashdot who thinks he knows what he's talking about, and assumes too much about something before he even has a full understanding of it ;)

Re:DOes it work ?

[theLOUDroom]

As smart as you think you are, please consider the likelyhood that the people designing these things might understand the issues better than you.

Dumbass. Yeah, I must be stupid for actually understanding the limits of today's technology. You clearly don't. I'm only sitting in an office with 3 other engineers at a company whose business is sensors and radar. It's not pessimism, it's realism. Would you believe me if it told you I could build a warp drive? To someone who actually understands the issue, they realize that any system like this being used on a real road is a long ways away.

If you are driving in conditions that light braking will send your car out of control, and the car is unable to detect and respond to this through other mechanisms (steering control, skid control, ABS, whatever), you are already fucked.
Spoken like someone who doesn't understand how to drive in the snow.

The radar profile of a bird (size, speed, likelyhood of collision) is probably significantly different than a large obstacle or a car. I wouldn't be surprised if a bird was ignored entirely. Even if it wasn't, there would be a tiny fraction of a second where the computer would like to see you slow down a bit. That might not be enough time for it to actually act on that. *shrug*

Way to not have any idea what you're talking about. Do you really think this car has a radar capable of determining positions in 3-d? Or even 2-d? The only info this system would have, would be the range, and amplitude of the reflection. That's it.

As I posted in another message:

Simply put, the computer does not have enough information to make reasonable decisions, even if the software was smart enough to. Try to put yourself in the computers shoes:

All of a sudden you're in the driver's seat of a car. It's a dark and rainy night. Your headlights don't work, so you don't know anything but where other cars are. You can't hear anything. All your windows are painted black. You have 6" tube that you use to see forwards. Every car's brake lights and turn signals don't work, so you have to wait until you can see the cars slowing down or heading towards you, before you know that they are. All the lights on the cars are the same color, so you have a really tough time telling the front from the back.

Re:DOes it work ?

[klmth]

Well, that certainly is true if you think of the pedals in your car as speed controls, which they aren't.
"It's amazing how many people, even on Formula 1 level, think that brakes are for slowing the car down" --Mario Andretti

As any high performance driving instructor will tell you, the pedals do not adjust speed. Instead, the three pedals are mechanical controls which do the following:
-connect the engine to the transmission system
-decrease the rotational speed of the wheels
-increase fuel intake

Now, the difference between slowing down and decreasing the rotational speed of a tyre is profound. If you consider the brake merely to be a method of slowing the car down instead of being a control in its own right, you immediately throw several driving techniques right out the window, including trail-braking, left-foot braking, pendulum turns, U-turns etc.

Re:DOes it work ?

[plone]

You gotta be shitting me. Where did you get that formula from, Fight Club? Unless you think that the big 3 are in cahoots with the Illuminati, there is no chance that such a formula has not been exposed by a whistle blower yet.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's there to expose? Everybody KNOWS this is the formula.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Richy_T]

I liked my Mk II. Of course, it did have a terrible flaw whereby the insulation on the firewall trapped water and caused the whole thing to rust away. Other than that though, I was very pleased with the car while I had it.

Rich

Re:DOes it work ?

[Richy_T]

Yes, I was referring to the build (and design) quality rather than anything to do with the engine.

Rich

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think there is a remote possiblity the auto industry or just Honda for that matter - hasn't tested this? Do you think they maybe forgot to test corners? I am quite sure it works better than you think.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Blinkers, horn honking, fuck I even tried high beams (didn't help much being 5:30pm).

He was stuck in his own world.

He writes us letters every so often telling us how that day changed him. That's nice, it changed us too.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

better yet, had you dialed 911 and had an ambulence take your daughter to the hospital chances are she would still be alive. Thats why they have red and white flashy lights and are called "emergency vehicles".

She was stung by a bee that flew into the car. Somehow, parking on the side of the highway, dialing 911 and waiting for an ambulance didn't occur to us.

Do you honestly think I haven't run through every possible action I could have taken that day?

Re:DOes it work ?

[vladkrupin]

So when you are crushed completely by the semi-truck and die instantly you will complain to St. Peter that it was the semi-truck which was responsible, not you.

Nah, not really. It's the other guy's fault (the guy next to you who was merging/drifting into your lane - read the original comment). You guys seem to have missed that.

The semi truck is there just so you know that you can't slow down to let the guy next to you merge into your lane. In fact, in that case I'd rather be hit from the side than rear-ended by a semi truck (I was rear-ended by a fully loaded garbage truck, and, believe me, it ain't fun!). You have to accelerate. And, yes, if you don't have stick-shift, the only option is to step on gas - that's fine. The thing I really DO NOT want to happen is my car stepping on brakes while I am stepping on gas. That'd just plain suck.

Yes, I know, I am a luddite to an extent, and don't trust any sufficiently advanced technology. In fact, I still feel uneasy about antilock brakes. Yet I realize that they do provide some invaluable service. Same with this concept. I think the idea is great, especially when it helps you in situations that catch you off-guard, e.g. you get distracted or something like that. The part that I don't like is that it CONTROLS MY BRAKES and I don't like that. Things that you depend on for safety MUST be as simple as possible. Complexity increases points of failure. That's why we keep important things simple.

Consider a few examples. Steering in you car is about as straight-forward as it gets (minus the power steering that is optional, and, even if it fails, you can still control the car, albeit performance is degraded. Brakes are rather simple (power brake and ABS stuff just don't help when they fail, but they don't hurt either). The same merit should be used for anything that alters the speed/direction of your car without your involvement. Otherwise you may just as well drive a ship from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy that gets to decide if it is in a good enough mood to follow your commands.

If that device was purely informative, and didn't take any action, then I have no problem with it, even if it's slightly annoying. For instance, my car has a small light that says "shift up" that lights up every time the engine gets close to 3000 RPM with little load. Yes, it's annoying at times - I can figure out myself when to shift, thank you very much. Yet, it did remind me to shift from fourth to fifth gear a few times, and it does not compromise my safety. While I felt like disconnecting the thing a few times, I never had a reason to actually do it. If I buy a car with a radar like that, it'd better have an option to disable it (like the passenger-side airbags in some cars).

Re:DOes it work ?

[Suidae]

This is a huge deal if you happen to have seen the problem 125m ahead and are taking evasive action other than braking, for example changing lanes or even swerving. The slightest braking during a sharp direction change can throw your car into a skid.

What makes you think that expert car designers would be so dense as to not check the steering angle, break pressure and possibly current vehicle accelerations before mucking around with the controls?

This system probably never engages below a certain speed, if the breaks are already applied, if the steering angle is over a few degrees, and probably under many other conditions we couldn't even speculate about without knowing a hell of a lot more about designing Honda's. This is likely a device that activates only under the carefully selected conditions under which the designers have decided that it would be safe to use (e.g. neutral steering angle, constant speed over the past n minutes etc).

Re:DOes it work ?

[Omerna]

I don't know all that much about flying, but:

1) Fly enough and some stuff has to be instinctive... most of the pilots airlines have on their payrolls are retired Navy/ Airforce pilots. Phenomenal pilots with thousands of hours of experience. I'd hope they can react to most emergency situations correctly and instantly. (Read "The Right Stuff" by Tom Wolfe).

2) My best guess for the time it takes my hand to move 2.5 feet is between .1 and .2 seconds. That leaves you over a second to decide the turbine has to be shut off. Given enough time in an aircraft I have confidence a pilot would make the correct decision quickly enough to save the plane.

Re:DOes it work ?

[chaboud]

It was my assumption that this was intended for people who were asleep.

Do the best drivers beat ABS in absolute stopping distance on a flat surface?

Rarely.

ABS is generally not as useful as manual braking in dry race conditions because of the inability of ABS to determine desired dynamic behavior. Controlled slip can be extremely beneficial in race conditions, as it can allow the driver to rotate the car more effectively (trail braking). Don't mistake this for stopping ability. A multi-channel braking system can keep each wheel at maximum static adhesion (just a bit past it can be beneficial), making for absurdly short braking distances. The best race drivers make use of left-foot braking, which allows them to apply power to one set of wheels while braking, effectively acting as a brake balance controller. Though four-way manual braking systems have been attempted, I have yet to see one serve a driver effectively.

Rain is a completely different story. Touring car races in the rain are won by the cars with ABS. Just watch the TVR Tuscan series to see what happens to fairly skilled drivers without traction control or ABS. When the winner of the race has spun off of the track multiple times, that's racing!

Re:DOes it work ?

[ColaMan]

That's fine , but when you downshift, your brake lights don't come on and a person daydreaming behind you will tend to rear-end you real quick.

Re:DOes it work ?

[oh]

1. Some dork cuts you off on the freeway and steps on gas. You don't want or need to break even though the idiot is only 20 feet in front of you..

Umm, in that situation you should be breaking. It is trivial for a computer to work out "object 20ft ahead, relative speed +10mph, impact in XX milliseconds" and decide what is a safe distance, and then slow down until you reach that distance. After all, that car pulled in front of you, how do you know some other person isn't going to pull in front of him, but this time forcing him to hit the brakes.

2. Wet pavement, your friend is tail-gating you. Now you neighbourâ(TM)s cat runs across the street. You would rather run over the stupid thing (and remove stupidity from the gene pool as an added benefit) than get rear-ended by your friend.

If any "friend" were tail-gating me I would be slowing down (to a walking pace) until they get off my arse. Besides, would a cat be large enough to trigger this? The other scenario is if a person steps out. In a poorly lit street the radar could possibly detect a person waring dark clothing before you could. I donâ(TM)t want a car accident, but Iâ(TM)d rather be in one then run another person down.

3. You are merging into a tight spot on the freeway. If you push the breaks, you are likely to "clip" the car in front of which you are trying to merge.

If you are merging at a safe speed then this won't be a worry. This thing will have relative speed to work on, not just distance. From that it could easily calculate "time to impact". If you are pushing into a space at a speed that means you would hit in half a second you are an idiot and an accident waiting to happen. What is your reaction time? 120ms? 240ms? thatâ(TM)s not including the time it takes to actually slow down.

4. Some dork didn't bother looking when merging/fell asleep/whatever-else and is drifting into your lane on the freeway. Behind you is a semi truck. The only way (besides honking) to avoid a collision is to downshift into second gear and step on gas even though the car in front of you is closer than 300 feet.

Umm, wtf? If a car pulls in front of you it will start to slow down. You point your nose into another lane and the car is no longer in front of you. Now you can step on the gas all you like.

5. Your example of the left-lane turn is very good too. It's a classic "looks like a head-on" scenario.

Again, time to impact. If you are turning across traffic (remember that Japan drives on the left) hopefully you are doing so at a reasonable speed, and slowing down to boot.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You used cruise control in an emergency situation.

That says enough about how believable your story is, or how it's partly your fault for killing your daughter.

Re:DOes it work ?

[alienw]

Doppler shift is used by RADAR (as in "radio"). Measuring the wavelength of a radio signal is easy. It's almost impossible to do with lasers.

Re:DOes it work ?

[oh]

Maybe the car should have a radar at the back as well, taking into account what will happen if it suddenly brakes. A predictive system should probably turn on the brake lights (although no actual braking is taking place) just in case it really needs to break soon right after.

While rearwards facing sensor might be usefull, it does worry me.

I am not responcible for keeping a safe distance from the person behind . I should be able to stop suddenly with know warning, and if they hit me its their fault for not allowing for that. Think about a situation where you suddely lose vision (the windshield smashes etc). I am going to stop as quickly as possible while trying to keep in my lane. If some one rams up the back of my it is their fault. While I'm not one of those stupid idiots that think "its not my fault so I'll just let them run into me" what would happen if I ram into $500,000 car because my car didn't want to break because their was a $2,000 old car sitting too close behind me.

Owen.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Fastolfe]

Dumbass.

Let the record show that you're the one that started name-calling here, not me.

Yeah, I must be stupid for actually understanding the limits of today's technology.

You don't appear to, or perhaps you are misunderstanding how that technology is being applied in this situation.

You clearly don't

Whatever, man. The bottom line is that you do not have the specifics here and are pulling shit out of your ass as a result. You may label it highly educated, RADAR engineer shit, but it's still shit. I asked you to consider the possibility that they've done what they claim to have done, and you've rejected that. Sounds pretty closed-minded to me.

Spoken like someone who doesn't understand how to drive in the snow.

I learned to drive in a Ford Escort in the dead of winter in Anchorage, Alaska. Here again, you are armed with no knowledge of something and pull more shit out of your ass.

Driving on a sheet of ice, one can indeed safely apply brakes to slow down. In the event you apply them too hard, additional technology such as skid prevention would step in to prevent my braking from causing me to lose control. How do I know this? Because I have done it.

Are you just unaware of these technologies? Perhaps that's why this "next step" into the world of RADAR seems so strange and impossible to you. It doesn't sound like you've fully come to terms with the stuff that's already out there.

The only info this system would have, would be the range, and amplitude of the reflection. That's it.

Even with one dimension and 16 degrees of arc (from which I might argue a two-dimensional view might be obtained, but since I have no specifics we can just assume it's a single range measurement covering an area of 16 degrees), an image zipping in and out of its field of view still looks considerably different than a car in your lane in front of you (that's probably been there for more than a few seconds). Remember that this thing is intended to prevent rear-end collisions, not random collisions with any object in the road or passing in front of you. Even with a simple/dumb range finder, it's pretty easy to see when the car in front of you is slowing down or stopping suddenly as opposed to seeing a bird or some other object move in front of it.

But still (and again), please consider the possibility that the people developing these technologies might have someone on staff that could come up with these scenarios just as easily as you could.

Let me repeat myself: Car manufacturers are not going to add technology to a car that will cause it to have an accident once a week.

I simply don't understand how you are coming back to the conclusion that what they're doing is impossible. THEY'VE DONE IT! This has been in testing for years. I sincerely doubt you've driven in one of these things or been given a demonstration of the technology or the behaviors that govern its actions. Again, please consider the possibility that your concerns have been addressed and stop going off about how much you know about RADAR and how they must be lying. This whole thread is incredibly silly and you're really starting to look like an ass.

P.S., if this piece of tech has already got you believing Honda is in some fantasy land, note that this model also has image recognition software designed to make small corrections to help keep a vehicle in its lane on the highway. Feel free to say this is impossible as well.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was not using cruise control but Ray wanted to "teach us a lesson" about being too close to his car.

Re:DOes it work ?

[theLOUDroom]

You're missing my point. Yeah things like this have been made to work under controlled conditions, but that doesn't mean they're anywhere close to ready for the prime time.

Sure you can write software that tries to follow a line, but will it be safe?

The point is this safety technology is not safe. I never claimed they didn't do what they said, I'm just trying to bring some sense to this discussion. This tech, as developed, should not be used in the real world. I think it would be great to have something like this that beeps, but allowing it to hit the brakes is crazy. The safety margin is not there, and I think the concept itself is flawed.

As for driving on the snow, the last thing you want is for something to unexpectedly slam on the brakes, period. ABS and traction control might help, but having your vehicle do sudden, unexpected things if definately bad. Consider you're driving on ice:
You're going around a corner, on the edge of loosing traction (maybe you didn't see the ice), suddenly this system kicks in, your wheels start skid and you're in the ditch, even with abs. ABS and traction control can be helpful, but they also behave in very predictible ways, they make sense. I know they exist, and I think they're decent ideas. Did you really think I've never heard of ABS?

Not every idea is a good one. Some are obviously bad, and some have to be examined more closely. Think about this one more.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I read an article on this in a newspaper here a few weeks ago. I think the summary posted here may be a bit mesleading. Basically, in the article I read, the radar was used to detect the closing distance (and rate of) between your car and the car in front. If it detected that a collision was imminant it would warn the driver and pre-tension the seat belts, as well as applying a _small_ amount of braking. Once the driver hits the brakes full braking power (including ABS, etc.) is applied, regardless of the amount of braking power applied by the driver. This was my understanding anyway.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

ah, c'mon.....

You know you want a new car now, don't lie. ;P

Re:DOes it work ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not against new technology, but this is a car we are talking about.

If I'm putting my life behind a 4,000lb steel/fibreglas/plastic lump, I want to know I have 100% control over how it behaves.

Anti-lock brakes...no, my standard brakes are fine, I can still stop better then the guys with em.

Traction control, Bah! people have been climbing dirt-road hills for years on 2wd trucks...with NO traction control.

Automatic transmissions, I do see some good in them (no learning curve, less kids rolling back into folks at uphill intersections), but it's still no replacement for a good stick. Have a shift sensor go out, and you'll see what i mean.

Power steering is about the only one I actually like, it doesn't try to do anything for you, it's more or less an assist. Same goes for power brakes, it doesn't brake for you, it just assists you with pressing the pedal down.

Tightening the seatbelt is just stupid, ok your gonna wreck, so we are going to keep you from moving your shoulders, therefore negatively affecting steering ability....so now you are more likely to wreck...I'm not impressed.

My opinion in a nutshell: Technology assisting = good Technology taking over tasks for us in the car = bad

Re:DOes it work ?

[dargaud]

> when that guy crashes into the stopped car in front of him, coming to an almost instant stop, you're screwed

Well, I was in that car in front of him, so that doesn't apply to me, does it ? BTW, that sucked for a honeymoon ending :-(

More (?) seriously, another drawback of that system is that the radar is on the front of the car. Your eyes are much higher. If there's a stopped car / big rock behind a hill, your eyes will see it a lot before the radar.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Valdez]

Illegal to interfere with the driver's control? What? My new car (and many newer cars on the market) have rear wheel traction control or vehical skid control.

My traction control keeps the rear wheels (in a rwd vehicle) from ever breaking traction. You can power brake it and then stomp it from a light in first gear and the rear wheels will not spin... the system senses the wheels are losing traction and uses a limited rear diff to reapply power, the tranny to limit the power making it to the rear wheels, and the rear brakes (independantly) to slow a wheel until it grabs again. When TRAC is kicking in (flooring it around a tight corner, etc) my engine will redline but the power won't go to the rear wheels, because if it did they'd lose traction and the rear would swing on you.

The Vehicle Skid Control tries to keep any of the tires from losing traction during turning manuevers. I can take her into a corner way too fast, but the wheels will not lose traction. The computer uses accellerometers at each wheel, the steering wheel, and the car's Center of Gravity, and is plugged into the steering system and speed sensor to determine current intended direction of travel. If the car begins to not go in that direction, it will independantly brake each wheel and apply/limit HP to the drivetrain as needed to ensure you don't go skidding straight through the corner.

These are two very common examples of good technology which limits or takes control of the vehical from the driver in extreme situations. I don't mind having either in my car... They're not illegal. They're Good Ideas(tm)

Re:DOes it work ?

[danheskett]

Given enough time in an aircraft I have confidence a pilot would make the correct decision quickly enough
I've got to disagree. Strongly. I've flown planes, again smaller planes, but there simply isn't time. Even with thousands of hours there is too much data to sense, recognize, plan and carry out a corrective action in many many cases.

Re:DOes it work ?

[drsmithy]

Now the highway turns sharply to the right.

In my part of the world, "six lane highways" don't make sharp turns. They also have centre barriers.

I'd find it hard to believa *any* civil engineeir would make a six lane highway with turns in it that could be described as "sharp".

Even if the system somehow knows exactly how much the road curves in front of you (which I doubt unless the road has transmitters or other indicators) [...].

All the system has to do is have a look at how far the steering wheel is turned.

Police radar cannot distinguish between two cars that are one behind the other.

Which is precisely why police are moving to LASER-ranging devices.

Re:DOes it work ?

[2short]

What would they blow the whistle on? He phrased the equation a bit bluntly, but this is obviously how companies do it. It's even probaly how they should do it. Just consider "cost of lawsuits" to be a pretty good rough mesure of "significance of problem". To make up some random numbers: If you find that a certain part will fail during the lifetime of the car in one out of every 10,000 cars, and have a 0.01% chance of causing an accident if it does, do you do a recall? You've got to draw the line somewhere; it's impossible to make the car entirely foolproof (and you'll drive the price of the car out of anyones range before you even get close.)

Re:DOes it work ?

[Twylite]

Non-interference with drivers is not nonsense. You can't simply lean over and turn the steering wheel, fiddle with the indicator, or generally make any adjustment to the controls.

Now I will readily admit that there is a fine line between "assistance" and "interference". A very fine line. I would say (a first attempt) that the distinction is that interference takes a decision on behalf of the driver, reducing or eliminating the driver's choice and control.

ABS, for example, could only be seen to do this if you are intending to skid. As a driver you don't expect the brakes to lock or the car to skid (as in, its not the behavioural requirement of braking), so ABS makes the car do what you expect.

Compare this to an aircraft (like a 747). Automated systems make hundreds of tiny modifications every minute, like the foils on the wing that keep the aircraft stable. But these are not systems that override the pilot's control -- they simply make the plane behave as the pilot expects. There are (completely separate) systems in many leading aircraft that can override the pilot (for better or worse).

When a car decides to break or change direction without me prompting it to do so, I have a problem. This means a machine with distinctly less input and decision making capacity at a macro level is taking the decisions.

Did the car consider the following distance of the car behind me? Did it consider the fact that I could swerve; or if it decides to swerve that there is a 4-way intersection with oncoming traffic that isn't (yet) "visible" to it? This Honda doesn't appear to be any where near this invasive, but its not difficult to believe that we will get there.

Re:DOes it work ?

[I. M. Bur]

As for driving on the snow, the last thing you want is for something to unexpectedly slam on the brakes, period.

Nobody said anything about *slamming* the brakes. It says that the car slowly starts to brake to reduce the speed of impact. It states that the car is even forbidden to stop entirely, which means there is no way it will hit the brake as hard as it can. And guess what: breaking slowly is exactly what you need in winter conditions.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Sherloqq]

Generally speaking, I am surprised to see how negative Slashdotters are to new technology, especially before knowing much about how it works.

I don't think it's being negative. We're being suspicious /precisely/ because of not knowing how it works. A lot of us are programmers. A lot of us are sysadmins. Some are both. Some of us have previously had to design automatons and know that there can't be an eventuality in the system that isn't accounted for, otherwise the system might enter a condition in which its behavior would be undetermined and might not recover. We don't know what side-effects that might introduce. We do know, though, that such systems are not easy to design, and not knowing all the details of the system we have the right to be suspicious, IMHO.

You can be sure of one thing, though -- I won't be in the first, or even the second wave of people trying out that technology, or any other technology, for that matter, that either puts my life at risk or is expensive. Heck, I'm driving my fifth car now but first one with ABS, and I'm not all that convinced that I like it. There are times I wish I could disable it, but I don't know how the car would react to me pulling the ABS relay / fuse out, and I don't want to find out first-hand.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Fastolfe]

Yeah things like this have been made to work under controlled conditions,

What are you talking about? These technologies (not this one, but similar ones) are in my car right now and occasionally I enter less-than-controlled conditions. Hydroplaning and other less-than-optimal road conditions are common and that's what some of these technologies are there for.

AGAIN: Car manufacturers are not going to add a "safety" feature that causes more accidents than it prevents. Based on your posts, I have to believe that this is what you think.

Sure you can write software that tries to follow a line, but will it be safe?

If implemented correctly, yes. If it applies minor adjustments to compensate for a slow drift, yes, I believe this can be used safely. A system like this would not have the ability to spin the steering wheel around to the right and slam you into the car next to you.

The point is this safety technology is not safe.

And I submit to you that it is (and will be) safe. If statistics get published that indicate these features cause 10 times the accidents they would otherwise prevent, I think someone would have an awful lot of explaining to do.

but allowing it to hit the brakes is crazy.

Some higher-end cars automatically decellerate when they detect a critical engine problem. They've been doing this for years. Maybe car manufacturers have found out how to do this safely already?

the last thing you want is for something to unexpectedly slam on the brakes, period.

Who said anything about slamming on the brakes? You're exaggerating to try and make your point valid. This device lightly applies brakes. Yes, I suppose in a frictionless environment, your wheels will (arguably, given things like traction control) cease to maintain traction on the road. But are you worse off at this point? If lightly hitting the brakes is enough to do this, how would you have avoided the car in front of you anyway?

What's frustrating to me is that you're not even willing to accept that Honda has thought of these situations. Do you believe that your experience with RADAR makes you more qualified to speak about these technologies than the guys actively developing it? Honda has a bit of an interest in keeping its drivers alive. I'm perfectly willing to concede that implementing something like this is going to be tricky. But I'm also going to trust that Honda has thought of all of the ways that this could be dangerous and has built something that addresses most (if not all) of those concerns. An on/off button that could be used in adverse conditions should satisfy a lot of these concerns right up front. The next time I'm following a line of cars across a frozen lake, I might want to turn this off. (Actually, I probably wouldn't, since this device, in combination with traction control, could still likely do a better job than I could if I'm not paying attention to the point where this is activated.)

Perhaps you're right, in that there will be a 1% increase in accidents resulting from an unexpected activation of this device. But if this can reduce rear-end collisions by even 10%, wouldn't that be worth it? And if you don't think so, you should have the ability to turn this off (or not ask for it when you buy your next car).

I'm not asking you to say that this technology is safe, I'm just asking you to consider the possibility that Honda has thought of everything you've thought of here, and that your concerns have been addressed in some fashion.

Re:DOes it work ?

[indead]

Why didn't you just, you know, pass him? Or hit his car, that would have slowed him down.

Re:DOes it work ?

[theLOUDroom]

What are you talking about? These technologies (not this one, but similar ones) are in my car right now

You don't have radar or line following in your car right now (which is what we're talking about).

Do you believe that your experience with RADAR makes you more qualified to speak about these technologies than the guys actively developing it?

I believe that my grasp of technology allows me to state that this technology is not ready to be used on real roads any time soon. If you could ask these Honda engineers, they'd probably tell you the same thing. For some reason you have this crazy notion in your head that this system is finished and the only kinks to be worked out are minor.

You're being WAY too optimistic.

Re:DOes it work ?

[[Zappo]]

Well, that certainly is true if you think of the pedals in your car as speed controls, which they aren't. "It's amazing how many people, even on Formula 1 level, think that brakes are for slowing the car down" --Mario Andretti

The interface that *most* people use when they drive is exactly the simple one: speed up with the accellerator, slow down with the brakes, turn with the wheel (most people, I think, in fact have only two pedals in their cars). It is unreasonable to claim that these people have no business driving. Sure, they have no business driving on the Forumla 1 level, and they have no business trying any of the techniques you mentioned above. But, I think they have every right to use a car to go grocery shopping.

ABS and traction control make the car behave more the way most people expect it to behave. This is a good thing, not some evil dumbing-down that caters to people who should not be allowed behind a wheel. If you think you know what you're doing, then just drive a car that lets you disable those features.

Re:DOes it work ?

[netsharc]

Well, the parent post to mine was talking about what if the car was on the road, in front of a big 18-wheeler, when the front sensors sensed danger and decided to brake? The semi will roll over you. Sure, it was the semi driver's fault, but you're paying for it. But with a system that can see what's going on behind the car, there's less chance of that happening. Well, maybe they can build a radar that can see how big the car behind it is, but to judge the car's value, the human brain is still the best. :)

Re:DOes it work ?

[Rich0]

Sure, they have no business driving on the Forumla 1 level, and they have no business trying any of the techniques you mentioned above. But, I think they have every right to use a car to go grocery shopping.

I'd take this even a step further. Formula 1 is about pushing a tool beyond the limits at which it was designed to operate - in this case the car. Cars are designed to get you from point A to point B without needing rails, runways, schedules, etc. If my goal is to get from point A to point B which is really far away in a short amount of time, the proper tool is the plane. Cars are not designed to handle hairpin curves at 85mpg and straightaways at 250. This is why Formula 1 racing is fun - we can watch humans trying to compensate for machines which are well-engineered but operating at a task at which they are not adequate. The sport is designed to be inherently dangerous.

Except in professional racing the purpose of cars is not to drive for the sake of driving... Usually people are more concerned with getting to work or delivering something from point A to point B. The best interface would be one in which you just climb into a car, tell it where you want to be, and then take a nap. Better still would be an interface where you tell your house where you want to be and it automatically calls a taxi or tells you to get in your car and then takes you either directly to your destination or the most appropriate public transit in such a manner that you get from point A to point B in the most efficient manner possible. The car user should not have to be concerned with how the mechanics of the car operate - an engineer who knows a lot more about transimission than either of us should be the one designing the system to act correctly all the time.

I think that technology is at the point now where we could have driverless cars - if we were to ban non-driverless cars from the highway. We have GPS, and short-range radar/telecom. Cars can plot the best route from point A to point B, and keep in constant contact with the other cars around them. When a car wants to merge onto a highway the other cars would just automatically make a hole. Alternate merges would take palce seamlessly between three lanes on a curve at 65mph in a construction zone. They could detour around accident scenes (which would be immune from rubbernecking, and the aforementioned 3-lane to 1-lane alternate merge at high speed would mean the bottleneck would not be nearly as bad as it is now; not to mention that the automation would probably eliminate most sources of accidents). The only reason we need all the crazy AI in the car right now is to compensate for the car who is piloted by a driver who can't tell the computer exactly what he is planning on doing over the next 10 seconds. If everything were automated the AI doesn't need to figure out what that other car is up to - it would just ask it and get an answer in 10ms. Planes do it now - when two large jets detect a potential collision their onboard TCAS systems negotiate and give a climb order to one plane and a descend order to the other. The announcement is coupled with an urgency level (is this advisory, or do I need to drop everything and put us into a dive before we all die?). A recent mid-air collision involved a case where the air traffic controller gave incorrect guidance in avoiding the disaster - if they had followed the TCAS warnings no collision would have occured.

Re:DOes it work ?

[Fastolfe]

For some reason you have this crazy notion in your head that this system is finished and the only kinks to be worked out are minor.

The car went on sale in Japan yesterday. I sure hope it's finished.

Re:DOes it work ?

[zzub]

Just how sharply can a 6 lane highway turn anyway?

Perhaps a bigger issue would be how does it handle the knuckleheads who pull in between you and the car you are following. Does it jam on the brakes to re-establish your 2 second following distance?

The reduction in fatalities would end up a wash. Lives saved from traffic accidents would no doubt be lost due to road rage.

Re:DOes it work ?

[danheskett]

You of course have to slow down, but you dont have to take off the cruise control. Since you have some distance to work from take your cruise control and click it down three or four notches. It will be smooth and controlled, no braking or sudden movements needed.

That's the point of cruise control. It isnt a guarantee of speed.

Question is...

[jkrise]

Can I get one for Windows XP?? I'll need 2 secs to hit Save!

Whatever happened to Volvos being the safest?

[Brento]

I bought my C70 a couple of years ago based on Volvo's safety features. At the time, it was the safest sports car out there - whiplash protection seats, airbags all over the place, stability control, great brakes, etc. Today, the safety advances you hear aren't from Volvo - they're things like Mercedes-Benz brakes that dry themselves off in the wet, laser-based cruise control from Lexus, and now this radar-based braking from Honda. C'mon, Volvo. Get back in the race and make me proud.

Re:Whatever happened to Volvos being the safest?

[Gortbusters.org]

Do you have references for the quote "safest" car out there? If you pull up consumer reports many cars have had awesome safety reasons for years. Of course those little mazda convertibles look like death-traps to SUVs on the roads, but non-sports cars in general have had tons of safety features put into them.

I believe Volvo had superior marketing for a long time, such that it's become this social/cultural belief that Volvo = safe. Ask anyone what they think of when they think of safe car, they'll say Volvo. Personally, I say F-150 truck, but hey.. different strokes for different folks! ;)

Re:Whatever happened to Volvos being the safest?

[AlinuxNCSU]

If you recall, Volvo was purchased by Ford. I don't have anything against Ford (my family has owned three Tauruses), but they don't have the same reputation that Volvo had. It was at that point that Volvo's styling began to change, going from a less boxy style to the more consumer-friendly styles of today.

Since then, Volvo has shut down it's Swedish offices and moved headquarters to California. They have always had the reputation as safe and conservative in design, but Volvo is not the same company as before -- they are a Ford-owned American car company that uses the Volvo name. I won't pass complete judgement, not having followed Volvo's production for the past couple years, but I would venture to guess these basic facts have something to do with your complaint.

-ALinux

Re:Whatever happened to Volvos being the safest?

[Jens_UK]

Volvo has developed Roll Stability Control (RSC), which is the first application of normal stability and traction controls to avoid the potential for rollover.

Re:Whatever happened to Volvos being the safest?

[luugi]

Maybe Volvo doesn't have that technology because it's not safe yet.

Re:Whatever happened to Volvos being the safest?

[Brento]

since when has a volvo ever been considered a "sports car"?

The C70 does 0-60 in 6.8 seconds, for starters. Mine tops out around 135. It's one heck of a sports car.

Re:Whatever happened to Volvos being the safest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Volvo once was ahead of the competition in terms of safety. E.g. they were the first to introduce the safety belt. Safety is also a relative thing, make a car safer and people drive less careful. In addition, many cars only feel safe. Particularly those SUV's that are so popular in America. Fact is, SUVs are not that safe, just google for some car safety reports and you'll be surprised. In addition, those SUVs may have a flashy paint job, but their engines are generally a great example of poor engineering. Well, I suppose people get what they ask for.

Re:Whatever happened to Volvos being the safest?

[sedrikk]

Volvos are the safest to be in when you get in a crash. Survivability has always been highest in Volvos. That is their big safety advantage. They build tanks.

Re:Whatever happened to Volvos being the safest?

[Baikala]

HISTORICALLY, Volvo has put safety first and design later, and it's perceived by many people as safety oriented car company. Three point seat belts(patented in 1958), ABS brakes, airbags and crash absorbing structures, just to mention a few, were developed first by Volvo. R&D at Volvo has (or had until mid 90's at least) more car-safety patents (commercially applied) than any other car company.

That doesn't mean Volvo is the safety leader now but Volvo would certainly use its safety reputation in its advertising

Re:Whatever happened to Volvos being the safest?

[banzai51]

That's not a sports car. That's a Ford Escort.

Re:Whatever happened to Volvos being the safest?

[Politburo]

Actually, IIRC, Volvo closed its NJ-based USA office, and moved to California. There was an issue of Volvo Magazine which detailed their drive across the country.

If you view the addresses at volvo.com, and at volvocars.com, you'll see they still have an extremely large Swedish presence. In fact, they still have (201) phone numbers listed, so perhaps they have kept some of the NJ operation around as well.

Re:Whatever happened to Volvos being the safest?

[SoCalChris]

Mercedes have long been big on safety.

I have a 79 Mercedes that has 4 wheel antilock brakes. It was the world's first production car to offer them as an option (1979 Mercedes 450SEL6.9 - European spec only).

I had a 1973 Mercedes 450SE with 4 wheel disc brakes. Both the 1973 & 1979 Mercedes were designed to have a 10 ton load on the roof and still have the doors open easily. Imagine the safety things they've done in the 24 years since my car was built.

My point is that Volvo isn't the only extrememly safe car, they've just done the best job of marketing themselves that way.

Re:Whatever happened to Volvos being the safest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that'll really put a hurtin' on a Viper, Vette, DB7 , XK, or 911 in the quarter mile. Any of the above cars will do 0-60 in under 5 and the quarter mile in the low 13s. A C70 turns the quarter in low 15s. And you have a 2.4 liter engine. You do not own a sports car, but thanks for playing.

Re:Whatever happened to Volvos being the safest?

[Voytek]

Personally, I say F-150 truck, but hey.. different strokes for different folks! ;)
And you are very wrong:
http://www.leasetips.com/f150crashtest.htm is only the tip of the iceberg...

Re:Whatever happened to Volvos being the safest?

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC, Ford had a 1 channel (rear axle) anti-skid braking system available on 1976 model Thunderbirds, and later on Lincolns.

Re:Whatever happened to Volvos being the safest?

[operagost]

I'm not a Volvo fan, but a 6.8 sec 0-60 MPH time is quicker than average. No stock Escort ever went that fast, I assure you.

Re:Whatever happened to Volvos being the safest?

[cens0r]

Not to sink your boat or anything, but statistacly speaking Trucks are about the least safe cars you can drive. They come in right behind SUVS.

Re:Whatever happened to Volvos being the safest?

[Anonymous Coward]

No no...
0-60 miles per hour
Not kilometers.

Of course, that's my diesel VW, which trembles in the prospect of having to pass or race a Ford Escort.

Re:Whatever happened to Volvos being the safest?

[Brento]

Yeah, that'll really put a hurtin' on a Viper, Vette, DB7 , XK, or 911 in the quarter mile.

Those cars are considered exotics, not sports cars. Sports cars are generally affordable - my new C70 set me back about $30k. You could buy three C70s for the price of a DB7 and still end up with change for insurance money.

Re:Whatever happened to Volvos being the safest?

[Anonymous Coward]

straight line accel != sports car

I wouldn't consider a ford lightning svt a sports car but it about equals the speed stats you just listed.

Re:Whatever happened to Volvos being the safest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong again, chump. The classic definition of "sports car" is a two-seater designed to compete in organized racing/rallying (i.e. it has great acceleration, high top speed, and excellect handling). Hence SPORTS CAR - it's designed to compete in organized sport. These days, the market for sports car is so limited that they have all become expensive to make up for their limited production. So to recap: These are sports cars. You own a flashy grocery-getter. Now please shut up and go away.

Re:Whatever happened to Volvos being the safest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, except for this one?

Damn!

[Gortbusters.org]

And here I bought a new 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid. I hate when ya buy something and then they come out with new features.

Re:Damn!

[Brento]

And here I bought a new 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid. I hate when ya buy something and then they come out with new features.

Buddy, if you're a Civic Hybrid buyer, you're not in this car's target market. The car alone is $30k, not including the option.

Re:Damn!

[Gortbusters.org]

Double damn.

Re:Damn!

[aliens]

What made you buy the hybrid? Just curious as I believe it was popular mechanics that just did a feature where they drove the hybrid and the non corss country. I think the Hybrid ended up getting an average 6 or 7 more MPG. They then calculated gas saved and it'd take an awful lot of cross country trips just to make up for the ~$1,400 premium that the hybrid cost.

Re:Damn!

[Anonymous Coward]

There are tax breaks and such for environmental friendly cars which would probably more than make up for that

Re:Damn!

[imaginate]

Sometimes there is more to people's decisions than cost. I'm not saying that the hybrid is necessarily better for the world (batteries, manufacturing overhead, etc.), but it's at least worth something, to me anyway, that people are willing to shell out a little bit more in an attempt to avoid:

1. Oil funded wars

2. Destruction of the world around us (yes, that *environment* that environmentalists talk about really is everything around you, and everything your children will have to deal with).

3. More hydrocarbons in the atmosphere.

Just because we are priveleged with gas that is cheaper than bottled water doesn't mean we have to base our purchases solely on that fact.

hopefully this comes across as simply a reminder and not a flame...

Re:Damn!

[Jon Abbott]

I fully agree -- that is why my next vehicle will most likely be a VW Golf TDi... They get about 49 MPG on average, and have a range of over 700 miles per 14.8 gallon tank. More torque, more horsepower, more reliability, no bad diesel smell anymore, no huge batteries to replace, and cheaper than the Civic hybrid -- it's a win-win situation.

Re:Damn!

[4FtChicken]

Hybrids don't excel at highway driving. They'll be using their combustion engine just like a normal car. Its city driving where they show significant gains.

Re:Damn!

[EvanED]

This is true. The first couple hybrids were the only cars I've seen that get better milage around the city than on the highway. (Not that I follow cars...)

Re:Damn!

[jandrese]

Hybrid technology is not built for cross country trips. Current gasoline engines are already fairly efficent for cross country travel, so you're not going to save much with the hybrid system (especially with it's added weight). Where you save a lot of gas in a hybrid is in the city, in stop and go traffic. Regular gasoline engines have to expend energy to accelrate adn to brake (power assited breaking). Hybrids on the other hand store the braking energy to help you accelerate, which can be a huge gain. That's why the milage differences between city and highway are so much smaller on Hybrids than they are on conventional vehicles.

Being cut up

[rf0]

What about if you are driving along then you get cut up...how hard will the system engage the breaks? enough to make you skid?

Rus

Re:Being cut up

[brakk]

get cut up?

Re:Being cut up

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I know what you're trying to say, but your idiom is foreign to me. When you say "cut up" are you referring to another car suddenly swerving into your lane?

Re:Being cut up

[tommck]

That happens when you're being carjacked... the guy whips out a knife and cuts you up... right?

Re:Being cut up

[AlinuxNCSU]

For those of us not familiar with the idiom you're using, we would use the term "cut off".

Re:Being cut up

[Jens_UK]

I wouldn't worry about skidding; the vehicle would probably have abs in the event that it invokes that much braking.

Re:Being cut up

[luugi]

What about if you are driving along then you get cut up...how hard will the system engage the breaks? enough to make you skid?

I'm sure the car has ABS.

Re:Being cut up

[HTH NE1]

Nevermind the brakes; will the sudden tightening of the seat belts give you temporary abdominal paralysis (i.e. knock the wind out of you)?

Seriously though, it sounds like the system is more designed to alert a drowsy driver with tactile stimulation and give a physical assist with tired limbs rather than respond suddenly with an "impact imminent" alert and a taking over of the car.

Though a quick taser shot to the accelerator foot/calf should be enough to wake the driver and get the adrenaline going.

Re:Being cut up

[oliverthered]

It would depend upon the aproach speed of the two vehicles.
The the car that cut you up was traviling faster than you then nothing would happen.

If you got gut up and the driver slammed on the breaks then the system should kick in.

Honda system

[stanmann]

Great, now I can afford a car with this system, As opposed to the other cars running On the Order of $75K.

Re:Honda system

[daviddennis]

Actually, it sounds like the Honda system is slightly more advanced than the Mercedes system, which just adjusts your speed to reflect the car in front of you. I don't think it applies the brakes.

D

Re:Honda system

[stanmann]

Both the Mercedes, Volkswagon and GM systems will apply the brakes. I remember reading about it in Consumer reports. But for some reason, I couldn't google any useful information.

300 ft ?

[dink33]

300 ft? that's aweful far away, or unnecessarily prudent. I would think for like 3 ft or 10 ft would be more reasonable.

Re:300 ft ?

[SnowDog_2112]

The system is somewhat more sophisticated than described in the MSNBC article.

According to this article on Honda's site, it factors in:
the distance between the vehicles, the relative vehicle speeds, and the anticipated vehicle path to determine the likelihood of a collision.

It describes the setup a bit more:
1. Buzzer/light goes off
2. Seatbelt tightens a couple of times, brake is tapped
3. (System determines collision unavoidable) Seatbelt tightened drastically, brakes applied forcefully

Re:300 ft ?

[letxa2000]

3-10 ft at 50mph is about .04-.13 seconds. Even a computer needs more time to brake than that. With the object at 300 feet there's about 4 seconds reaction time to determine if the object is a potential threat and then to brake if necessary.

That said I see too many problems with this in terms of many driving conditions resulting in conditions that might look like a potential crash that are really "normal"--and I don't see how such a system could distinguish between the two.

Re:300 ft ?

[turgid]

It depends how fast you are going. 300ft at 70mph is approximately the minumum safe distance to leave between cars to enable them to take the appropriate action in the event of an emergency. If everyone knew this and stuck to it there would ba a heck of a lot less accidents on the motorways.

Re:300 ft ?

[jefeweiss]

Ok, now that's more like a typical American driver. I was getting kind of worried. Let's do the math shall we? Start with the 3 second rule for safe stopping distance. You count the seconds from when the car in front of you passes something until you do. It should be at least 3 seconds. I think that holds true up to 35 miles an hour. So technically, you should add another second for each 10mph over 35. But, because a large number of the people on the road are morons let's say 3 seconds at 60 miles an hour. And a large majority of people who drive where I live don't even leave that much.

60 mph * 1.46666 (conversion factor to feet per second) * 3 seconds = 264 ft just about. So that's up to within spitting distance of 300 ft. And that's half of what the recommended distance is.

I don't even think that this device is going to be largely successful in preventing collisions. It's probably going to be a lot more successful at mitigating damage. Considering that the amount of kinetic energy is one of them squared functions every MPH slower you are going when you run into Granny going 15mph in the fast lane counts.

In other news...

[NetDanzr]

...drivers in New York suddenly face a severe shortage of parking space, as they are unable to parallel-park more than one Honda within 300 feet of each other.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

not to mention, no one can get into their garage.

Re:In other news...

[ivanmarsh]

You have to park with parity enabled.

Re:In other news...

[CrayzyJ]

Parking space? I was thinking of highway/parkway space. When was the last time you saw people in NY leave 300ft at highway speeds? 3ft? Maybe, if you are lucky, and that's at 75!

If this thing slowed you down any time there was a car within 300ft in NY, you'd be driving past your origination point in reverse!

(Yes, I live in NY and use the highway system every day. So no, I'm NOT trolling.)

Re:In other news...

[GlobalMind]

That's kinda my issue with this. Sorry but 300' is a very good ways in front of you.

I don't want this thing assuming I need to slow down just because I am within 300'. I also would have to assume that if you start brake before the 300' mark the system would understand that you are already slowing down...

Some driver aids are nice, but this type of thing I think would be a real pain in most cases.

K.

Control over the vehicle

[notque]

Unfortunately, Japanese regulations don't allow for the system to fully stop the vehicle

Because what I want is to have less and less operation value, and rely more on technology!

We are slowly devolving into a society that not only has no common sense, but cannot operate anything without help.

No thank you auto stop. I have breaks. I know how to downshift. I'm fine.

I feel much safer knowing the control is in my hands, than an arbitrary machine anyway.

Is it just me?

Re:Control over the vehicle

[mattdm]

For now, you may be right. But the "arbitrary machine" can react a lot faster than you. If the technology is solid (no 1.0 for me, thanks), it can only be a good thing.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[EyeSavedLatin]

Hopefully the "breaks" you speak of aren't taken while braking... otherwise you'll really need this system!

Re:Control over the vehicle

[brakk]

And what happens if you see the car and intend to stop, but since the car is already braking for you, you miss the brakes and hit the gas?

Re:Control over the vehicle

[fred_sanford]

HAL: "Let me put it this way, Mr Amer. The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error."

Re:Control over the vehicle

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I'd rather have a machine slow you down automatically when you're about to rear-end me than rely on you and you alone to do it. I don't trust you at all.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[notque]

But the "arbitrary machine" can react a lot faster than you.

Most accidents, or potential accidents that occur, at least with me, are because of poor driving on others parts.

I would much rather have tougher traffic laws (not for speeding, but for reckless driving, i.e. crossing 3 lanes of traffic in rush hour to try and circumvent the general speed everyone is going.)

I think that if you drive exceedingly recklessly, your license should be taken away. I am a very fast driver, I follow all of the laws aside from speeding, I let everyone into lanes, I judge my movements on the movements of others.

I also live in Arizona, which has some of the worst drivers in the world. I would much rather have everyone drive just a little bit safer than have a vehicle which will force me to stop in time, just so that someone behind me can rear end me with even less time to react.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[SnowDog_2112]

I feel much safer knowing the control is in my hands, than an arbitrary machine anyway.

People have said the same thing about anti-lock brakes, traction control, power steering, and automatic transmissions over the years. And heck, some people do prefer to have control over everything.

This is an option; don't buy it if you're not the target market.

(Also note that the system is much more complicated than described in the MSNBC article; you don't think Honda would actually go to market with something that wouldn't let you get within 100m of another car, do you?)

But for those who do buy it, it will make driving safer. It provides a visual and audible warning when it thinks a collision is likely. If you don't respond, it provides a tactile warning (tighten seatbelt, tap brakes). That should be enough to jolt you out of your daydream (or cause you to look up from whatever you are doing which took your eyes off the road).

If it determines a collision is unavoidable, it does what it can to reduce impact on the passengers within -- tightens seatbelts and brakes with force. At this point, if the engineers at Honda have done their jobs, the car is going to crash, it's just trying to make it easier for you to survive the impact.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[aborchers]

I feel much safer knowing the control is in my hands, than an arbitrary machine anyway.

While I'm also generally skeptical of machines doing my thinking for me, I can't help wondering if you feel equally safe with everyone else, including that half-blind arthritic octogenarian bearing down on you from behind, in full control of their lethal road missiles? (Disclaimer: I live in the retirement capital of the US so my perceptions are skewed badly.)

Operating in traffic is a statistics game as much as an individual effort, and plenty of excellent drivers end up dead because of the incompetence of others. If done properly and widely adapted, technology such as this is likely to make you safer, despite the minor loss of control.

Well-designed machines will supplement and compensate for drivers, not replace them. On the other hand, advanced machines and roadways could, by surpassing the abilities of most drivers, give us superhighways where we could read /. while travelling 200 MPH to work in the next state.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you're incompetent and shouldn't be driving in the first place.

Who said anything about the brake pedel even moving? It's not necessary on cars with power braking.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[|/|/|||]

I don't agree that having more technology makes us unable to "operate anything without help," but I absolutely agree that I would never own a car with this ridiculous feature.

Sure, there are a lot of technological advances in automobiles that I am happy to have - cruise control, for example. However, my cruise control must be under my command! When I say "go this speed," the car must go this speed until I tell it to stop. I'll make the decisions. I'm the one with a real brain, not just some sort of expert system with limited sensory powers. I don't know how the control logic is implemented, but my opinion is the same regardless of the technology. If it were smart enough to satisfy me, then I wouldn't be driving at all, because the car would be better a better driver than I am.

Now, to be fair, this might be useful if it were simply a buzzer (that could be disabled in certain situations). Sometimes the car in front of you decides to slam on its brakes just as you're fiddling with the radio, and it's nice to have someone else in the car say "holy shit, watch out!" On the other hand, I would not be able to stand driving around with someone who hits the brakes for me whenever they feel endangered. Especially if they're not intelligent enough to understand where we are and what we're doing and why.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[Shalda]

My mom's old car used to switch the cruise control on by itself from time to time. This sounds like a technology that will not fail gracefully. One day, my car is going to tell me, "I'm sorry Dave, but I can't allow that." If it were really smart, they'd so a pair of lips into the seat so it could kiss your ass goodbye.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[lovebyte]

Most accidents, or potential accidents that occur, at least with me, are because of poor driving on others parts.
How many accidents have you had? I think that after a dozen you should start thinking it is your fault!

Re:Control over the vehicle

[notque]

How many accidents have you had?

Zero. I was trying to avoid saying that.

Grr.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[Andy Dodd]

"anti-lock brakes"

For 5-6 years, a human driver could easily outbrake any ABS system. For many years, ABS systems sucked. And they still can barely compete with a human driver with an IQ higher than room temperature.

I don't mind power steering and automatic transmissions. In general they are robust mechanical systems, not prone to code bugs. The few auto transmissions I've seen that were electronically controlled (Chrysler 4-speed automatic) are reliablity nightmares. Note that Chrysler 3-speeds are purely mechanical and are considered nearly impossible to damage...

Re:Control over the vehicle

[Sancho]

I'm the one with a real brain

Sometimes the car in front of you decides to slam on its brakes just as you're fiddling with the radio, and it's nice to have someone else in the car say "holy shit, watch out!"

I'm glad that the person with the real "brain" is looking down at the radio when he should be looking at the road.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[SoCalChris]

I agree with you 100%. I don't want my car deciding when I should stop. The warning light and buzzer would be fine, but don't apply the brakes for me.

Instead of trying to build a foolproof car, I think the real solution is better driver training, much tougher requirements to get your license, yearly or bi-yearly behind the wheel tests, and tougher vehicle inspections.

I'm usually against more government regulations, but I think that this is something they don't take seriously enough. I'm constantly seeing cars on the freeway that are about to fall apart, and clueless drivers swerving around the freeway. Driving is a priveledge, not a right.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[Anonymous Coward]

they'd so a pair of lips into the seat

they'd sew a pair of lips into the seat

Re:Control over the vehicle

[Twanfox]

What I love is the notion that the car's computer is capable of judging better than I what needs to be done, and has the designer given authority to act on that. That sounds a lot like a passanger plane incident in which a malfunctioning autopilot (or anti-crash system, something like that) kept trying to wrest control of the plane away from the pilot under the false assumption the ground (or rate of descent) was too great. The plane stalled midair like 2-3 times before the pilot somehow managed to land it.

Now, with the examples you mentioned, the difference there is that they are assisting you do something, they are not initiating action on their own. You are already applying the brakes if the antilock brake system engages. You are already accelerating (and intending to) if traction control activates. You are already turning the car while the power steering turns the wheels. These systems are not making decisions, they are responding to the driver's input and helping him.

Personally, I am overcautious when it comes to systems that make potentially life and death decisions for a person. What happens when such a decision making system makes a mistake? What happens when it's inputs become garbled? What if there is a manufacturing flaw (these certainly crop up often enough in complex systems)? Is it any consolation to a driver that there was a buffer the programmer failed to cap off properly in the software, activating the brakes off center at full strength on an open road, causing the vehicle to swerve and crash?

There are a lot of scenarios that can come up while piloting a vehicle of any kind. The human pilot is the one ultimately responsible for anything that happens, the human pilot should get the final say. Though, I can just see it now in court.

Judge: You caused a major accident involving 15 cars. What do you have to say for yourself?
Defendant: My honda did it.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[Anonymous Coward]

What if you fall asleep? It happens a lot (see "driver fatigue")

Re:Control over the vehicle

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel much safer knowing the control is in my hands, than an arbitrary machine anyway.

You ever fly in an airliner? 90% of the flight was on auto-pilot.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[YetAnotherAnonymousC]

For 5-6 years, a human driver could easily outbrake any ABS system. For many years, ABS systems sucked. And they still can barely compete with a human driver with an IQ higher than room temperature.

I generally agree with this, but there is one exception I've found where ABS is much better than human intuition: the rear wheels of an unloaded pickup truck. Granted, those wheels don't contribute much to breaking, but, for control reasons you really, really don't want them starting to skid. You've got all your power back there, under little weight. Of course, one should be driving an unloaded pickup truck very conservatively in the first place, but not everyone does.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[calethix]

"We are slowly devolving into a society that not only has no common sense, but cannot operate anything without help.
No thank you auto stop. I have breaks. I know how to downshift. I'm fine."

It's not a matter of common sense (well maybe for some people). A computer controlled breaking system can react a lot faster than you.
1. You have to see that obstacle which just appeared in your path and realize that you need to hit the brakes.
2. You need to move your foot from the gas pedal to the brake pedal.
Both of those are going to take a significant amount of time relative to how long the accident takes. So unless you're name is Neo and you can dodge bullets, a car that reacts to the situation is going to be beneficial.
Now, let's add in the fact that your car can be designed to do a much better job of applying breaks without locking them up and you have another safety feature.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[water-and-sewer]

Because what I want is to have less and less operation value, and rely more on technology! No thank you auto stop. I have breaks. I know how to downshift. I'm fine.

uhh... that's "brakes," big guy. Maybe you should have let your automatic spellchecker take a look at your post :) oh wait a minute, your spellchecker wouldn't have known the difference.
Your point is correct, sir!

Re:Control over the vehicle

[cens0r]

Other than on gravel or snow I've never seen a single study that showed even highly skilled drivers could brake better without ABS. Now factor in the fact that with ABS you have much more control to steer the car while braking and there is no reason not to have ABS.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just you. Most people are this arrogant and this ignorant. I don't intend to offend, but I see 'accidents' almost every day. I don't care how great you think you are, I want a machine in your car that keeps you from barreling into me when I've been forced to slow down for whatever reason... The only failing I see to this new system is the poor sod without it driving behind someone who does. Regardless of what the arrogant jerk thinks, he's likely to hit the guy in front of him who will be responding to imperfect conditions with the speed and attentive powers of a machine

Re:Control over the vehicle

[Anonymous Coward]

WRONG! It is a well documented fact that humans are much better than ABS in all conditions. I'd find a link, but I'm too lazy. Look it up.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[NukeIear]

Of course ABS was NOT designed to make you stop faster. Though in theory it could make you stop faster, something you might have proved in highschool physics. But the world is a bit more complex then HS physics problems, so sometimes abs is faster, sometimes standard brakes are, depending on road conditions and who is driving.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[mattdm]

Most accidents, or potential accidents that occur, at least with me, are because of poor driving on others parts.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me, or disagreeing, or if this is just a tangent. But it basically supports my point -- you may be a perfectly good driver, but how fast can you react if someone else swerves into your lane? Nanoseconds?

Re:Control over the vehicle

[lankyb]

The only failing I see to this new system is the poor sod without it driving behind someone who does. Regardless of what the arrogant jerk thinks, he's likely to hit the guy in front of him who will be responding to imperfect conditions with the speed and attentive powers of a machine I disagree. Let's say we have three cars, A, B, C, with each car following the letter before it. B in the middle is the Honda w/ crash detection. A slows for unknown reason. B's crash detection slows down, maybe in the future stops the car. From C's point-of-view, it doesn't matter if B is a Honda, a Ford or a cow in the road. The driver will have to stop, and stopping for something in the road is not difficult. If C was likely to hit the vehicle in front, I would have rear ended at least one person a month given the way people infront of me drive.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[Anonymous Coward]

12 year olds cannot drive yet, so it makes sense that one would have zero accidents

Re:Control over the vehicle

[notque]

12 year olds cannot drive yet, so it makes sense that one would have zero accidents

I'm certainly not that old, but try adding 10 years.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[Anonymous Coward]

That has to be the most idiotic post I've seen in the past two weeks. I mean, I have no opinion on this topic, that was just stupid.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[djandrock]

I feel much safer knowing the control is in my hands, than an arbitrary machine anyway.

And *I* would feel much safer knowing the control wasn't in your hands. Touche.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[timeOday]

But for those who do buy it, it will make driving safer. It provides a visual and audible warning when it thinks a collision is likely. If you don't respond, it provides a tactile warning (tighten seatbelt, tap brakes). That should be enough to jolt you out of your daydream (or cause you to look up from whatever you are doing which took your eyes off the road).

Your own little backseat driver, built right under the hood. I worry about the annoyance owning such a car. Safety is not the only consideration.

If it determines a collision is unavoidable, it does what it can to reduce impact on the passengers within -- tightens seatbelts and brakes with force. At this point, if the engineers at Honda have done their jobs, the car is going to crash, it's just trying to make it easier for you to survive the impact.

Correction, at that point, the car *thinks* you're going to crash. It's not the same thing. People have been killed unnecessarily by airbags. In the case of airbags, that risk is more than offset by the increased safety, but will the same hold for anti-collision and other new systems? Each must stand on its own merits, and ultimately nobody will know until after thousands have been sold.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[Anonymous Coward]

And suppose it reacts a lot faster than the guy behind me - I get rear-ended.

I once came around a curve on a freeway to find the traffic stopped. I hit the brakes, then realized I was stopping too fast for the 18-wheeler behind me (nothing's scarier than the sound of air brakes right on your tail) so I had to balance my braking so I didn't hit the guy in front, but didn't get hit either. Worst come to worst, I'd have chosen to hit the small car rather than get crushed by the 18-wheeler.

Dealing with software, I know how hard it is to plan for all possibilities. That's why I don't trust something like this. Alert me to a situation - fine. Try to handle it yourself - no, thanks.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[ceejayoz]

Ah, but see, HAL-9000 didn't make a mistake or distort information. HAL did exactly what he was supposed to do - give the mission the greatest possible chance of succeeding, which he attempted to do by knocking off the error and emotion prone human crew.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[rjung2k]

If you do that, you're really inept and shouldn't be given a motor vehicle, much less a license.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[fred_sanford]

Ah, but see, HAL-9000 didn't make a mistake or distort information. HAL did exactly what he was supposed to do - give the mission the greatest possible chance of succeeding, which he attempted to do by knocking off the error and emotion prone human crew.

which makes the Honda Crash Detection system that much scarier. it will do exactly as it is told regardless of outside influence. granted it can be told to make exceptions but, void of human override, "What are you doing Dave?", it will still only ever act as it is told to do.

the HCD system should be a great augmentation to human controlled driving... not a replacement.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[mattdm]

And suppose it reacts a lot faster than the guy behind me - I get rear-ended.

Yes. This is why such techologies should be mandatory.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would I factor in the idea that I have more steering control with ABS? I don't have any less steering control without ABS. I only would have less steering control if my driving skills were so miserable that I actually locked up the brakes. But, I don't do that. As a matter of fact, in 15 years of driving, I've been in numerous emergency situations requiring hard braking, and I've only lost control of my car one time. (That one time was a week after I got my license, and truth be told I simply misjudged how much distance would be required to stop going downhill on bad pavement, so neither ABS nor any other system would have helped. Well, except oversized vented disc brakes and big wide tires, that might've helped...)

Now, I have gone into a mild skid on several occasions, but I have always managed to keep control of the car and make it travel in the direction I want, so I think I've always had plenty of steering control.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, what an interesting link! I particularly like the first diagram, where they show a car entering your path from the right, and a car steering around it to the left! The implication is that you should be braking in a situation like this. Wrong!!!!

If a car is entering your path from the right, steering around it to the left AND braking is MORE likely to cause you to get in an accident. If you brake, you will slow your car's rate of travel, so that you will pass by the car later than if you did not brake. The problem is, if the car is moving to the left, then the later you pass by it, the further to the left it will be! Thus, by slowing down, you increase your chances of crashing!

There was a sorta similar indicent years ago in the Dallas area where an overpass collapsed. A woman was heading towards the bridge as it started to fall above her, and she knew she could not stop in time. So, she mashed on the gas as hard as she could and went under as it fell. The massive concrete structure landed on the back part of the car only. If she had hit the brakes instead of accelerating, she would not have travelled as far, and her car would have been entirely crushed by the bridge. She owes her life to the decision not to hit the brakes.

To distill it down as much as I can, if something is entering your path from the side and you can stop before you reach its position, then hit the brakes. But if you are travelling too fast to stop before that point, and it's moving to the left and you must swerve to the left, do not hit your brakes. If you succeed in swerving around, you will no longer be headed toward it, which is great. But, IT will be headed toward YOU. The faster you're going, the sooner YOU'LL be out of ITS way.

On the other hand, if you can't swerve around it and you can't stop before reaching its position either, then you're going to crash, and you should brake in order to reduce the severity of the crash you're about to experience...

Re:Control over the vehicle

[nathanh]

No thank you auto stop. I have breaks. I know how to downshift. I'm fine.

I feel much safer knowing the control is in my hands, than an arbitrary machine anyway.

Is it just me?

It's not just you, but people like me don't agree. You might be a good driver but I'm well aware that most people are not. Too often I see:

• Drivers with cellphones held to their ears, not paying attention.
• Mothers reaching into the backseat to tend to their children, not slowing down from 80kph.
• Women applying lipstick. Men shaving. One guy I've seen putting on a jumper!
• One particular freak who was reading a NOVEL while driving; held against the steering wheel.
• A lady who was typing into a laptop on the passenger seat while crossing a 4 lane bridge.
• Idiots who zip in and out of lanes, speeding, braking hard, not obeying road rules.
• People who think "2 seconds seperation" is the perfect space to insert their own car.

If these people are driven around by computers then the roads will be a lot safer. I can't wait for technologies like Honda's to become standard.

Re:Control over the vehicle

[I. M. Bur]

[...] the difference there is that they are assisting you do something, they are not initiating action on their own. You are already applying the brakes if the antilock brake system engages. You are already accelerating (and intending to) if traction control activates. You are already turning the car while the power steering turns the wheels.

Now I see - this system does exactly the opposite of what you intend to do! You want to sleep and all it does is blink a light, sound an alarm, hit the brakes....

Re:Control over the vehicle

[Twanfox]

Nope, not the opposite, but perhaps the incorrect action at the time. Suppose the system engages the brakes when someone is following too closely behind you, when a fast lane change is more appropriate a maneuver. Suppose that the car engaging the brakes causes the half-asleep driver to panic, yanking the steering wheel over and crashing the car anyways (just in more conveluted ways). Suppose the decision making system malfunctions completely and corrects for an accident that doesn't exist.

Blinking a light, sounding an alarm are perfectly acceptable collsion warning systems. Applying the brakes borders on dangerous if the system is ill informed or damaged.

Finally!!

[enigma971]

They can't get this installed in my girlfriend's car soon enough!

Re:Finally!!

[thriemus]

Funny this system sounds like my girlfriend!!

It gives me notifaction to brake when a car is hundreds of feet in front of me... even when doing 15 mph.

Re:Finally!!

[tcdk]

They can't get this installed in my girlfriend's car soon enough!

How about you buy your own car....

Re:Finally!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear you, brother!

Re:Finally!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like my mother. When my dad had heart surgery I drove her to the hospital and she had to sit in the back seat with a jacket over her head because she was afraid of my driving.

And I was being careful and driving slow!

Re:Finally!!

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was learning to drive, my mother in the passenger seat would actually move her foot to an imaginary brake pedal whenever she thought I ought to be braking. I was very disconcerting to be going 55mph on an empty interstate and have her suddenly brake for *no* reason. Needless to say, now I never use the brakes myself.

Re:Finally!!

[BigMe]

Yeah, they should ditch the 'tightening seatbelt' idea and go with a big swingin' arm from the passenger seat. Or maybe the dull 'thud thud thud' from the phantom brake pedal my wife's always hitting.

So

[mrgrey]

So you don't die from the crash, you die from suffocation or from being cut in half by the seat belt.

If the driver fails to respond, the system kicks in and brakes more while also tightening the seat belt

300 feet?

[garcia]

I already hate the fact that seatbelts are too tight and that there are laws mandating their use (especially here in MN where you can be ticketed for not wearing one while having no other violations).

So at 300 ft the car is going to start hitting the breaks? What about freaking rush hour or the morons that slam on their breaks in front of me? Isn't this going to hinder my already exceptional response skills?

Concentrate on getting the car to drive for us not deciding when I am tailgating.

Re:300 feet?

[dex22]

You don't like seatbelts, and you claim to have exceptional response skills.

It is for people like you, who think they're great drivers so don't pay attention, that this system was developed.

Re:300 feet?

[Anonymous Coward]

already hate the fact that seatbelts are too tight and that there are laws mandating their use

Really.... Face the facts, man. If it's too tight, you're too fat. I've driven MANY MANY cars and trucks, and I have never EVER had the idea that a seatbelt was too tight--and I'm a pretty big person (6'5", 240Lbs) Personally, I like my seatbelts to be pretty snug. It gives you less time to accelerate differently than the car, thus less of an energy difference, thus lower chances of injury. Most people who have been severly injured by seatbelts wear them loosely, or in the wrong manner. Even if the damn thing is loose, I'd rather have a big bruise across my chest than a broken neck and a bad case of road rash.

The seatbelt is there to protect you. If you like the idea of flying through your windshield, then by all means don't wear the damn thing.

Either way, I think you'd be better off walking.

Re:300 feet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seatbelts laws are destroying the gene pool!

How many morons that should have died in thier teens have survived to raise little moron children!

Say no to seatbelt laws! Don't pollute the gene pool!

Now that I think about it, anti-lock brakes and this radar thingy are pool polluters too! I see the scam, put out the safety devices so the idiots survive long enough to afford the really expensive cars/suv's later in life. Great for the car makers, bad for us who have to put up with the idiots for decades.

Re:300 feet?

[valkraider]

I already hate the fact that seatbelts are too tight and that there are laws mandating their use (especially here in MN where you can be ticketed for not wearing one while having no other violations).

Washington State (USA) has had three judges declare that unconstitutional. See here and here and more here or you can always Google it.

Re:300 feet?

[egomaniac]

I already hate the fact that seatbelts are too tight and that there are laws mandating their use (especially here in MN where you can be ticketed for not wearing one while having no other violations).

And I hate the fact that some of my tax dollars go towards patching up idiots who were badly injured in accidents because they were not wearing seatbelts.

Do you want a cookie?

Re:300 feet?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is hogwash. Your tax dollars get wasted on many other things, the least of which would be uninsured drivers who are injured.

Re:300 feet?

[le_jfs]

IMHO, I think you get more control if you are tied to the car. Just try a sudden evasive action without seatbelt and try to continue to have your steering wheel in hands. Or try to brake and see your apparent weight shifting towards. I think drivers without seatbelts are more prone to have bad reactions: can they manage to get control of the vehicle AND try to remain in position at the same time? (don't think so). In addition to being a danger to themselves (who cares), they become a potential danger for others (I care).

Re:300 feet?

[egomaniac]

That is hogwash. Your tax dollars get wasted on many other things, the least of which would be uninsured drivers who are injured.

And where do you think the insurance company got the money to pay for the idiot-without-seatbelt's medical bills? Did it just materialize out of thin air? No, of course not -- they collected it from all the other drivers, most of whom wear seatbelts.

I admit that saying "my tax dollars" was a vast oversimplification, but the fact is that my insurance payments, tax dollars, and numerous other payments help pay these idiot's medical bills. Ticketing them for not wearing seatbelts doesn't seem like such an onerous burden in the face of that.

Re:300 feet?

[Anonymous Coward]

what does me not liking seatbelts have to do with my reaction times?

I never said that I didn't pay attention.

It's assholes like you that cause us to have these fucking devices in the first place.

Re:300 feet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Get off the fucking road if you dont like seatbelts, troll. Every real driver knows a well tightened belt helps you feel how the car is reacting - and stops you sliding around in high g actions.

You really are a dick

Re:300 feet?

[Anonymous Coward]

what does me not liking seatbelts have to do with my reaction times?

Your reaction times, along with several other motor functions, are going to be severely impaired when you suffer brain damage after bouncing around the passenger compartment with other unrestrained individuals. Or we might have to winch your body down from the tree branch it's wrapped around. Or fix your crushed chest from impalement on the steering column.

Folks, speaking as an EMT, a seatbelt is literally the difference between getting carted away with a few injuries or getting hosed off the pavement.

Yes please, more security

[cwernli]

If the driver fails to respond, the car brakes more and tightens the seat belt further to soften the blow of the crash.

The system should be expanded such that a driver who fails for, say, three times to brake when she should is not allowed to drive anymore. Or not allowed to accelarate to more than 25 mph. That should increase the drivers awareness instantly, shouldn't it ?

Does that mean....

[zoobaby]

I can't tale gate anymore? Really 300 ft is a long distance. Hell when I leave 10 to 15 feet between cars someone will cut in. Good idea but not practical at distances discussed.

Re:Does that mean....

[japhmi]

I can't tale gate anymore? Really 300 ft is a long distance.

The radar can see 300ft, it doesn't necessarily brake at 300 ft.

Gotta love loopholes...

[PseudoThink]

It then taps the brake and tightens the seatbelt...If the driver fails to respond, the system kicks in and brakes more while also tightening the seat belt. Unfortunately, Japanese regulations don't allow for the system to fully stop the vehicle."

But fortunately there is a loophole in the regulations, allowing them to gradually strangle the driver with his seatbelt until he stops the vehicle on his own.

Re:Gotta love loopholes...

[slittle]

If you're not paying attention like you're supposed to, it's only fair that your car kill you before you kill me.

Re:Gotta love loopholes...

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, but dead drivers don't apply the breaks quite as well as living ones

Re:Gotta love loopholes...

[Luveno]

I'm somehow reminded of the Simpson's episode of when they went to Japan and were on the gameshow:

Host: Our game shows are a bit different than those in America.
Homer: How so?
Host: In America, you reward intelligence... here, we punish ignorance.
Homer: Ignor-what?

*flamethrower shoots out of microphone*

Re:Gotta love loopholes...

[dave_mcmillen]

It then taps the brake and tightens the seatbelt...If the driver fails to respond, the system kicks in and brakes more while also tightening the seat belt. Unfortunately, Japanese regulations don't allow for the system to fully stop the vehicle."

But fortunately there is a loophole in the regulations, allowing them to gradually strangle the driver with his seatbelt until he stops the vehicle on his own.

OK, please ignore my post in the main story thread. The above is the correct joke. Hats off to PseudoThink!

Re:Gotta love loopholes...

[Anonymous Coward]

brakes

Re:Great...

[turgid]

A lot of people are already lousy drivers. What they also need is a system that detects the proximity of cars behind, to prevent tailgating (the number of times some w***er has been driving 3 feet behind me on the motorway and nearly killed me...). It would use a radar to detect approaching cars and put on the brake lights (not the brakes) to make the maniac approaching slow down and back off when he got too close for safety.

forgot to subject it.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a great idea.... for my hamster.

He has a problem with his ball rolling into things, perhaps he can get a brake radar system.

So how long until you're trying to ride someone's ass on the eway to get them to speed up and you're back there buzzing and braking like a retard.

Worst Idea ever. Just make marshmellow airbags, and we'd be set.

Re:forgot to subject it.

[Anonymous Coward]

So how long until you're trying to ride someone's ass on the eway to get them to speed up and you're back there buzzing and braking like a retard.

When some sonofabitch tailgates me, I slow down. It makes this situation safer[0] AND pisses them off. That's a double win for me.

Please learn the etiquette of the road before you go anywhere near Southwest Virginia. I'll get out of the way if you're a reasonable distance behind and look like you want to go by. But, if you tailgate me, I'll fight back -- for my safety, for your safety, and to get revenge for you putting me in danger.

[0] This makes it safer for me to slam on the brakes if I need to.

How is this going to work?

[Zerbey]

You mean to tell me whilst I'm driving on I-4 every morning every time some idiot kid in a tricked out Honda (stupid large muffler, big fin, silly rims... pet hate :)) cuts me off I'll be rammed in the back by the his idiot friend who happens to be tailgating me because my car decides it needs to brake?

Re:How is this going to work?

[Anonymous Coward]

tricked out Honda

this implies that they had skill to tune the engine and suspension... 90% of those are wanna-be cars that have the dressing but nothing inside... kinda like a twinkie without the filling...

I love it when I put to shame those little turds by easily walking away from them in my lowly pontiac. more horsepower and speed than any of those wanna-be cars.. dont screw with a bonneville with supercharger it will eat your ricer for breakfast and make ya look stupid. :-)

Re:How is this going to work?

[Anonymous Coward]

That because mommy and daddy were willing to buy/lease the car (or indirectly subsidize it via free room and board) with the fancy wheels and big stereo for junior, but draw the line at paying for any mods.

Re:How is this going to work?

[gurps_npc]

No. It means that unlike you, Honda was smart enough to put radar in the BACK of the vehicle as well as in the front.

The system is a lot smarter than you seem to be willing to grant it.

Why does everyone hear assume that a complex auto-breaking system is going to be built by idiots that do not even consider simple situations?

While I am sure that this device might cause problems in complex situations, the simples ones should already be accounted for.

Re:How is this going to work?

[Pyrosz]

Just do what my neighbor does (hes a cranky 90 year old bastard who hates everyone)... he tosses marbles out the window at any car who is tailgating him (I've seen the bag of marbles)!

Re:How is this going to work?

[Captain Nitpick]

Why does everyone hear assume that a complex auto-breaking system is going to be built by idiots that do not even consider simple situations?

Past experience.

Re:How is this going to work?

[modecx]

Heh, a biker guy I once used to know kept a couple big bolts and nuts in his jacket pocket. Really big and heavy ones. Someone get too close? He'd toss one over his shoulder. Heard he punctured a few radiators with that method--before some jackass ran over him at a stoplight (completely unrelated).

Re:How is this going to work?

[Kashif Shaikh]

"While I am sure that this device might cause problems in complex situations, the simples ones should already be accounted for."

But we mortals can already, most of the time, handle simple situations while driving.

It's the complex ones that are complex, and that's where this car is going to fuck up and perform an incorrect decision.

Re:How is this going to work?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been in a complex braking situation. I was between a passenger car and an 18-wheeler. Is it smart enough to realize that if something has to hit, it's better to hit a passenger car than to be hit by an 18-wheeler? There were a few seconds when I though that was exactly what I'd have to do.

Re:How is this going to work?

[rjung2k]

Why does everyone hear assume that a complex auto-breaking system is going to be built by idiots that do not even consider simple situations?

This is Slashdot -- we assume everyone's an idiot until proven otherwise.

Re:How is this going to work?

[Anonymous Coward]

How to cure tailgating.

Goody!

[OrangeGoo]

Goody! Now I don't have to be bothered taking my foot off the gas pedal and putting it on that pesky brake pedal, unless of course I need to come to a complete stop! But who does that? Stop signs might as well says "slow down a little and look both ways." If they park a car next to it, this system will handle it for you! Yay!

Re:Goody!

[CrayzyJ]

I know you meant this as funny, but, unfortunately, this will happen. My main complaint with cars is they are too easy to drive thus lowering the bar to entry. It allows people who otherwise were too afraid to or couldn't drive out on the roads. meaning: A hazard.

I read a report a while back that stated that all these "features" were causing more accidents because people were too confident or distracted because they didn't _have_ to pay as much attention.

Making cars easier to drive is not a good thing. Personally, I think all cars should be manual thus taking the cell phone out of someone's hand.

Back to my point, some people *really* will think they way posted. That, my friend, is farking scary.

Re:Goody!

[OrangeGoo]

Aye, very scary indeed. I agree with you on the point that a lot of people don't pay enough attention when driving, and this will certainly give them another point of detachment. Regardless of what they call it, I don't really want help braking. I have a style of braking that I rather like - short. I don't want my car to decide that I'm waiting too long to brake. That's my business. heheh

On another note, I really don't stop at stop signs. ;) I execute what cops like to ticket as "rolling stops" which are not, in fact, stops at all. But as my driver's ed teacher told us, "If you open the door and touch the road and it doesn't hurt, you're as good as stopped. You don't have to really stop." (Cops everywhere disagree!) ;)

300ft?

[ender_wiggins]

That would be anoying. what about when i am tailgating someone on the interstate! What about that jerk that cut me off and there is only 5 feet where there were 300 before? sounds like a bad idea to me.

Sounds good ....but

[curtisk]

I can't see why this would be reliable, wait, well maybe it would be too reliable, to the point of annoyance.

Is that vehicle 300ft ahead parked? What if a squirrel runs in the road, how sensitive is the radar? Is there a large tree or light post on the highway ramp (on the curve) that the radar has mistaken for a vehicle?

How can I tailgate with such a system?! Aggressive driving is a god-given right! :D

Re:Sounds good ....but

[Tackhead]

> Is that vehicle 300ft ahead parked? What if a squirrel runs in the road, how sensitive is the radar?

At sufficiently high output power on the radar (or laser), squirrels within 300 feet will not present a hazard. Nor will cats or small dogs. Deer and moose will still require evasive action... and a nice Cabernet.

Re:Sounds good ....but

[curtisk]

:)

Deer and moose will still require evasive action... and a nice Cabernet.

Pan-seared or broiled?

Geeze ...

[SuperDuG]

... this is going to make it even harder for wives to run over their husbands now ...

... as if that whole legal and moral thing wasn't enough, technology enters into the game.

Re:Geeze ...

[dex22]

I can see it now...

Your honor, how was I to know the system would fail? I fully expected the car to stop. How was I to know that my late husband's sun-block also absorbed the radar signals? I'm gonna sue the company!

Mercedes System already does this

[servicepack158]

The AMG benz's come with a cruise control system that when active will slow down if a car in front of you is going slower then you, and speed back up to cruise speed when they get out of your way. It can apply up to 20% of the breaking force of the vehicle too if there is a sudden stop. you can look at it and watch a flash presentation on the website. To the dork programmer who doesn't understand how it works: That's why honda didn't hire you for the project :) You only activate such a system above certain speeds. So basically it's an autopilot system for a car, but people always change lanes without looking so now they need to invent something to lock the steeringwheel :D

Re:Mercedes System already does this

[JohnFluxx]

amen to the number of stupid replies so far

Re:Mercedes System already does this

[Anonymous Coward]

> It can apply up to 20% of the breaking force of the vehicle

Stupid idiot. How about I break your head with their brakes? Maybe that'll teach you to spell.

The Homophone Nazi

Re:Mercedes System already does this

[Anonymous Coward]

Or they can just place a camera to watching your blind spots. I dont know why I dont see this isnt on more cars.

Re:Mercedes System already does this

[Anonymous Coward]

Genius. I'd love a radar system that checks my blind spots and gives me a warning if I attempt to merge into someone. This kind of this happens constantly... and think of all the neck-strain it would save ;)

I can picture this...

[selderrr]

one car suddenly brakes and all honda drivers behind it are strangled by their auto-tightening seatbelts.

4-point seatbelt wearers are castrated rather than strangled.

Re:I can picture this...

[Jens_UK]

Four point seat belts wouldn't castrate you; you're thinking of five point belts.

Nice

[Cackmobile]

THis is what old people need. I have been rear ended 3 times by old people now. And idiots who talk on their mobiles. But they really should learn how to drive not rely on an automatic system. Never going to happen so this is the next best thing. GO Honda.

Re:Nice

[realdpk]

No, they should stop driving and take public transit or taxis. They should not be allowed on the road.

traffic jams?

[Lawrence_Bird]

thats gonna work real well during rush hour.. not!

Tailgating?

[svenjob]

Say goodbye to tailgating... and my drivers license.

Hmmm...

[leviramsey]

Am I the only one who thinks 300ft is a mite bit too far to look ahead to get reliable results? What was the old drivers ed rule, one carlength spacing per 10 miles per hour of speed? A typical car is what 20 ft., tops? 300 feet is reasonable then if the vehicle in question is going c. 150 mph.

Since most traffic is less than half of that speed, I can only shudder at the number of false positives this system's going to come up with.

Honda: at least do this: make this system by default only operational when running in cruise control (which at least takes out the cases of heavy traffic false positives).

Re:Hmmm...

[daBum]

While I agree with you that 150 MPH is a bit of overkill, what Honda may be planning for is the detection of oncoming traffic as well. For example: Suppose you snooze while driving down a 2 lane hwy, cruising at 55-60 MPH. And, during your nap, your car drifts over into the other lane, into oncoming traffic (where people are going the other way at 55-60 MPH). The system would detect an imminent collision @ 120 MPH, rather than 60 (since both of you are moving relative to each other). In this case, the gap is reasonable.

And, the tugging of the seatbelt might be enough to wake you up so you can avoid the other car...

Re:Hmmm...

[letxa2000]

Am I the only one who thinks 300ft is a mite bit too far to look ahead to get reliable results?

No, I seriously doubt it takes any action at 300ft. But if you see an object at 300 ft and 1 second later you see it at 200ft then that object is approaching real fast. It's not that it brakes at 300ft, it's that it can start assessing threats at 300ft and determine whether action is going to be necessary in another second or two. And at 50mph that's about 4 seconds reaction time.

I still don't think it is a good idea, but not because 300ft is looking "too far away."

Re:Hmmm...

[Idarubicin]

What was the old drivers ed rule, one carlength spacing per 10 miles per hour of speed? A typical car is what 20 ft., tops? 300 feet is reasonable then if the vehicle in question is going c. 150 mph.

The California DMV recommends a three second cushion in front. Young Drivers (Canada's largest driving school) says a minimum of two seconds in good weather, three or more otherwise. On the highway, you cover three hundred feet in about three seconds.

Even at the best of times, your reaction time is going to be a minimum of about one second--usually it's closer to at least 1.5 seconds. Worse, if you're starting to snooze and drift into oncoming traffic then three hundred feet puts you only a second and a half away from the other guy.

If you come up on a stationary vehicle on the road--stalled, say, at night--braking from a mile a minute to zero at one gee (good luck braking that hard, by the way) costs you a hundred and fifty feet...plus reaction time.

Nope, three hundred feet isn't too far to be able to look ahead. Obviously, if you're only doing ten miles per hour in a parking lot, the system isn't going to use all of that long-distance information.

Link to chart of stopping distances under realistic conditions of braking ability and reaction time.

Brakeing isnt the solution

[snack]

90% of the accidents i've seen are from people just SLAMMING on their brakes. They cant stop in time, and careen into the back of another vehicle, or T-bone them.

The solution is more drivers education. You have to learn that you have more than just 1 dimention of freedom, and can change lanes to avoid a collision. More education, Less 'toys' in the car to distract the driver.

-Tim

Re:Brakeing isnt the solution

[micromoog]

If you're in a situation where your stopping distance is too great to avoid the accident, there's no way you're going to have time to check that it's clear, then change lanes. The only way you could change lanes is to do it blindly, which is arguably more dangerous than taking your chances with your stopping distance. The exception is if you're driving in an edge lane, where pulling into the shoulder blindly is acceptable.

I definitely agree with the "less toys" point, though.

Re:Brakeing isnt the solution

[snack]

This is why we have perepherial Vision, and Mirrors in our cars.

I for one am constantly checking my mirrors and mentally keeping track of where other cars are around me just incase something unavoidable does happen and i am forced to change lanes. So no... it isn't blindly.

It mainly boils down to drivers training. This is something that they kind of teach in the more expensive classes (Master Drive). Having situational awareness has saved me from multiple accidents.

-Tim

Re:Brakeing isnt the solution

[CrayzyJ]

"It mainly boils down to drivers training."

YES! Someone who gets it! Can I please share the parkway with hundreds of 'snacks' from now on??

Seriously, I have been saying that driver education courses are severly (* 100) lacking. Everyone should at least take a defensive driving course (and why not, 10% of your insurance for 3 years!) in the least. A Master Drive course would be even better.

Re:Brakeing isnt the solution

[Old Wolf]

Reminds me of those cartoons (and even a few non-cartoons) where a tree or something is falling, and the character runs away by running in the line that it's falling, and gets hit by the treetop, instead of just stepping to the side.

Tora Tora Tora !

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that pesky Kamikaze legislation passed in the '40s, requiring that you plough straight into the car in front!

Hope there are no bugs in the tightening mechanism

[dave_mcmillen]

If the driver fails to respond, the system kicks in and brakes more while also tightening the seat belt.

"Seatbelt . . . too tight . . . got to swerve . . . urk." [ slumps unconscious]

Too bad..

[MImeKillEr]

.. they don't have an early warning system for when you've exceeded the maximum number of ricer mods (R-Type stickers, neon, over-sized wing). I'd find that just as useful.

Re:Too bad..

[caffeinex36]

If I had 100 Mod points. They would all go to you my friend.

Rob

Re:Too bad..

[kingkade]

Or better yet, a 'embarrassment-avoidance system', when one of these visually-only modded 4 cylinders pull up to a stang at a red light and the driver insists on reving the engine to signal they want to run, the embarrassment-avoidance system can just flash a 'Potentially embarrassing warning' or maybe a 'WTF do you think you're doing?' light on the dash.

Re:Too bad..

[micromoog]

PSA: "Ricer" is a racist term. Even if you didn't mean it that way.

Re:Too bad..

[MImeKillEr]

This would've saved the moron I saw in a Suzuki Samurai who pulled upto a Chevy 1500 at a red light & revved his engine. The guy in the Chevy had his windows down and was openly laughing his head off. When the light turned green, you could hear the strain in the Samurai as he attempted to accelerate to catch up to the 1500.

It was all I could do to keep from wrecking as I passed the Samurai in my wife's minivan..

Re:Too bad..

[MImeKillEr]

I did mean it that way. We're all too PC. Everyone needs to lighten up. Even you, you damned Beaner. ;-)

Re:Too bad..

[AndroSyn]

Or perhaps have it say, sorry, but I'm a Civic, even though you slapped a bunch of shit on me and included a type-R sticker, I am still a Civic. I cannot a beat a mustang in a race. There is a good possiblity I cannot beat a golf cart in a race. Please don't do this to yourself. Your friends will laugh at you and its possible the spoiler you superglued on to me will blow off if you go much faster than 35MPH.

Re:Too bad..

[SuiteSisterMary]

Nonsense. It stands, or at least, can stand for 'rice burner,' indicating that it comes from an area with high yields of rice. If referring to a region based on suitability for certain food crops is 'racist,' then we've got problems.

Re:Too bad..

[Anonymous Coward]

I take offense to this. I have non modified Japanese four cylinder that can beat most anything on the road. It's a Yamaha FJ1200.

Re:Too bad..

[jvalenzu]

What about "millet missle?"

Re:Too bad..

[WinterSolstice]

I have fun with stuff like this...

For example: Did you know that an unmodified 1975 Corvette can out-accellerate a moron in a brand-new Mustang Cobra?

He didn't :)

That car could have certainly beaten me to the speed limit (45 on that stretch), but apparently the mustang shifter is something too complicated for fratboys to operate. He seems to have shifted into neutral at about 15/20 MPH and was almost hit by a little honda behind him.

Hehehehe
-WS

Re:Too bad..

[operagost]

No it's not. It refers to cars, not people. Or are we giving inanimate objects civil rights?

Re:Too bad..

[micromoog]

I disagree about the origin . . . "Rice burner" typically refers to Japanese-made motorcycles. "Ricer" refers to a particular style of decor, first pioneered by Asian males in southern California and still most commonly seen on cars owned by Asians. It's the driver, not the car, that the term refers to . . . a Mustang can be just as "riced out" as a Honda.

Re:Too bad..

[stud9920]

I was wondering what name you give to those rednecks doing that kind of things. In southern Belgium we call them Tonys or Ronnys, in Flanders they call them Johnnys (female Marina), in France they call them Jackys

Re:Too bad..

[micromoog]

By your logic, referring to a neighborhood as "niggertown" would also be acceptable.

Re:Too bad..

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? Rice burner refers to a car. Niggertown may refer to a neighbourhood, but the term "nigger" refers to people.

Re:Too bad..

[SuiteSisterMary]

Hmmm. My understanding is that they refer to them as 'ricers' because traditionally, it happens to Hondas and other 'rice burners.'

Re:Too bad..

[Anonymous Coward]

As a total aside, while Honda is a Japanese company the cars themselves are made in Ohio last time i checked, don't know how much rice the grow in Ohio...

Re:Too bad..

[Anonymous Coward]

You're stretching waaay out of context. That's so non-analogous I don't know where to start.

Re:Too bad..

[Zirnike]

Funny, most of the 'ricers' around where I am (Southeastern Mass) are hispanic (Brazillian, specifically, based on the flags). (and before you go of on me, I'm Portuguese... close enough.)

'Ricer' refers to a particular style of decor and vehicle modifications first pioneered by some males maybe in SoCal for use in imported cars, specifically but not exclusivly Hondas. It has since become a generic term for someone who mods their car primarily visually, with very few if any useful engine/power modifications. In the same way 'hacker' got massivly perverted, 'ricer' did as well.

And you may have complaints about my definition of ricer, but I don't care. I've never, and I do mean never, before this conversation, heard the term used in the way you describe. It's always been used to point out some idiot (often, but not exclusivly, hispanic) who has stickers, spoilers, and mods that make the car look rediculous, and probably reduce the performance of the thing.

Seatbelt tightening

[germinatoras]

And if, at 15 feet, you continue to move forward, the seatbelt will tighten even further, until an Audio sensor detects a human voice screaming, "AAahh! AAAH! OH God you're KILLING ME!!" at which point the seatbelt will release tension slightly.

Adaption for the LA market

[Dr_LHA]

As an adaption for for the huge LA car market, Honda have announced that the car will also automatically wildly swerve into the should a crash about to occur. Also adjusted in the LA model will be the radar's range which will be reduced from the highly redundant 300 feet, to a much more practicle and efficient 5 feet.

What astonishes me..

[popeydotcom]

Is the number of "300 yards! what about rush hour" posts here.

Think about what you've just said guys! Do you REALLY, honestly think that they would release a car that stamps on the brakes when *anything* is in range. Give it some intelligence.. Sheesh.

Re:What astonishes me..

[Anonymous Coward]

> Give it some intelligence...

I love how this is referring to a *car*!

Re:What astonishes me..

[Anonymous Coward]

It's certainly not referring to Slashdot posters!

Re:What astonishes me..

[cordsie]

It's the same kind of nonsense that goes on here whenever some article about any kind of technical innovation whatsoever comes out. A link to a three sentence article about a group investigating a new technology, and three hundred slashdot replies with all sorts of clever "It'll never possibly work because the engineers have obviously failed to consider condition y Those engineers with degrees in their field and experience who have been getting paid to consider this problem for eight hours a day for the last three years could never have considered possibility y, which I just thought of between writing lines of visual basic code. It'll never work!!!!!"

To these people: You put your lives in the hands of engineers each and every day. Personally, I trust them to have thought of each and every one of these issues, and about eight hundred more that you couldn't think of in a thousand years of browsing slashdot posts. Please, either spend the necessary years learning and gaining the experience to make relevant insights, or stick to your VB.

Re:What astonishes me..

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? What astonishes me is the literally hundreds of people that don't know the difference between 'braking' and 'breaking.' Sad, really.

Re:What astonishes me..

[blibbleblobble]

"Think about what you've just said guys! Do you REALLY, honestly think that they would release a car that stamps on the brakes when *anything* is in range. Give it some intelligence.. Sheesh."

C'mon, we're used to Microsoft software.

Re:What astonishes me..

[writertype]

Given all the crap associated with the automated iDrive system on the BMWs ("the world's ultimate driving machine"), I think it's perfectly fair to question the capability of this system on the Honda, the true Volkswagen (in the German sense, "people's car") of today's world.

Design errors happen. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask questions where my life is at stake. If you don't, then you're perfectly welcome to try out my new glider I made from bricks.

Re:Hrm...

[webmaker]

no more coffee for you... Road rage king

turns?

[lovebyte]

What about driving in the mountains. Turns, clift, 300ft, brakes. I don't think those would mix very well.

End of Tailgaitors?

[OS24Ever]

Man that'd be funny in rush hour traffic for those folks that come running up on you in a lane when you're doing a reasonable speed for the amount of traffic.

If you modded it? Could you have a switch that would tighten up the seat belt on the SO when they're complaining about your driving? heh.

Re:End of Tailgaitors?

[BigBadBri]

That'd be when you're not in the right lane for the speed you're doing, then.

If everyone followed the rule that the overtaking lanes are for overtaking, and didn't just amble along in the outside lane at the same speed as the slower lanes (or, just as bad, amble along in the middle lane when the inside lane is clear), there would be far more room on the road, traffic would run smoother, and there wouldn't be such a need for radar braking systems.

Limited to Cruise control?

[PhinMak]

This system would be most useful to people who are traveling on highways and have their cruise control on, methinks. Just last night I had to let my girlfriend drive us home because i was about to fall asleap at the wheel. Maybe all the seatbelt tugging is to wake us up? I might buy into this safety device...

I immagine the system would have to have an on/off switch anyway. And that it would have to have some kind of limitations so that when I'm driving around a mountain road i don't take a flying leap over some cliff.

Re:Limited to Cruise control?

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

I immagine the system would have to have an on/off switch anyway.

Of course there will have to be a black box that records the status of the switch so your insurance company can legally deny your claim because 'you disabled an integrated safety feature that your policy requires be enabled "for your own protection"'.

Re:Limited to Cruise control?

[Jerf]

Insurance companies are quite pragmatic. If this system was deployed I expect they'll require most drivers to shut it off, or they'll deny coverage for anything they can blame on the system, because I sincerely doubt this system will be a net safety gain.

Re:Limited to Cruise control?

[shotfeel]

Now if they really want to make it usefull, have it detect cars coming up from behind and speed up.

That way the next time some pulls into the passing lane with their cruise control set 0.1 m.p.h. faster than the car in the other lane I can give them a little "push".

I can't breathe!

[geoffeg]

I would really hope that the system doesn't have some kind of bug that continually tightens the seat belt. I can just see it now, the emergency workers find a guy in a car, stopped in the middle of the road.. His car is perfectly fine but he has been cut in half by his seat belt.. What an amusingly tragic sight that would be.

Geoffeg

another funny thing

[Anonymous Coward]

would just be to throw big objects infront of it like ... a news paper, and let the driver be stickened with seatbelt cuts and brake checks... hahah

Just walk around throwing those orange suction cup darts to the front so the radar things its right on something...

ah, the enjoyment.

Re:another funny thing

[faring]

Newspapers? Nah, I'm gonna mount me a chaff dispenser on my car to get rid of tailgaters. *pop* Tailgater's car thinks there's a brick wall coming up, slams the brakes, I get some breathing room.

Instead of braking...

[sfled]

Instead of activating the brakes, how about just an alert chime - a kinder, gentler version of the ground-proximity alarms in aircraft?

Either way, I smell lawsuit if the thing fails or causes the driver to claim (s)he lost control.

Re:Instead of braking...

[SnowDog_2112]

It starts with an alert chime. It doesn't apply the tactile feedback (seatbelt+brake) unless you fail to respond and it feels a collision is still likely.

Honda has a whole page about this feature; check Google (or just read other posts in this thread, it's been linked twice already that I've seen).

Here's a link to more info from Honda

[zptdooda]

Hereâ(TM)s more from Honda:

CMS

So itâ(TM)s more than just the 300 ft test, which would be arbitrary. It looks at "distance, speed and and anticipated path".

Sounds worse than a backseat driver though.

Re:Here's a link to more info from Honda

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds worse than a backseat driver though.

Yeah, but I'd take this over my mother-in-law anyday.

Production will be limited

[Boyceterous]

since they can only run the assembly line with the vehicles 300 feet apart.

"Crash Detection"?

[schon]

The title reminds me of a body shop near my work.

It was called "Certified Collision"

I always wondered - so you get in an accident, call these guys, they come over and say "Yup, you hit him!"

Now, maybe it's just me, but I think "Crash Prevention" would be much more desirable than "Crash Detection" :o)

Re:"Crash Detection"?

[Anonymous Coward]

-1 : RTFA
-1 : redundant

Re:"Crash Detection"?

[zurab]

The title reminds me of a body shop near my work.

It was called "Certified Collision"

I always wondered - so you get in an accident, call these guys, they come over and say "Yup, you hit him!"

Now, maybe it's just me, but I think "Crash Prevention" would be much more desirable than "Crash Detection"

That's true, but if you actually read the MSNBC article, they refer to it as a "crash-warning device", while Honda itself fomrally calls it Collision Mitigation Brake System (CMS).

Slashdot's wonderful article submission badly rephrases this as a "crash detection system", which is not surprising at all. I can imagine if there was another /.-like news service grabbing news from /. the story title would have been rephrased to "Honda introduces 'certified collision' system".

Anything that improves safety is worth it.

[FFFish]

I mean anything. Traffic accidents are one of the biggest killers in America (#1 killer of kids, I do believe). And yet it is so unnecessary to allow driving to continue being so dangerous.

Regular driving exams, say every three to five years: great idea.

Graduated licensing programs: great idea.

Mandatory driver training: great idea.

Black boxes reporting accident data: great idea.

Automatic safety systems: great idea.

Photo radar: great idea.

Hell, GPS tracking of vehicles would, if it reduced traffic deaths by a few percent, would be well worth the loss of privacy.

I'm at the maximum safe driver discounts. I haven't even been close to being in an accident in some fifteen years (arsehole ran a red light!). I maintain an attitude of defensive driving.

I'm not worried that I'll be the cause of an accident. But I'm scared shitless of your driving, because you are, in all probability, one of the drivers who is a threat to my continued well-being.

I'm quite willing to jump through some annoying hoops -- the repeated testing, the black box, the privacy invasions -- in order to save my life. I treasure my freedoms and privacy, I detest government interference, etcetera... but I value my life more than all that.

So bring it on.

Let's get our streets safe.

Re:Anything that improves safety is worth it.

[earthforce_1]

Heck, why don't you outlaw automobiles then? That will certainly reduce traffic deaths. And banning aircraft means that nobody would ever have to die in a plane crash again.

Re:Anything that improves safety is worth it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Regular driving exams, say every three to five years: great idea.
Graduated licensing programs: great idea.
Mandatory driver training: great idea.

I agree with all of these; this is how it works in a lot of places outside the US

Black boxes reporting accident data: great idea.

Only if it holds 60 seconds worth of data...

Automatic safety systems: great idea.

Only if they work properly, and never have "false positives". How many people have been killed by airbags? (Probably not as many as have been saved, but given the option, some of those who were killed may still be alive).

Photo radar: great idea.

This would likely increase traffic violation revenue, rather than making the streets safer.

Hell, GPS tracking of vehicles would, if it reduced traffic deaths by a few percent, would be well worth the loss of privacy.

Hold on there! The government has no business knowing where I am to sub-meter accuracy at any given time.

Govt: Gee, Ahmed, you've been spending a lot of time down at the mosque lately.
Ahmed: Uh, I've been taking my kids for religious studies...
Govt: Riiiight. Step on to this plane, sir, you're going to Cuba!

Re:Anything that improves safety is worth it.

[1337_h4x0r]

Lets go ahead and make it so you can't be killed while driving, even if you have no clue, and you're too stupid to follow the rules of the road.

In fact, lets go ahead and make it so you can't be killed for doing ANYTHING stupid. What does this do? It promotes stupidity. Instead of being dead, these stupid people will be procreating. As we all know, stupid people tend to procreate.. quite often. See the problem? Sure I don't like it that innocent smart/worthy people sometimes die as well due to the stupid folks mistakes, but come on, this is one of the last vestiges of natural selection we have. About the only thing really killing people out there are diseases, and we're doing our damnedest to save genetically disadvantaged people from THAT too. THINK OF THE FUTURE, MAN!

Re:Anything that improves safety is worth it.

[slittle]

Regular driving exams, say every three to five years: great idea.

PITA, not to mention a greater health risk than unsafe drivers. Have you seen the ferral creatures that inhabit the local RTA (DMV, or your regional equivalent)?

Graduated licensing programs: great idea.
Mandatory driver training: great idea.

Three days over 6 months to get a motorcycle license in Oz (NSW), after you have completed the road rules test, which you may take at your leisure.

Day 1, you are required to demonstrate you are able to ride a bike before you're given your L's (Learner plates/license). 3-6 months later, you're back for another two days worth of obstacle avoidance, emercengy breaking and general "how not to get dead" theory and practise. Gruesome video footage of people who fuck it up is optional. You are then tested on your emergency skills, plus a standard road ride, before being issued a Provisional license. This allows you to do upto 80km/h, upto 0.02BAC (one standard drink), and three whole points. You get to wallow in your lameness for a year or three - if you fuck up, you're off the road. If you don't, you get an unrestricted license. By this time, you have real experience under your belt, are now 20+ years old(er :) and theoretically, less likely to go nuts - you've been weened into your freedom.

Re:Anything that improves safety is worth it.

[aridhol]

Regular driving exams, say every three to five years: great idea.

This is one of my pet peeves with the current system (at least in BC, probably in alot of other places too). Once you have a license, you basically have it forever. My wife's grandmother had her license medically. The doctor tried to have it revoked permanently, but was unable to convince a judge that she was a danger - not even enough to warrant a re-test. The reasoning? She wasn't yet 80, the minimum age for mandatory re-testing.

I don't know how often I feel re-tests should be required. But I do know it should be less often than 60 years.

Re:Anything that improves safety is worth it.

[Zathrus]

While I agree with many of your statements, there is such a thing as going too far.

Hell, GPS tracking of vehicles would, if it reduced traffic deaths by a few percent, would be well worth the loss of privacy.

No. Sorry, but the privacy bit is too big. It's still possible to do it, but not with a total loss of privacy please.

I'm not worried that I'll be the cause of an accident. But I'm scared shitless of your driving, because you are, in all probability, one of the drivers who is a threat to my continued well-being.

I used to be an incredibly shitty driver... oh, sure, I thought I was a good one, and could drive fast, yet safely, etc... but then I got married and started driving more safely. Partly because my wife made it quite clear that she didn't like my driving (yes you did hon), but mostly because I couldn't live with myself if I got in an accident and hurt her. And to all you dweebs thinking that it's sappy and crap - yeah it is, and if you ever really love someone then you'll understand it at that time. I know I didn't until it happened to me.

Driving more safely now, I'm amazed at just how many utterly shitty drivers there are out there... and I also know that just about every single thing that I see them doing is the same crap I used to do. It's not safe. You are not some god of driving. You are causing problems by tailgating and making other drivers uncomfortable around you.

Yeah, I still speed, but not like I used to. I no longer consider the speed limit as a posted minimum, and I'm a lot more wary of rapid lane changing and weaving. Tailgating is just abysmally stupid. Not that I recognized these things as bad back when I was driving like that, and not that I actually expect any of the moron drivers out there to become enlightened based on reading this... but maybe in a few years they'll also look back on their driving habits and realize what idiotic punks they really were. I do.

All of that said, as long as the system works well (which is a huge caveat), I'm all for it... this probably would've saved my sister a great deal of physical therepy when some stupid driver decided to cross over the double yellow line in rush hour traffic and hit my sister's brand new Honda at 45 mph (which is the speed both cars were going... in opposite directions). My sister was fortunate to live through the accident, thanks to modern safety systems, but she wasn't able to drive for nearly 6 months afterwards due to injuries. And I know she was lucky.

If both cars had been equipped with such a system maybe each car would've only been doing 30 mph at impact instead... which would've been less than half the impact force. Sounds good to me.

Re:Anything that improves safety is worth it.

[manifest37]

You got behind the wheel of car, you have to take the risks of doing that. No matter what safety provisions are made there is allways going to be somebody who gets around it, drives drunk and kills. Driving isn't safe, but I don't want to live my life scared of what MIGHT happen.

Re:Anything that improves safety is worth it.

[aridhol]

Black boxes reporting accident data: great idea.

Only if it holds 60 seconds worth of data..

Where did you pull that number from? Suppose someone is driving like an asshole, and causes an accident. I don't think one minute would be enough to show he was driving badly for a long period - what if he swerved to avoid a larger potential accident? How about five or ten minutes, so that a longer record of your driving style is shown on the box?

Re:Anything that improves safety is worth it.

[n6mod]

Regular driving exams, say every three to five years: great idea.

Graduated licensing programs: great idea.

Mandatory driver training: great idea.


Stop right there. You were on a great roll there. We have hideous safety statistics in this country precisely because we give out driver's licenses in Crackerjack boxes. And we respond by lowering speed limits, which doesn't really work.

You want safe roads at any cost? Really? OK, simple: National 15 MPH speed limit, enforced with severe jail time. Or maybe death. Didn't think so.

You make a few great points here. Driver training and licensing in this country is a joke. I don't have his statistics handy, but there is an ER doctor in Southern California who is tracking the DMV records of a group of drivers who participate in performance driving schools (NASA and SCCA street schools, Open Tracks, AutoX schools and the like). He's seeing better than 90% reductions in both accident and moving violation rates. Ninety Percent! From better driver training. Not automagic systems that drive for you, just having a human that can actually control the machine.


Black boxes reporting accident data: great idea.


There are very real privacy concerns here. And very real property right concerns. It's not that having good data in a real accident is bad, it's the legal environment surrounding such data in the country that is horrifying. We have an environment where speed limits are set for political (I don't want them going fast near *my* house) and revenue reasons, not actual safety and engineering reasons. Yet exceeding those artificial speed limits is prima facie evidence of fault in any situation.


Automatic safety systems: great idea.


Maybe. Have you ever been in a situation where avoiding the accident required accelerating? How do you think the brake grabbing systems described here are going to react?


Photo radar: great idea.


If it were actually being used to enhance safety in places where the speed limits are set rationally, yes. But they're not. They're used to enhance revenue in places where the speed limits are set arbitrarily.

Let's look at a related issue, one that based on your comment is near and dear to your heart: Red light cameras. There have been numerous cases over the past couple of years of municipalities reducing yellow light duration to increase revenue. In Fairfax County, VA, cameras were installed at one intersection because of high incidences of red light runners. The cameras were catching an average of 52 events a day. Increasing the duration of the yellow from 4s to 5.5s reduced that number from 52 to less than 1. Engineering fixed the problem, not enforcement.


Hell, GPS tracking of vehicles would, if it reduced traffic deaths by a few percent, would be well worth the loss of privacy.


Do I *have* to quote Franklin?

I'm not worried that I'll be the cause of an accident. But I'm scared shitless of your driving, because you are, in all probability, one of the drivers who is a threat to my continued well-being.


I hear you. The average joe out there can't drive. The solution is to *teach them to drive*. It really is that simple.


Let's get our streets safe.


Through training and safety engineering, yes. Trying to idiot proof the roads and cars isn't going to work. Reducing the idiocy of the average driver will. (And does!)

Re:Anything that improves safety is worth it.

[geirhe]

I am a voluntary amateur motorcycle instructor for the local AA. I have no official training or certification. I have taken a number of private driving courses. My opinions are probably coloured by this. Caveat emptor.

I'm at the maximum safe driver discounts. I haven't even been close to being in an accident in some fifteen years (arsehole ran a red light!). I maintain an attitude of defensive driving.

It is a fact of life that a very significant percentage of the people driving motorized vehicles out there think they are a better than average driver. Most of them can't be, by definition.

You are stating something to the effect that a defensive driver is a safe driver. I don't agree with this view. You can be as defensive as you want. All you accomplish is lowering your own skill level. You won't become a better driver by going back and forth to the shops doing 30 km/h seven times a week, even if you need to spend most of the day driving (the old "I drive many miles a year" argument)

I am also worried that you are afraid of what other people might do to you. It doesn't seem like you really have that much confidence in your defensice driving.

What makes a better driver is actually learning to do something you couldn't do before - in a controlled environment, of course. When did you last try an evasive maneuver without having to? Do you know how your car behaves when you have to not hit something on ice? On a wet road? Do you buy cheap plastic tires? Can you really stop instantaneously when you travel where children might be playing? Most people haven't even tried. They regularily have opinions on speed limits and other peoples driving habits, but many have absolutely no idea how much time and road surface they need to stop their own car.

In Norway, we have a goverment that has tried to lower speed limits and promote "defensive driving" in order to reduce the accident rate. It works for a time, then people adjust, lose some driving skills, and the accidents go up again.

Go and learn something new. Then realize that everyone else probably haven't done the same thing. This is where you don't increase your own speed, but continue driving as before, but with your additional skills in store for when you need them. Driving defensively is only one part of being a safe driver. Telling everyone else how dangerous they are is not part of being one.

You have just told me you haven't had to use any driving skills for 15 years, and that you crashed the last time you needed better than average driving skills because someone ran a red light. I suggest you ponder how safe this really is, and if it really is the message you wanted to give.

Re:Anything that improves safety is worth it.

[tvsjr]

I'll make this simple...

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " -- Ben Franklin.

Exams, programs, training... cool. Photo radar? GPS tracking? Long-run black boxes? The day these become standard is the day I begin taking all available measures to defeat them. If that makes me a criminal, oh well.

Re:Anything that improves safety is worth it.

[danila]

How about creating some sort of "Darwin police" instead. Imagine some really tough and well-equipped force, a la Minority Report, that will drop from the sky in their cool futuristic gear every time anyone does something stupid and sterilizing him (her). :)

Drive on red - sterilized.
Use hair-drier in a bathtub - sterilized.
Jump from the roof in a Supermen suit - fixed in a hospital and then sterilized.
et cetera.

This way we solve two problems - natural selection is enforced (artificially) and people don't die as often.

Re:Anything that improves safety is worth it.

[cens0r]

Only if they work properly, and never have "false positives". How many people have been killed by airbags? (Probably not as many as have been saved, but given the option, some of those who were killed may still be alive).

Many more people would be dead if airbags hadn't been introduced. Even those who would have opted out and been saved would be far offset by the number of deaths. And airbags today are wonderful, they inflate based on speed, severity of the impact, and weight of the occupant to minimize injuries.

Re:Anything that improves safety is worth it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Important if true!

All these things sound like they may improve safety, but do they? I have no idea.

Remember that this 'dangerous killer'
kills in the US 1 person for every 66million
passenger miles or so. Your life expectancy driving
is LONGER than your overall life expectancy.
(It because eventually sick people stop driving
so they don't drive any more.)

There is a web site I remember on risk calculations that suggested that the danger of highways per passenger mile has gone down, but the danger per unit time has stayed about constant, starting with horse drawn transport.

It also found that people adjust their behavior essentially to equalize their general riskiness.
If you made the world safer, they would do more risky things. This suggests that all these safe sounding things will be much less useful than they seem.

People do risky things because they make an insurance type calculation of the value of their time now, versus some future time that might be taken away. If you have a life expectancy of 1 year you behave differently than if you expect to have many years - because you have more to lose
by stupidly dying today.
This explains why the idiot teenager who already knows he is going to die before he's 30 does some really stupid things.
(The explanation for why an idiot teenager who believes he will live forever does stupid things
is that he thinks he is invulnerable.)

A real safety improver is to make people realize they have more future than they think.
This actually means changing economics and outlooks, not seatbelts.

Re:Anything that improves safety is worth it.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between "defensive driving" and "rolling roadblock" that I don't think you're addressing.

If all of the traffic is going 70mph and you're doing 55 like a good little citizen, then you're a rolling roadblock. If you stop at the end of the on ramp because you don't want to cut someone off or speed to enter traffic, you're a (non)rolling roadblock. If you slow down well below the speed of traffic to maintain a safe distance as people jump in front of you, you're a rolling roadblock. And if you refuse to speed up to pass someone in a reasonable amount of time, you're a rolling roadblock. I can almost guarantee that people who exhibit these behaviors are the causes of accidents even though they may not be involved themselves.

Weaving in an out of traffic: Bad
Fast lane changes for no reason: Bad
Driving significantly faster than traffic: Bad

Moving with traffic regardless of speed; making every attempt to keep traffic moving; not slamming on your brakes to stop at a yellow light; using your turn signals BEFORE you apply your brakes - Good.

Re:Anything that improves safety is worth it.

[Jon Abbott]

I am a voluntary amateur motorcycle instructor for the local AA.

I hope that by "AA", you mean "Automobile Association" and not "Alcoholics Anonymous". :^) I completely agree with your post -- I wish that DMVs had driving simulators to test drivers and help them increase their evasive maneuvering skills. I know so many people who don't know how to handle risky driving situations simply because their idea of driving is "always keep it between the lines". I proudly tell people, "I have died countless times in simulation in order to make my driving better."

I have had one situation, in real life, where staying in the lines would have resulted in severe injury to myself and another driver (not due to my driving any more than the other person's driving). To avoid the accident, I had to drive over a fairly high curb at about 40 MPH (~64 kph). Not fun, but nobody was hurt as a result.

Re:Anything that improves safety is worth it.

[Anonymous Coward]

May I suggest you one more idea for USA, being a foreigner? After about 1500 miles driven in California two years ago, my feeling is that driving in your country is *too easy*. I mean: cruise control + automatic gears + huge highways + everybody cruising at the same speed (more or less) = distraction. As an example: the first day, soon after hiring the car, while driving on an highway in SF Bay Area I changed lane in a way that in France, Germany, Italy and so on wouldn't be dangerous *at all* (trust me, only one small accident in a queue in 15 years, driving everyday), but I saw other drivers almost panicking. They seemed to be asleep. Of course I changed my habits, but if you americans are so slow to react, what about a real dangerous situation? Maybe manual gears are too much, but... at least no cruise control, please. Keep yourself awake. You're driving a car, not watching TV!

Re:Anything that improves safety is worth it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out this
http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/ target/

For an explanation of risk homeostasis -
which means we seek a fixed level of risk
that compnesates a safer world

Re:Anything that improves safety is worth it.

[ashitaka]

I disagree with you contention that "Defensive Driving" means driving slowly in fear of others.

To me, defensive driving is having a heightened sense of what is going on around you and to be prepared to take, in some cases extremely agressive, actions to avoid collision. Another poster mentioned driving over a curb. I've been in situations where the only way out was *hard* acceleration with a non-intuitive steering response.
Yes, sometimes the other side of the road is a better place to be if the alternative is close to head-on in the shoulder on your side of the road.

Re:Anything that improves safety is worth it.

[srvivn21]

First off, let me say that I agree with most of what you say. I like your position (education, not automation), but I have to question one fact...

There have been numerous cases over the past couple of years of municipalities reducing yellow light duration to increase revenue. In Fairfax County, VA, cameras were installed at one intersection because of high incidences of red light runners. The cameras were catching an average of 52 events a day. Increasing the duration of the yellow from 4s to 5.5s reduced that number from 52 to less than 1. Engineering fixed the problem, not enforcement.

How long was the problem fixed for? My guess would be "only as long as it took people to get used to the longer yellow".

I've been to Sweden more than once, and noticed an interesting fact about the traffic lights I saw. The lights go to yellow not just between green and red, but also between red and green. The only reason that it's safe for this to happen is that people stop for yellows.

In the USA green means go, red means stop and yellow means hurry the heck up. Educating drivers to actually stop on yellow (or at least prepare to stop, instead of speeding up) would have a better effect than lengthening the duration of yellow lights.

(Obviously there needs to be a minimum duration. Something along the lines of: ceiling(SpeedLimitInMPH/10)*seconds. A 35 MPH road has a 4 sec yellow, while a 45 MPH road has a 5 sec.)

Re:Anything that improves safety is worth it.

[DonGar]

I think it's obvious that a lot of the problems on the road come from the fact that driver's licenses are given out casually.

However (at least in most of the US), to not have a license is almost equivalent to being disabled. There are many things that you can't do, or which at least become much more difficult. Holding a job is a good example. There are ways around the problems, but (like a physical disability) it just makes doing XYZ that much harder.

If we had convenient/reliable public transportation, I think we would do as much to drop the number of idiot drivers as we would by making it harder to get a license. We'd solve a lot of other problems as well. Unfortunatly, a good solution to public transit is really hard to implement and make work.

Re:Anything that improves safety is worth it.

[n6mod]

How long was the problem fixed for? My guess would be "only as long as it took people to get used to the longer yellow".

This is a really good question, and one not answered by the source report.

The lights go to yellow not just between green and red, but also between red and green. The only reason that it's safe for this to happen is that people stop for yellows.

But it's not legal to enter the intersection on Red/Yellow going to green, is it? This is common in Europe, but I thought it had to do with preparing people to go (so you don't have to wait as long for the guy in front of you to wake up). Any Europeans care to comment here?

(Obviously there needs to be a minimum duration. Something along the lines of: ceiling(SpeedLimitInMPH/10)*seconds. A 35 MPH road has a 4 sec yellow, while a 45 MPH road has a 5 sec.)

I think that's the real problem. Here's the NMA's recommendation, which is very close to yours:

The minimum yellow light interval shall be 4 seconds for intersection signals on streets with actual 85th percentile approach speeds of 30 mph, or less.
The yellow light interval shall be increased ½ second for each 5-mph increase in 85th percentile approach speeds above 30 mph.

Re:Anything that improves safety is worth it.

[Skiboo]

Anything?

I've thought of a revolutionary new policy to decrease the road toll: revoke everybody's license.

If anybody driving on the road gets arrested, think how few deaths there will be!

Re:Anything that improves safety is worth it.

[srvivn21]

How long was the problem fixed for? My guess would be "only as long as it took people to get used to the longer yellow".

This is a really good question, and one not answered by the source report.

Said report does state "It should be noted that these reductions have stayed consistently low since the increase in yellow light time." Whatever that means... Reductions have stayed low? I thought the reductions were major! *sigh*

The lights go to yellow not just between green and red, but also between red and green. The only reason that it's safe for this to happen is that people stop for yellows.

But it's not legal to enter the intersection on Red/Yellow going to green, is it? This is common in Europe, but I thought it had to do with preparing people to go (so you don't have to wait as long for the guy in front of you to wake up). Any Europeans care to comment here?

I don't have a definitive answer on legality, but common practice is to start rolling on yellow.

(Obviously there needs to be a minimum duration. Something along the lines of: ceiling(SpeedLimitInMPH/10)*seconds. A 35 MPH road has a 4 sec yellow, while a 45 MPH road has a 5 sec.)

I think that's the real problem. Here's the NMA's recommendation, which is very close to yours:

The minimum yellow light interval shall be 4 seconds for intersection signals on streets with actual 85th percentile approach speeds of 30 mph, or less.
The yellow light interval shall be increased ½ second for each 5-mph increase in 85th percentile approach speeds above 30 mph.

To be perfectly honest, I heard that formula in response to a question in "Defensive Driver Training" (a.k.a. I got a ticket, and want to erase the points from my licence). It certainly sounded reasonable.

Re:Anything that improves safety is worth it.

[FFFish]

Re: red light cameras -- in BC, they are not a revenue-generation device. The monies do not go to the municipality nor the cops; they go toward camera maintenance, and barely cover that cost.

Team 'em to drive and get serious about dealing with violations, yah, that's probably enough to do the trick.

I was being deliberately over-the-top. It instigated a good thread!

Re:Anything that improves safety is worth it.

[FFFish]

I have tested the car on ice, wet, and gravel. I buy high-end Michelin tires. No one can stop instantaneously, so I'm unsure what you mean. I scan under cars looking for little feet, though, so I can best be prepared. I do not drive in excess of the posted limit + 10% (and that only because it seems to be the average speed around here, where one doesn't pass and doesn't get passed continuously).

Defensive driving isn't driving 30 below the limit on only rainy Sundays. It's being aware of the traffic flow both ahead and behind, planning one's route in advance, driving speeds appropriate to the conditions, maintaining one's car, respecting traffic lights, and maintaining one's cool. I deliberately practice all these things.

And the red-light runner did not cause me to crash. I reacted immediately and took evasive action, which kept us from being involved in a collision. My sole accident was forever and a day ago, at age 16, when I was a young and stupid driver. It changed my habits, making me extremely aware of the potential for damage and the need to work at being a better driver all the time.

ABS Works

[vasqzr]

ABS stops shorter than non-ABS. It's been proved hundreds of times.

Still using carburators?

Re:ABS Works

[thecoolcat]

Apparently it hasnâ(TM)t been proven in Canada (Road Safety website):
Q: Is the stopping distance shorter with ABS?
A: Noâ¦
Not that I think that Canada should be your answer for all automotive questions, it was just the first to come up on Google.

Oh, how did you figure that braking and releasing would ever be better then constant braking. I mean if the wheel isnâ(TM)t moving wonâ(TM)t it have more friction then if the wheel is allowed to rotate, even a little?

Re:ABS Works

[rck]

Absolutely, when road conditions are variable ABS can be wonderful.

However in the dry, people who know how to threshold brake can easily stop shorter than ABS.

...robert

Re:ABS Works

[Anonymous Coward]

No moron. Keep searching google, you'll find your answers. Did you even finish the 3rd grade?

Re:ABS Works

[Igmuth]

Actually no...
A sliding object always has a lower coefficient of friction than an stationary object(Static vs kenetic.

Re:ABS Works

[Igmuth]

So basically good conditions (that which isn't ususally there) a good driver(which most aren't) can stop shorter then the ABS.

All that means is we need to improve the ABS, IMO.

Re:ABS Works

[Neon Spiral Injector]

Constant braking at the absolute threshold that the tire to road surface will allow will give you the shortest possible stopping distance. But if you lock a tire up, and it starts to slide, you loose a lot of stopping ability and control. Panic stops with all four wheels locked means the car will slide much father than if it was a controlled stop, and the driver can keep the car in a straight line.

A lot of drivers out there can't keep from mashing the pedel to the floor. This is where anti-lock brakes help.

Re:ABS Works

[Alan Partridge]

"Oh, how did you figure that braking and releasing would ever be better then constant braking. I mean if the wheel isnâ(TM)t moving wonâ(TM)t it have more friction then if the wheel is allowed to rotate, even a little?"

Errmm... the REAL point of ABS is to allow you to steer - and thus retain control of - your vehicle under emergency braking. It's saved my life TWICE.

Re:ABS Works

[matth]

ABS Do *not* as the above poster said, make you stop faster. Rather, they allow you to maintain steering and control over your car ( at least in theory ). The reason we need ABS is because people can't drive. A skilled driver (I am not one) can make the breaks not lock up in the first place, and stop much faster then an ABS can.

Re:ABS Works

[le_jfs]

I mean if the wheel isnâ(TM)t moving wonâ(TM)t it have more friction then if the wheel is allowed to rotate, even a little?

No. The force of friction can be expressed as the product of a friction coefficient times the gravitational force.
Sliding friction coefficient (m_s) is lower than the kinetic one (m_k).
That means that if your tires slide, you get less friction than if your tires roll. Less friction means more distance to come to a full stop (*).

These friction coeffs. for rubber on concrete are:
m_k = 1 and m_s = .80 for dry conditions and
m_k = .3 and m_s = .25 for wet conditions.

(*) If there is a wall, the braking distance can be the same, though.

Re:ABS Works

[le_jfs]

Oops...
The force of friction can be expressed as the product of a friction coefficient times the gravitational force
s/the gravitational force/a normal force to the contact surface/

These two forces are equal if the surface (the road) is level...

Re:ABS Works

[B1]

Oh, how did you figure that braking and releasing would ever be better then constant braking. I mean if the wheel isnâ(TM)t moving wonâ(TM)t it have more friction then if the wheel is allowed to rotate, even a little?

Most of your braking friction comes from your brakes and pads, not your tires.

When you lock your wheels, the only thing generating friction is your tire skidding on pavement (or whatever surface you're driving on). This generates far less friction than what you can get between your brake pads and rotors, leading to a longer stopping distance. Additionally, once your wheels are sliding, you can't steer to avoid anything.

The ideal situation is to get your brakes on the *threshold* of locking up--i.e. using the maximum braking force that doesn't cause your brakes to lock. Professional drivers can do this without problem, but most average drivers have trouble, especially in an emergency situation. The usual reaction is to panic, lock the wheels, and lose control of the car.

The benefit of ABS is that it approximates threshold braking very closely, while requiring far less skill from the driver. Additionally, your wheels are still turning, so you are able to steer at the same time. In a panic stop, I doubt most drivers would even remember to use threshold braking, let alone do it effectively.

There *are* situations where a four wheel lockup will be your best option, but they're the exception. For example, on snow or gravel, a locked tire will build up a wedge of material in front of it, that will help stop you. Considering that the original question came from a Canadian driving guide, I imagine this is what they were thinking.

In most situations though, ABS will get you shorter stopping distances than manual braking will.

Re:ABS Works

[hesiod]

> > I mean if the wheel isnâ(TM)t moving wonâ(TM)t it have more friction then if the wheel is allowed to rotate, even a little?

He said: no motion = more friction

> A sliding object always has a lower coefficient of friction than an stationary object(Static vs kenetic.

You said: motion = less friction

derr? Am I confused?

Re:ABS Works

[dbrutus]

I'd rather improve driver license categories so that we can get much more detail about how good a particular driver is. That doesn't actually require technology research just a little legislation.

Re:ABS Works

[Igmuth]

Ok.. Let me clarify... We are both talking about motion yes, but different forms.
He was refering to rotation of the wheel, while I was refering to the wheel skidding along the ground.
The fricion is higher when the wheel is not skidding as compared to when it is skidding.
However a non rotating wheel is going to skid, a rotating wheel is more likely to be not skidding.

Basically with ABS, or a driver pumping the brakes, the purpose is to provide just enough resistance to the wheel to keep it in the static friction phase.
This is basically what someone else said earlier about a good driver being able to hold the brake right at that point without pumping.

Re:ABS Works

[laserjet]

Yes, I still use carburators. They may be worse in some respects, but they are easier to work and on and much cheaper to fix should something go wrong. I am one of the old fashioned people who likes to work on their own car and is capable of fixing it.

And on a dry road with good traction, a non-ABS braking system can certainly stop faster than ABS can. When conditions vary, such as a wet or slippery road, then ABS truly shines. ABS is also much better "for the masses" as it requires to ability to execute controlled breaking.

That being said, on a dry road with a driver that knows exactly what he is doing, non-ABS can stop faster. Control, however is a different issue.

Re:ABS Works

[shotfeel]

Motion is relative -we're talking tire surface relative to road surface during the time that any given part of the tire is in contact with the road.

If you lock of the wheels, the tire is sliding across the road -> coefficient of friction is decreased.

Another example of this phenomenon people may be more familiar with is pushing a heavy object across the floor. You'll notice you have to push really hard to get the object to start moving, but you don't have to push nearly as hard to keep it moving once it starts -you're skidding across the floor much like a car with its wheels locked.

This phenomenon is even more important to be aware of when driving in slippery conditions (ice, snow...).

Re:ABS Works

[shotfeel]

No they can't. Even a skilled driver can't compensate for a loss of traction on one side of the vehicle vs. another (say if one side drops onto the gravel shoulder). An ABS system can.

Another scenario is if you pass over a slippery spot (say some sand on the road). Once that wheel locks up going over the sand, it may not start rolling again once it gets to "clear" pavement. ABS can instantly compensate. A skilled driver has to decide wether one or more skidding tires is worth backing off the breaks to get them under control. Either way the ABS system will be better.

The problem is no driver can continuously apply different amounts of breaking force to each wheel individually.

The only scenario I know of where a skilled driver may be able to "beat" an ABS is on a stretch of straight, flat pavement in a well designed car (properly balanced front vs. rear breaking).

Re:ABS Works

[Anonymous Coward]

Your statements are contradicting each other. If the coefficient of friction is 1, it means there is no friction. If you decrease the coefficient, it means more friction. It's simply a force multiplier. If you are applying a force of 100N and the coefficient of friction is 0.5, you're only getting 50N of force in the direction you want.

So you are correct in stating that if you lock the wheels, the coefficient is decreased and the car stops faster than if the wheels were still rotating. ABS does not stop you faster than locking the brakes up completely. That's been proven many times. The value of ABS is that you can still steer your car while slamming on the brakes. A non-ABS car is likely to skid out of control.

And the reason a heavy object is easier to push once it's already moving is due to one of Newton's law (can't remember the number) that states basically that "a body in motion tends to stay in motion.." The object has inertia and desires to move in the same direction. It actually requires a seperate force to slow it down.

Re:ABS Works

[Hadlock]

The only scenario I know of where a skilled driver may be able to "beat" an ABS is on a stretch of straight, flat pavement in a well designed car (properly balanced front vs. rear breaking).

where most skilled drivers do threshold braking is on the race track, at the end of long straightaways, with properly balanced brakes.

Re:ABS Works

[SuiteSisterMary]

Oh, how did you figure that braking and releasing would ever be better then constant braking. I mean if the wheel isnâ(TM)t moving wonâ(TM)t it have more friction then if the wheel is allowed to rotate, even a little?

I'll assume you're being serious, and give you a serious answer.

If you brake hard enough, your wheels stop spinning entirely. If your wheels stop spinning entirely, your interia might be enough to overcome the coefficient of friction between your wheels and the pavement. If that happens, you're now sliding along the ground, and braking power ceases to have any effect whatsoever on stopping distance, and you go further than you would have if you'd braked properly.

Re:ABS Works

[shotfeel]

No, they don't contradict. The equation is essentially (leaving out the geometry):

Frictional Force = (coefficient of friction) x weight

Thus if you decrease the coefficient of friction, you decrease frictional force.

WRT moving heavy objects, its not due to a "bodies in motion" effect, its the change in the coefficient of friction. You left out the part about "unless acted upon by an outside force" (i.e. friction). We're all familiar with the formula

Force = Mass x Acceleration

The force due to friction must be equal and opposite to the force you are pushing with, or the object will "accelerate" -either speed up or slow down (assuming mass is constant).

Stated another way, in order to keep the object moving at roughly a constant speed, you need to continue to apply a force equal to that of the frictional force. That force is less than what you need to initially get the object moving. The technical term for this is "stiction" and its the reason why tapping/thumping/hammering mechanical hardware that's stuck can sometimes get things moving.

Re:ABS Works

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you should learn how to fucking drive before it doesn't do the same the third time

Re:ABS Works

[Anonymous Coward]

>Even a skilled driver can't compensate for a loss >of traction on one side of the vehicle vs. another

Ever watch FIA world rally??

Thats right - FUCK YOU!!

Re:Great...

[fataugie]

Wrong...what we need is an AssHole Detector (TM) installed in every car.

The car could record your driving habits over a period of time (week, month, whatever) and make a decision as to whether or not you are an AssHole(TM).

If you fall into the AH catagory, the car/truck/suv uses it's built in ejection seat to remove the problem...so there would never be anyone following you close because they would be ejected.

See how simple that would be? Excuse me while I make my way to the patent office....

Does it cater for a swerve?

[Placido]

I was once doing at least 70mph on a motorway overtaking a slower car and a lorry when the slow car decided to pull into my lane to overtake the lorry.

Unfortunately there was another car overtaking me in the fast lane. I was aware that the car overtaking me was still slightly behind me and accelerated as I swerved into the fast lane. It was all a bit hairy but luckily there wasn't a crash, just some serious adrenaline.

But it might have turned out differently if my car decided to brake!! I'd like to see how this thing works in real life.

Are owners forced to use this "feature"?

[Chucow]

It seems to me that Honda should, at the very least, have some way for the driver to disable this feature. Particularly since it is not available on its own, but only in a package.

From article: The system comes as part of a package of options and is not priced separately.

And after the accident...

[antin]

A helpful sound recording says "told ya so :P"

Re:Hrm...

[qqtortqq]

I think you may have a case of road rage. Sorry about cutting you off last tuesday, I wasn't paying attention because I was talking to my mom on the phone, and didn't see that there was someone right in front of me. Thats why I slammed on the brakes.

The death of Cruise Control

[dsmoses]

With as many people that tailgate and cut over directly in front of other cars (including just a few feet in front of one they just passed on an empty highway to then just step on the brakes), this should wreek havoc on cruise control systems and also wear through brake pads like sawdust.

At 60 mph, a one second distance gap is 88 feet. So 300 feet is roughly 3.4 seconds. Does anyone even stay that far behind the car in front of them anymore? I remember driver's ed/mva handbook recommending 3 seconds or so in distance, but my observations are that this is rarely more than 1 - 1.5 seconds.

Also, isn't it the last thing people need is a distraction in the event of an emergency. Granted it will take their concentration away from a cell phone or makeup application. How many times has a startled passenger's shrieking caused confusion just enough to distract the driver from the real danger?

Re:The death of Cruise Control

[Anonymous Coward]

"Does anyone even stay that far behind the car in front of them anymore?"

The question that always comes to my mind is *can* anyone even stay that far behind? It seems whenever I get that wonderfully comfortable 3 seconds some yahoo(s) decide to pass and fill it up (never mind that I'm going the speed of the traffic around me- evidently some drivers feel that any space greater than a car length ahead of them is a grave offense and must be rectified before the next offramp or stoplight.)

Provided it's consistent, accurate and subtle enough I'd think that in some ways this radar thingy would enforce the distance rule through behavior modification.

Re:The death of Cruise Control

[Anonymous Coward]

[ At 60 mph, a one second distance gap is 88 feet. So 300 feet is roughly 3.4 seconds. ... I remember driver's ed/mva handbook recommending 3 seconds or so in distance, but my observations are that this is rarely more than 1 - 1.5 seconds. ]

So 1.5 seconds is 132 feet @ 60 mph. Guess what most cars' 60 mph stopping distance is...

Re:The death of Cruise Control

[jonabbey]

Come on. Just because the radar has a 300 feet range doesn't mean that the system will freak as soon as it sees anything ahead of it. The system has to be configured to compare the speed of your vehicle with the speed of the vehicle ahead of you, and your closing rate, among other factors.

Systems like this are designed by people who do automotive engineering for a living, you know.

Re:The death of Cruise Control

[Tenebrious1]

At 60 mph, a one second distance gap is 88 feet. So 300 feet is roughly 3.4 seconds. Does anyone even stay that far behind the car in front of them anymore? I remember driver's ed/mva handbook recommending 3 seconds or so in distance, but my observations are that this is rarely more than 1 - 1.5 seconds.

Perhaps, but when the system automatically slows you down, on a country highway at night with no other cars, and as you gently roll to a stop you finally see the deer standing frozen in the middle of the road, you'll be thankful for it. Most people hit deer because by the time they see the deer within their headlights, it's too late to slow down.

Or maybe in the rain, when you need more time to slow down. Heavy rain, some fog, is that car really 300 feet in front of you? Those tail lights look dim enough to be 300 feet, but maybe the fog is so heavy it's only 100 feet? Maybe the idiot is running without tail lights.

There are plenty of situations where this could come in very handy.

Re:The death of Cruise Control

[Anonymous Coward]

Systems like this are designed by people who do automotive engineering for a living, you know.


Yeah, that's what scares me. People who seem to care more about how many cup holders are in the vehicle than whether or not the engine falls out.

Full service

[HarveyBirdman]

It then taps the brake and tightens the seatbelt. A buzzer goes off and a light on the dash is illuminated.

An in-dash audio/video capture system allows the driver to make any final requests if they are clear headed enough. If not, it'll make a great file for collision and safetey research centers or alt.binaries.tasteless.

An embedded MP3 begins to play a prayer in the religious demoniation of the driver's choice or, if the driver is an athieist, something by, uh, Isaac Asimov or something.

The driver's lower portion is wrapped tightly in Saran-Wrap[tm] by robotic arms so that the ambulence workers can be shielded from the soiled underwear.

A small hole opens in the seat, and a pair of cybernetic lips firmly and lovingly kisses the driver's ass goodbye.

Re:Full service

[Jon Abbott]

Score:4, Twisted! :^)

A particularly apropros story by Isaac Asimov that could be played would be "The Automatobiles", a short story about automated automobiles that have intelligence of their own (it is in the book Isaac Asimov: The Complete Stories, Volume 1).

Party on Wayne!

[Anonymous Coward]

thats gonna work real well during rush hour.. not!

Monkeys may fly out of your butt, too. What is this, 1991?

And if braking isn't the right move?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have gotten out of accidents by NOT braking, where braking would have surely smacked me up real nice. If acceleration is the key to getting out of the jam, does this system not impair you from doing that?

Re:Older Drivers...

[cayenne8]

THis is what old people need. I have been rear ended 3 times by old people now.

Well, that brings up a whole new topic....as we all live to be older..we need to consider when you are too OLD to drive...not by just age...but, probably testing at a certain age.

I think Dennis Miller put it best.."I don't think you should be allowed to drive IF you are old enough to remember when there WEREN'T any cars..."

that is the worst idea.

[meatbridge]

what happens if you are an asshole driver? the car prevents you from driving the way you feel most comfortable.

Tailgating problem

[kongjie]

I think most of the posts (even those in jest) show what a lot of people already know: there is a serious problem on US highways with vehicles not leaving adequate distance in front of them.

Following closely to prevent someone "cutting in" is dangerous and illegal. If someone enters the space cushion you have left in front of your vehicle, then you have to slow down until you re-establish a safe zone. It's too bad for you if you think you're a road warrior and can't bear the idea of allowing a crappy driver to get in front of you.

Safe driving begins before you get in your vehicle: if you are in a mindset where you need to drive recklessly in order to shave five minutes off your driving time, you've already screwed up. Leave earlier or move closer to work. Take public transportation.

With all the attention paid over the last couple of decades to drunk driving, you would think that people might notice that the real deadly statistics come not from driving drunk but from driving itself. It is time when we Americans need to realize that the numbers of people killed on highways because of aggressive, irresponsible and careless behavior is no longer acceptable just to maintain our carefree, my car represents my Yankee Doodle individuality lifestyles.

Honda would be taking a chance

[luugi]

They would have a lot of courage to put out something in the market like that. I could see a lot of people blaming the device for accidents. How would they prove the system worked properly?

Re:Honda would be taking a chance

[vjmurphy]

They'd just grab the data from the car's last moments, as in this story.

Then the robot judge can sentence you to life in a sleep chamber. When you wake up, the world will be filled with robots and Haley Joel Osment.

Re:Great...

[stanmann]

I like that idea alot. altho, I have perfected a personal system for bringing the brakelights on without losing momentum, an automatic flash the lights, or even a triggered give me 15 seconds of brake light button would be perfect.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The specified distance makes no sense

[mark-t]

300 feet is wrong.

The distance that the car should be measuring should be based on whatever the current speed of the car is to compensate for the fact that the faster the car moves, the greater the breaking distance, and if the car is barely crawling (as in bumper-to-bumper rush hour traffic), the stopping distance is practically zero.

Most driving guides recommend that you follow the car in front of you no closer than 2 seconds and I would think that any automatic braking system that kicks in at around that would probably be very appropriate, personally. But 300ft? Even at highway speeds that's almost 4 seconds of distance between cars!!! For in-city driving, it would be absurd.

Re:The specified distance makes no sense

[t_allardyce]

I think they said with-in a range of 300ft - ie. thats the range of the system, probably not the actaul braking distance, but yeah something to just check for the 2 seconds rule would be very useful - maybe it does?

Re:The specified distance makes no sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the slashdot summary is a bit deceptive. If you read Honda's literature, what you find is that the sensor is able to observe objects up to 100m away. It doesn't trigger anything just because it can observe an object; it computes relative speed, distance, etc., and first warns the driver if they are getting close. Then, if they don't react at all and the situation is getting worse, it applies the brakes.

Jeez

[Z0mb1eman]

99% of the replies so far may as well be modded -1 Redundant.

Do you people honestly think the Honda engineers aren't bright enough to think of the objections people here came up with 5 seconds after reading the article summary and pouncing on the "Post" button?

The article is light on details, but it still makes the point that this is a collision WARNING system. It doesn't seem to be designed to stop the car or brake to avoid collisions; it's a system that fires off a small warning whenever it detects a potentially dangerous situation - say, if you're dozing off in rush hour traffic and you don't notice the car in front of you is stopped, this'll ideally snap you back to attention.

It doesn't seem that it will brake enough to get you rearended; I'm SURE the Honda engineers can come up with a way to tell the difference between a squirrel, a tree, and an SUV; it's not very difficult to tell which way a vehicle is going, so it's easy to make the system ignore cars going past you in the opposite direction, or cars passing by perpendicularly at an intersection. I don't know the reasons behind the 300 feet range (although I'd imagine the range is dynamic and proportional to your vehicle's speed), but without more information I'll have to assume the Honda people did their research and have some rationale.

There, was that so hard? I'm a couch Honda engineer too now!

Re:Jeez

[sstory]

Do you people honestly think the Honda engineers aren't bright enough to think of the objections people here came up with 5 seconds after reading the article summary and pouncing on the "Post" button?

Good point. Lately I've seen that failure to understand the intelligence of others contributes to bad thinking in many cases. This is a new example. Where I originally noticed this is, creationists fail to understand what it means that thousands of science ph.d.'s believe evolution makes sense.

Re:Jeez

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

I second this! I was going to say this myself.

This seems to be a common occurance on /. (and other place to, probably).

Just because you're smart, doesn't mean that no one else is. Does anyone here really think that they know more in this field than the engineers at Honda?

Other other redundant posts here go something like this:

"If every one of the other retards on the road was at skilled at driving as I am, then we wouldn't need these dangerous "safty" aids in the first place."

The biggest problem on the road is probably people who think they are better than they acctually are. Unless you properly race full-size cars* on a regular basis, you are not as good as you think you are. You're a danger to other people.

*I race RC cars, so know a lot about the handling of cars in theory and practice (sort of). Of course, I'm smart enough to know that this still doesn't mean I'm going to be able to correctly handle a car in an accident situation.

"Fully stop the vehicle"

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, Japanese regulations don't allow for the system to fully stop the vehicle."

Why do I picture, when I think of a vehicle that will fully stop, something involving an anchor and the trunk?

What's next, vegetables?

[HTH NE1]

"'Ere, that tomato just ejected itself!"

You can do this already

[spakka]

I saw a film (possibly the minor Clint thriller 'The Eiger Sanction') where the hero puts on his headlights in daylight to make the car behind think he's braking. I've only tried it in the M6 fast lane once, and it seemed to scare the shit out of the impatient old couple in the following Landcruiser quite effectively. I'm not sure how I would have felt if I'd seen it swerve, flip over onto its roof and burst into flames, though.

Re:You can do this already

[Jad LaFields]

I'd start looking around for agents leaping at my car.

Re:You can do this already

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad most cars these days don't share taillights and brake lights anymore.

Re:You can do this already

[daBum]

Simple solution: Wire a normally open momentary contact switch in parallel with your brake switch (under the dash, there's a sensor for when the pedal is pushed. Wire it in parallel with that). When you press the button, your brake lights come on. When you press the brake, your brake lights come on. Keep the people behind you guessing... is he really braking? or is it Memorex?

Two Words

[krray]

Two Words for the Honda tail-gating me: BREAK CHECK (!)

New warning buzzer

[WinDoze]

DING, your door is ajar.

DING, your headlights are on.

DING, you just crashed into a semi.

Re:New warning buzzer

[FrzrBrn]

Glad I'm not the only one who saw the title and immediately thought of a system that alerted you to the fact that you just had an accident.

Sound of brakes immediately followed by *CRASH*, and then, *BEEP* and a little accident warning light comes on.

300ft?

[Darth_brooks]

So the system triggers when something is within 300 feet? That'd get annoying pretty quickly on a michigan, hell, on any highway. 300 feet of following disitance is non existant. We've got too many people that don't realize that drafting is for the professionals at talledgeda, not the commuters on I-94

Unfortunately, Japanese regulations don't allow for the system to fully stop the vehicle."

That's not a bad thing. Let's say a good sized bug or a small bird hits near the radar sensor. The system becomes confused since, from what it can tell, something huge is about to hit your car. It gives an emergency stop command to the brakes, and you're stuck in the middle of the highway until the system decides you're all clear.

In time these situations could be easily resolved, but I'd rather not be part of the frist focus group / crash statistics.

Where does it end...

[jandersen]

> It then taps the brake and tightens the seatbelt
>
Anything about an upper limit? Are we going to read about speed bullies having been crushed by their seatbelts?

Re:Where does it end...

[Jens_UK]

"Tighten" is probably better understood to be: take out the slack. Belts stretch under loading (accident), but you have a limit to permissible deflection (steering wheel). Taking the slack out just lets the seatbelt do its work, which is keep you in place and eat up some energy.

Re:What about a kitty radar?

[HarveyBirdman]

No, save the puppies and the kitties. They know not what they do, and are fluffy and fun.

Now if the radar detects a person in the road, the system should actually speed the car up.

Now in showrooms! Buy the new 2004 Honda Misanthropy!

Good For Truckers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't this be a good idea for long distance truckers prone to becoming tired whilst driving long hauls?

The Problem

[Schezar]

The problem here is that the majority of people are poor drivers. I blame our driver's education system. Notice, these classes teach very little about vehicle handling or basic mechanical functionality: they teach about the laws and rules of the road.

Now, it's good that Timmy knows the difference between a white line and a yellow line, but that won't help him when he doesn't understand that if he decellerates on a slick curve, the weight of the vehicle will transfer to the front wheels, possibly causing the rear ones to lose traction and induce an oversteer (Timmy spins out and causes an accident).

Or how about proximity? Notice how, when there's a small piece of debris in the road, most drivers give it a good 4-6 feet of berth just because they don't actually have a sense of the boundries of their car.

Driver's education should be rigorous and difficult: not designed so that everyone passes. (How many people -actually- fail Driver's Ed? There was one in my entire high school class of several hundred, and she was, shall we say, half a half-wit ((a quarter-wit?)) ).

[end_rant]

Re:The Problem

[SuiteSisterMary]

I've long believed that a) the driving test should be default fail instead of default pass, and b) you should be eligable for random (but manditory) retesting after five years since your last test.

In other words, you prove you're a good driver, not prove you're a bad driver, and after five years, you have a random chance of getting retested. Random chance increases per ticket/demerit/charge/insurance claim. That way, the system doesn't get overloaded, but the people you watch and say 'how the HELL did that person get a license?!' might just have it taken away.

Re:The Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, it's good that Timmy knows the difference between a white line and a yellow line, but that won't help him when he doesn't understand that if he decellerates on a slick curve, the weight of the vehicle will transfer to the front wheels, possibly causing the rear ones to lose traction and induce an oversteer (Timmy spins out and causes an accident).

It also doesn't help that drivers education classes are entirely too short to hammer this information into the part of the mind that stores intuitive responses.

We learned about this stuff in our drivers ed, and my father mentioned it a few times, but when I started to spin out of control for the first time, I quickly responded with the ol' brake and steer... despite "knowing" the appropriate solution.

Fortunately it was an empty side road, and no one was hurt, hell the car wasn't even damaged. And I'm certainly a better driver now (I've responded differently in the same circumstances).

This is going to hurt

[WinDoze]

Honda: ALL YOUR BRAKES ARE BELONG TO US!

I'm really very sorry. That was very Tourette's-like.

Everyone knows that...

[cnelzie]

To many people just don't give a hoot or somehow believe that they have superhuman reflexes and such.

Personally, I hate it when some moron starts riding my ass. I have been rear ended by one of those idiots and it was far from fun.

Most of the time I do have a moron on my tail is when there is PLENTY of room to go around (On the LEFT hand side, which is the only side you are supposed to pass in the US.) Most of them are just a mess of teenage kids.

There are times when I think it might be fun to just slam on my breaks when I see a Mercedes or another high priced auto tailing me like that.

The problem with this...

[catbutt]

...is that people will compensate for it, and pay attention less thinking their car will do it for them. Unless you are going to have fully automatically driven cars (or the system is pretty much 100% foolproof), you are probably not going to increase safety much at all with something like this, IMO.

What about hitting the gas?

[kill -9 $$]

This is certainly an interesting idea/feature and I'd really have to try it out before passing judgement. However, my concern is what about those times when braking is not the ideal solution, gas is. Granted in many situations braking can help, but I'd be worried about the others as well...

Mod this man up!

[notque]

That is exactly what I am saying!

The traffic here is utterly terrible, and yet EVERYONE is on a cell phone, and EVERYONE cannot drive.

I had to contain myself as I saw a woman careen over to reach a supermarket parking lot I was going into, I parked, and saw her pass me. She was on a cell phone.

Can we all just drive please? Do we have to try and make it more difficult?

Smartass addendum

[aborchers]

I feel much safer knowing the control is in my hands...

And plenty of people feel safter in SUVs, despite the fact that they are more prone to rollover than passenger cars and three times as likely to kill you when they do.

Oh, this'll be a CF

[casmithva]

Here in the Washington D.C. metro area we drive closer than 300 feet apart. The system would be engaged the whole time, or damned close to it, and you'd be going through brakes faster than some people used to go through clutches. And given how people dart in and out of lanes here, the system would go insane. This just sounds like a recipe for more accidents. I could be wrong -- I sure hope I am.

This may cause some accidents.

[alchemist68]

I can see this feature causing some accidents. A common consumer passenger vehicle should never intervene with control of the vehicle. People over react and this could cause more accidents. Many times people over react when anti-lock brakes engage. Sometimes they "abuse" them by assuming that they will always prevent a skid, and drive more aggresively. I know, I did it for a while with my Saturn SL2. Now that I have a Saab 9-3 turbo, and have aged and wised up a bit, I drive much more conservatively, mostly because I'm more conscientious about my mortality and I don't want my new toy damaged in an accident.

I bought my Saab for safety reasons, quality of the vehicle, and, for the money, it's a really good car. It's a good car with airbags all over the place, seat belt pretensioners, stability control, trackion control, anti-lock brakes, etc... I like the fact that I can look at the in-dash computer display every morning and get the outside temperature, date, and latest weather information from the weather band radio. Hell, the computer even tells WHICH headlight, tail light, turn signal, and fog lamp is burned out, it also tells me if the fuel filler cap is loose and needs to be tightened, as well as when the windshield washer fluid level is low, not out.

For more information on the really nice car, go here:

http://www.saabusa.com/

Don't trash modern technology

[narftrek]

You should try using some of that modern technology sometime--namely a spell checker.

We are slowly devolving into a society that not only has no common sense, but cannot operate anything without help

You are slowly devolving into someone that not only has no book sense, but cannot spell anything without help.

Re:Don't trash modern technology

[notque]

You are slowly devolving into someone that not only has no book sense, but cannot spell anything without help.

And that's why I post on slashdot. If I tried to communicate with everyone around me at work, I would actually feel bad if I made an ass of myself. :)

Probably, if the front is all you have to watch

[Cappy Red]

Until they work out a decent "auto pilot", this is about all they're going to be able to do. Not only does this system ignore side and rear impact, but is useless in head-on collisions(two cars moving together at a combined 193kph start reacting 100m apart?)

Sometimes braking isn't the best idea... and doesn't a system that auto-brakes kinda hamper swerving?

*honk*

Re:Probably, if the front is all you have to watch

[cens0r]

I've actually seen cars with auto pilot. They're experimental, and I believe only worked at speeds up to 50MPH, but they did work.

Re:Probably, if the front is all you have to watch

[Cappy Red]

I think I might have seen the same thing: cars that go into auto pilot mode on a special stretch of road, or some such. I'm talking about autopilot that can function with and against human drivers doing their best to tailgate and cutoff.

*honk*

Re:Probably, if the front is all you have to watch

[cens0r]

The program I saw had the car driving on the streets of LA. It used a combination of telemetry, radar, and GPS to navigate.

Re:Probably, if the front is all you have to watch

[Cappy Red]

Oh! Different auto pilot then. :Â)

Yours sound far more interesting though... got a link?

*honk*

Re:Probably, if the front is all you have to watch

[cens0r]

No... I saw it on discovery or TLC. it was in a chrysler minivan if i remeber, although it wasn't chrysler that was developing it.

Obligatory BSOD?

[Libor Vanek]

This REALLY brings Blue Screen Of DEATH to real life ;-)

good and bad

[Anonymous Coward]

now how is james bond suppose to drive up to the car in front of him jump out the sun-roof and land on the car in front if his car is constantly slowing down. movies suck as it is...

on the other hand the cop trying to pull you over for speeding will never be ablt to catch you!

Default settings

[UnknowingFool]

I would hope that system can be shut off if the driver does not want to use it. Anytime a system is built that takes control away from people, people will be hestitant to use it at first, but after it has demonstrated itself, people are more likely to use it. Until all the kinks are out, people should have the ability not to use it.

The people who are going to suffer the most are kids just learning to drive. Now they have to deal with nervous parents and an intelligent braking system.

Suggested modifications.

[BigBadBri]

(only to be used when the other vehicle is detected to be still moving)

300 ft - ease up on the throttle, slowing closing speed.

200 ft - start automatically flashing the lights to get the dumb sucker to move over.

100 ft - lights on main beam, begin to apply horn.

50 ft - begin random swerving motion, unsettling the by now irate / indignant driver in front.

10 ft - enter full 'tailgate' mode, indicator on, reverse LED sign on front of car says 'Speed up or pull over, asshole', lights flash intermittently again, seatbelt tightens to allow full rictus of rage on tailgaters face...

Of course, that's just my own personal take on this...

No more tailgaters!

[kannibul]

That should cut down on idiotic-cell-phone-tailgaters.

Read the rest of his post.

[Andy Dodd]

What about a parked car by the curb?

What about oncoming traffic coming around a bend? The radar will see it even though it's something you won't hit.

Without being EXTREMELY expensive and having a very large antenna, radar doesn't have the narrow beamwidth necessary to distinguish between stuff directly in front of you and things that are stationary but in an adjacent lane.

A laser-based system might work.

Don't forget approaching the bottom of a hill. The radar would think you're about to hit some solid substance, even though it's just the road leveling out.

Re:Read the rest of his post.

[gallen1234]

What about oncoming traffic coming around a bend? The radar will see it even though it's something you won't hit.

And suppose the car is coming directly toward you. In that case the last thing I want is for the car to slow down. I need to get out of the way and applying the brakes isn't going to help make that happen.

Re:Read the rest of his post.

[cens0r]

So if there was a car coming head on at you, you simply would try to steer out of the way? You would also brake? In the even of a car coming head on, your best bet is to slow as fast as possible AND steer out of the way. If this system can start to do the braking before I realize something is wrong, it's doing a good job.

Re:Read the rest of his post.

[gallen1234]

Yes, that's exactly what I'd do (steering out of the way). No, actually I wouldn't do that at all (breaking also). A fast moving vehicle is more maneuverable than a slow moving one. If I need to get out of the way of a fast moving object I would much rather be going 55 than 25.

Re:Read the rest of his post.

[cens0r]

But the time you make up in better manuvering would probably be made up by the fact that you're travelling slower. Plus, if you hit either the person coming at you, or some other obstical it sure would be better if you slowed to 25 MPH.

Re:Read the rest of his post.

[Anonymous Coward]

only an idiot would do that with software...

Read the article and you see that it's a narrow beam RADAR....

Duh....

This will ruin driving as we know it!

[Alcimedes]

How the hell am I supposed to tailgate the hell out of the car in front of me then? Some jackass will be going 45 in the left lane, while another jackass (me) wants to go 70. Am I just supposed to sit 300m back and hope the idiot realizes they're in the passing lane?

I don't think so. Damnit, they're infringing on my rights to be an asshole driver, and I won't tolerate it.

(not to mention the fun you could have with other people who have this car. cut 'em off and watch 'em twitch)

*i'm mostly kidding*

Random statistic

[daBum]

I read this somewhere once (I think it was at the DOT / DMV): 80% of all drivers consider themselves to be above average.

Personally, I consider myself below average, but I know I'm wrong.

Re:Random statistic

[Tackhead]

> I read this somewhere once (I think it was at the DOT / DMV): 80% of all drivers consider themselves to be above average.
>
>Personally, I consider myself below average, but I know I'm wrong.

Y'know what I'd like? I'd like a DOT/DMV checkup test.

Not a "fail, and you lose your license" test. That only encourages the driver to be extremely cautious during the test. (Caution is good. But if doing 24.5 in a 25 zone, and stopping completely at every stop sign isn't how you drive every day, the test is telling you nothing.)

No, I want a "Drive however the hell you normally drive in the city and on the freeway, break any traffic law you want, and we'll talk about it after." test.

I consider myself an average driver, too. I realized this the day I read the aforementioned statistic - odds are very good I'm not one tenth as good on the road as I think I am, and a reality check would be a Great Thing.

Obviously, the DMV isn't gonna, and equally-obviously, (and ironically, given that insurance companies would benefit greatly by having better-trained drivers) I'd never trust an insurance company not to abuse this information and turn it from an honest "how's my driving" reality check into a useless "pass this test to get lower rates" gimmick.

Do any private companies or driver training organizations do this sorta thing?

Re:Random statistic

[danila]

See Incompetent People Really Have No Clue, Studies Find / They're blind to own failings, others' skills and another article here.

The original paper by David Dunning (Cornell University) and Justin Kreuger (University of Illinois), Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments, won an Ig Nobel Prize in 2000 (in Psychology).

Their report is a great and entertaining reading. The name says it all - basically they found that people generally tend to overestimate their skills (in certain areas) if they are actually bad and also suggested several mechanisms for that.

Re:Random statistic

[FFFish]

Yah, yah, I've read the study previously.

I have several reasons for believing I'm a better than average driver. Driver training, for one. Motorcycle rider training, for another, which teaches you a lot about safe driving (there's nothing quite like the vulnerability of a motorcycle to make you aware of surrounding traffic!) A dedicated effort to better my skills and increase my awareness of traffic flow, for yet another. And no accidents and no near accidents for a long, long time.

All of which are factors most drivers can't lay claim to.

Volvo...

[httpamphibio.us]

Volvo unveiled this in their safety vehicle about a year ago. It hasn't made it into a non-concept car yet, but this technology seems nearly identical.

Oh goody even less attention required.

[Moderation abuser]

I wonder what the radar profile of a pedestrian is.

Re:Oh goody even less attention required.

[Jonsey]

I wonder what the radar profile of a pedestrian is.

Smaller once you've hit them.

Re:Oh goody even less attention required.

[awtbfb]

I wonder what the radar profile of a pedestrian is.

Actually, it is not very good unless they have a lot of hard material on/in them.

No thanks

[BigBir3d]

I will leave the driving to me. This sounds even more absurd than the Linked Braking System that Honda uses on some of its motorcycles. That took 3 or so revisions to make it reliable, and un-noticable.

Imagine the number of brake checks in your commute to work it it goes off anytime a car is slowing down within 100m of your front bumper. Where will the fuse for this be located again? ;-)

Re:No thanks

[Titusdot Groan]

Exactly, my shoulder would be chaffed from all the "warning tightenings".

Of course a quick adjustment of the lap belt and you could let your mind wander freely having fantasies about the chick driving the car in the next lane ...

Overesitmate

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you overestimate the technology available. I would expect it to be more along the lines of "Hi! It appears you are about to crash your car. Would you like some assistance?"

Re:Overesitmate

[inertia187]

You mean spiffy in dash technology like this?

Re:Overesitmate

[el-spectre]

Or perhaps, It appears you are about to crash your car. Goodbye!

Aggressive driving

[luugi]

Just a word of advice for people who love to drive aggressively.... It's not worth it. An accident is bound to happen. It's not because they are bad drivers, but they seem to forget that there's a lot of bad drivers out there. They need to take that into account, when they are swerving through traffic

You don't even save that much time. Maybe just a couple of minutes. I would drive fast before just for the hell of it but If changed now. I now enjoy my music. Enjoy the company if I'm with someone or speak to someone I haven't talked too for a while on my cell phone (Don't worry I use a head set).

When you drive home from work tonight, think about me, and chill... Enjoy the time.

Excellent concept

[digidave]

Collision detection is along the same path as ABS brakes and traction control.

A Ferarri will brake pretty well without ABS, though lockup will occur, but your average family sedan, minivan or SUV won't at highway speeds. It will probably swerve and definitely lock up the wheels so you can't steer. ABS just looks at which wheels are locking up, then adjusts brake pressure so it doesn't lockup. It doesn't stop the car faster, it just gives you control while stopping. It's a good level of simple technology that does its job well.

Now take a look at traction control, which is in use on just about every high-end car or as an option on mid-level cars. It's just a different method for applying ABS brakes. When the computer sees slippage, it applies the brake harder to that wheel until it slows down enough to stop slipping.

Each of those technologies is proven and well-recieved by almost everyone because it helps the average driver, who doesn't really know what to do in an emergency situation other than slam on the brakes. Features like automatic collision detection are just an extension of that. They don't try to take control of the vehicle, but will greatly assist when the driver needs to take action. If the driver needs hard braking, then the car should make a good stomp on the pedal apply the brakes as hard as it can even if the driver is too weak to jam it to the floor. Under normal driving conditions, the brakes can feel softer, making braking a much more comfortable process with less jerk.

Think about when you get new brakes on a car you had driven the brakes almost to the metal on. Your first stop is inevitably harsh because you suddenly don't have to press the pedal as far anymore. The whole stopping experience changes because it's harder to get the brake pressure just right for normal braking conditions.

There's no reason why a car shouldn't compensate braking for different situations and basic radar-based techniques are a decent start.

Re:Excellent concept

[serutan]

Good insights, and I agree this is a decent start. But in my mind no automatic system that applies the brakes is ready for production until it also considers what's BEHIND the car.

Re:Excellent concept

[egomaniac]

ABS just looks at which wheels are locking up, then adjusts brake pressure so it doesn't lockup. It doesn't stop the car faster, it just gives you control while stopping.

Yes, ABS does stop your car faster. If you slam on the brakes in a car without ABS, your tires will lock up and you will skid. The friction between your tires and the roadsurface drops to the (much lower) coefficient of kinetic friction. With ABS, the wheels will keep turning during the braking process, and the friction between tires and road is much greater (coefficient of static friction), giving you better stopping power.

This only applies, of course, when you would have actually locked up the wheels -- but that's why ABS exists in the first place. If nobody ever locked up their wheels and started to skid, we wouldn't need ABS.

Re:Excellent concept

[digidave]

It depends greatly on the ABS system in use... it could be 2 sensor/2 wheel like on some older trucks, 3 sensor/4 wheel like on low-end or older cars, or 4 sensor/4 wheel that is more common now. Good modern cars apply ABS quicker (2 dozen or more times per second), but older cars do it as slow as 6 times per second. Given these situations, it's nearly impossible to give any kind of a blanket statement about ABS' effectiveness other than to say that it prevents lock-up and allows you to steer while braking hard.

Re:What about a kitty radar?

[aksansai]

What about a kitty detector and a small slingshot device to keep them from running underneath the wheels of my truck?

Too many features

[Drummer_Dan]

I buy cars with manual transmissions. Automatic transmissions always shift at the wrong time for me, especially when I need power to get out of a situation. I also buy cars with no anti-lock brakes. When they engage I have less control over the vehicile. And I will probably buy cars without Crash Detection Systems too. I don't think a computer can drive better than we can.

Re:Too many features

[Torqued]

How do you have "less control" under ABS controlled traction vs no traction in a full skid?

from http://www.mpi.mb.ca/english/dr_tips/antilock_brak es.html

The anti-lock brake system (ABS) is a major advancement in modern automotive technology. But many drivers don't understand its purpose.

There's a general misconception that anti-lock brakes will make your car stop in a shorter distance. But experts say that is simply not the case. A car equipped with ABS, travelling at 50 km/h on snow or ice, will take about one car length longer to stop than a car without ABS.

It's proven that if your wheels are still turning, even slightly, your tires will have more traction. So, here's what you should remember-ABS helps a driver maintain control while applying maximum braking. If the wheels are still turning, the driver is still able to steer.

Driver Ed students are taught to "stomp", "stay" and "steer". This means "stomp" on the brake, stay on the brake, and steer away from a possible collision. ABS isn't meant to stop you faster. It's for steering control when you really need it.

And, remember, when using ABS brakes, you can expect to hear loud metallic sounds emanating from your brakes and you will feel the brake pedal pulsating.

Doesn't look to the REAR

[serutan]

This and the few other articles I was able to find through Google don't mention anything about the system looking at what's behind the car before applying the brakes. In my mind that is bad, bad, bad design. Maybe the Honda engineers determined that in most situations it's not a problem, but braking blindly based on statistics is not a smart idea. There's also no mention of the driver being able to defeat the system, as you can with cruise control.

No thanks.

Re:Doesn't look to the REAR

[luugi]

This and the few other articles I was able to find through Google don't mention anything about the system looking at what's behind the car before applying the brakes. In my mind that is bad, bad, bad design. Maybe the Honda engineers determined that in most situations it's not a problem, but braking blindly based on statistics is not a smart idea. There's also no mention of the driver being able to defeat the system, as you can with cruise control.

I agree because I take a quick glance in the rear when braking. Sometimes it's easier to just switch lane instead of braking.

As much as I love technology...

[Polyphemis]

As much as I love technology, I still hold my own discretion in higher regard. I can see how something like this COULD be useful in some situations, but typically there's so much going on around me on the road at any given time that I'd rather rely on my own judgment than place faith in a machine.

Also, if this type of thing eventually becomes common in cars, I could see how something like this could motivate some people to pay LESS attention to the road and be more likely to cause accidents than that would have without it. I wouldn't mind if the device was designed in such a way so that it merely redirected attention to another aspect of driving while providing a safety buffer, but something that could encourage people to pay even less attention to their own driving concerns me.

How about PRE-Crash Detection?

[medscaper]

I saw the title, Honda Crash Detection System and I'm thinking, "Gee, that's retarded", while picturing in my head a horrid rollover accident with flying airbags and broken glass and bodies in the street...

...and this little red beeping "Crash" light flashing on the dashboard.

Real helpful, Honda. {smirk} Thanks.

Re:How about PRE-Crash Detection?

[zerocool^]

...flying airbags and broken glass and bodies in the street...

And pieces of "type R" stickers and rear deck spoilers *everywhere*. /me drives a honda.

Re:How about PRE-Crash Detection?

[nadadogg]

I wonder what happens when they take off the stock Honda badge and replace it with an indiglo glow in the dark badge. You think it will still work, or will the glowing pretty light make the automatic braking system do the macarena?

Re:How about PRE-Crash Detection?

[Fascist Christ]

I imagine it would go as follows:

1. Drive a Honda
2. Observe flashing light on dashboard
3. ???
4. CRASH!!!!

Re:How about PRE-Crash Detection?

[TheRaven64]

I got a flashback to MS Flight Simulator 4, which had a checkbox labeled crash detection in the settings. If you disabled it and fled vertically downwards then the game would crash instead of the plane...

Re:How about PRE-Crash Detection?

[SuiteSisterMary]

Maybe it'll VOX little haikus to you while you lay bleeding in the street.

Spring birds fly above,
Your car lies in many parts.
Can you feel your legs?

Re:How about PRE-Crash Detection?

[JDWTopGuy]

You forgot "VTEC" stickers!

Professional dilemma

[LeiGong]

Let's just say I work as part of a "cleaning crew." Now say a targ...I mean pedestrian steps in front of the new Honda. Will it automatically slow down to a speed such that the individual on the receiving end of the pain will not be severly hurt? My job requires me to drive vehicles with extreme prejudice and recklessness. This means if I should ever "forget" to release the gas pedal when driving towards Little Lowie I do not want the car to automatically slow down. The job doesn't pay as well as it used to and all those dents on the Caddy really adds up. I'm buying buying cheaper imports now a days. :(

I hope this radar technology will not start a trend. Otherwise, I may soon find myself fullfilling a contract a VW Bug in 20 years.

Will this be legal in states that have banned...

[cdporter00]

radar detectors? I wonder if it will interfere with the PoPo's speed detecting.

I wonder what the radar profile of a pedestrian is

[NeoPotato]

A blip that says "500 POINTS".

I don't want this

[muyThaiBxr]

I don't think I'd want this. This would SUCK in a sports car where you actually WANT to be driving fast and in complete control of your vehicle. Just think when your drafting someone and all the sudden the car hits the brakes for you, then you lose the race. That would suck. I'm kinda disappointed in all these "new technologies" taking more and more control away from the driver.

Re:I don't want this

[SuiteSisterMary]

I don't think I'd want this. This would SUCK in a sports car where you actually WANT to be driving fast and in complete control of your vehicle. Just think when your drafting someone and all the sudden the car hits the brakes for you, then you lose the race. That would suck. I'm kinda disappointed in all these "new technologies" taking more and more control away from the driver.

If you're trying to race people on public streets, I'd say you're a driver who NEEDS control taken from you.

Re:I don't want this

[2MuchC0ffeeMan]

ditto...

now as soon as we can fully disable the car on a stupidity test or breathalizer, the world would be perfect.

driving is a privledge, not a right.

Re:I don't want this

[luugi]

I don't think I'd want this. This would SUCK in a sports car where you actually WANT to be driving fast and in complete control of your vehicle. Just think when your drafting someone and all the sudden the car hits the brakes for you, then you lose the race. That would suck. I'm kinda disappointed in all these "new technologies" taking more and more control away from the driver.


I'm sure you could disable it.

Another restriction on liberty!

[Anonymous Coward]

This all sounds nice, but suppose I have to run a roadblock? Or what if somebody's trying to run me off the road, and I have to give him a nudge and spin out his car? I try it, my car brakes, and I'm screwed!

This is just another attack on the individual rights and power of citizens. It's like those fingerprint-reading gun thingies - cops won't use them, but people think they're fine for the regular schmucks. You'll never see a cop with an auto-braking car!

You'll put an auto-braking-device on my car when you pry the keys out of my cold, dead fingers.

Reading wihile driving

[luugi]

I really wish there was a way of reading while I'm driving. I used to take the public transportation and read a lot. I did half of my studying for University in the bus. But now that I own a car, it's not possible anymore. Going to work taking the bus takes me way too much time now.

Think that's bad?

[twitter]

Sounds worse than a backseat driver though.

Ever had to deal with a backseat engineer?

In the imortal words of Elmer Fud, "Oh no, wig for wam!"

of radar and things...

[The Lynxpro]

Considering Honda is near the top of the *Top 10* list of most popular cars stolen in the U.S., they should be working on better standard theft-detection systems...you know, a radar system that gauges the threat level of passerbys and raises the terror code level in the car's computer... approaching threat level orange (or is it blue?)...

Re:of radar and things...

[eric6]

honda accords and toyota camrys are the most stolen because they're the most common. careful with those statistics.

Re:of radar and things...

[sessamoid]

Considering Honda is near the top of the *Top 10* list of most popular cars stolen in the U.S., they should be working on better standard theft-detection systems

Maybe it's because Hondas are among the top ten selling cars in the US, rather than some inherent "steal me" features in the car? Looking down the list, the most commonly stolen cars are generally the most common cars. It only makes sense. There are more of them to steal. I'd have thought this would be common sense.

Does anybody public statistics about which cars have the highest theft "rate"?

The other confounding factor that comes to mind is that some cars will get stolen more often because they're more attractive. Nobody's going to spend much effort to steal an AMC pacer, no matter how easy it is.

A quick Google turned up this information:

Toyotas and Hondas lead the most-stolen list partly due to their popularity with consumers. But these cars are popular with thieves also because they tend to have interchangeable parts amongst their model years, creating a profitable market for replacement parts.

Re:of radar and things...

[The Lynxpro]

Ford Mustangs are nowhere as near as popular as Hondas, at least here in NorCal. That didn't stop the Mustang from reaching the #4 spot on that list...

I'd just like to say

[Rogerborg]

That I don't have an opinion on this either way, except that if you can't tell "brake" from "break", I'd rather that you left life and death decisions to a Honda computer, you rediculus loosers.

Saw this done in the 1970's in the U.S.

[onebitcpu]

I've been trying to remember exactly where I've seen this before, I think it was on the TV show "What will they think of next" back inthe 70's or 80's. There were two U.S. inventors (father and son) who had a prototype that did this. The show had a brief clip of one of them blindfolding himself, and driving straight toward the other person. The car came to a complete stop about 2 feet away. Does anyone else remember anything about this?

Robots Research....

[jedi_gras]

Anyone think that Honda's robotics department is slowly adapting some of their technology to the auto division?

I remember writing a similar algorithm for my robot using sonar sensors...the robot would slow down just a little so that the rest of the systems could figure out how to avoid the obstacle ahead, or if it really is a obstacle....the "other systems" in this case would probably be the driver.

I think this could be a good thing as long as it's implemented correctly...though i can see how auto braking COULD have some bad implications... on a fast turn close to the threshold of the maximum tire/road friction point (much less if there is oil or ice), then if you hit the brakes...the car will skid or slide.

Crash Detection System

[AnalogDiehard]

MSNBC is reporting that Honda Motor Co. unveiled an early crash-detection system for one of their vehicles.

Will it detect impending crashes like Enron, Worldcom, and Tyco?

We SO need one of these for the stock market.

well that sucks

[calethix]

" If the driver fails to respond, the system kicks in and brakes more while also tightening the seat belt. "

What if I'm *trying* to hit someone because they cut me off. Is there a button to disable it?

For those humour impaired people, I'm joking.

Re:well that sucks

[Guiness17]

Damn I wish I had mod points right now to boost you to +5!!!

Re:well that sucks

[solarrhino]

What if I'm *trying* to hit someone

"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."

Re:well that sucks

[calethix]

What if I'm *trying* to hit someone

"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."

"But I will lock the windows/doors and pump in carbon monoxide until you suffocate, Dave... I wouldn't touch that fuse box Dave, remember I control your lumbar seat and seat belt too."

Re:well that sucks

[Soul-Burn666]

No need for the Hal to lock the Windows. the Windows lock-up automatically!

Great Feature

[AlgUSF]

Now I don't have to even look at the road when I got my car on cruise at 85.

Safety first, common sense second

[Lord Grey]

While I'm all for making things safer, there's a point at which absurdity kicks in. This particular implementation seems to be reaching that point.

The trend seems to be, "The average person is a moron; let's make the environment safer." I've seen pending legislation in the local government to increase the distance between telephone/light poles and a street, because cars hit them and injuries result. Hello? Can we just teach everyone to not drive on the damn sidewalk?

Darwinism, anyone?

Collision notification is good. Collision avoidance would be great except that it's not practical with our current level of technology. In a nutshell, our software just isn't good enough yet. I'd be happy with a warning light, buzzer, whatever. I would definitely not be happy with my car taking control and doing something without my express, written consent. I've successfully driven through accidents that happened in front of me, avoided the problem and also avoided the pileup that results when everyone slams on their brakes. That may not have been possible if I had a car with this "feature."

I echo what so many others here are saying: No thank you.

Great idea!

[tyroneking]

Sounds like a great idea, if a little worrying at first.

I think the article gives slightly the wrong impression; implying that the car takes control if it detects a crash is likely to happen - a good trick if a piece of hardware can predict a crash before a human can ;)

In fact the system seems to detect the liklehood of a crash and warn the driver, tightening seatbelts and readying brakes, and if the driver agrees that a crash is possible and applies the brakes, the system helps this process.

Some good info on the Honda site (good graphics too), here's a snippet:

"This system determines the likelihood of a collision based on driving conditions, distance to the vehicle ahead, and relative speeds, and uses visual and audio warnings to prompt the driver to take preventative action. " ... and I suspect that radar is not the only component.

Seems like this is part of a long term drive in Japan to make safer cars: remember the device that sprayed the driver with lemon scented water if it sensed him/her getting drowsy? Or the breath-alcohol test device that prevented drunk drivers from starting their vehicles?

Apparently, part of the CMS system will also keep the driver in their lane too.

Not sure why such systems are not more available in the West, maybe Japan's drivers are more ready to accept such restrictions on their driving freedom. Whatever the reason they seem to have reasonably safe roads even by Nordic standards

I guess in the West drivers are keener to protect their driving freedoms; this is certainly the case in the UK, but let's face it, most people can't drive well most of the time because driving is risky and stressful. Speeding, driving whilst talking on a mobile phone, driving when sleepy, driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs or prescribed medicines, are too common - and at the end of the day it's just another poor working stiff who ends up in hospital or the cemetery.

It should also come with...

[realdpk]

...an automated way to suspend a person's license, should the system ever even reach the first stage.

it should be easy....

[oliverthered]

I'm aproaching somthing at X MPH (radar can do that).
I'm traviling ay Y MPH (easy enough)

My breaking distance is Z miles (based on Y, how good the breaks are and the weight of the car)

Chances are that if your approach speed is to high for your breaking distance then you going to crash.

Re:it should be easy....

[elmegil]

So I should hit the brakes in the aforementioned mountain driving scenario, esp given that an oncoming car is going to be approaching a lot faster than my breaking distance will allow for? Sounds like a massive safety hazard to me.

Even if we ignore the difficulty of sorting from what should be avoided and what need not be, what happens when some idiot without "crash detection" rams my rear end because the brakes came on too suddenly? Unless every car (and I mean EVERY car, not just every NEW car) is mandated to have such a system, there is NO WAY this could be safe, and even if they were, I'm still pretty skeptical.

Re:it should be easy....

[randyest]

what happens when some idiot without "crash detection" rams my rear end because the brakes came on too suddenly

What makes you think that the brakes would come on "too suddenly"? Moreover, I would think that a person, especially in a panic moment, would be much more likely to brake "too suddenly" than an automatic system (which is part of the reason that Anti-Lock Brakes are so popular). Should ABS be outlawed because they can stop a car faster than a human foot, creating the rear-end hazard you mention.

Re:it should be easy....

[elmegil]

ABS is not invoked automatically based on criteria which the driver has no control over. I still trust real intelligence much farther than artificial.

Re:it should be easy....

[randyest]

ABS is not invoked automatically based on criteria which the driver has no control over

Yes, it is.

I would think that your paranoia would be even stronger in reference to ABS, since it is indeed invoked automatically based on wheel slippage, which is totally out of thr driver's control, and the effect is to RELEASE the brakes (off and on, actually), not APPLY the brakes.

And, there's no intelligence involved in either case, ABS or radar-braking. It's just sensor->look-up-table->actuator. It's a simple control system, not adaptive, predictive, or neural-net in nature -- how could this be called intelligence?

Methinks you're just throwing FUD.

Re:it should be easy....

[fireman sam]

No it isn't, ABS will not ever come into play unless the driver decides to stop the car. The decision to stop the car is still in the control of the driver. ABS does not say, "shit, stop the car". It is more of an assistance to something the driver actually wants.

Re:it should be easy....

[elmegil]

ABS is invoked when I decide to put my foot on the brake, and it is designed to automatically do what I was taught to do manually before ABS existed--pump the brakes. That is all. Just because it can pump the brakes faster than I can myself doesn't change that basic fact.

A radar system, on the other hand, presumes to be better able to detect an impending collision, in 2 dimensions or so, better than I can in 3. That sounds like some sort of intelligence to me. If it were so simple, we'd have had radar tracking cars long ago.

Re:it should be easy....

[oliverthered]

Radar is far more 3 dimensional than you eye sight, infact it's 4 dimensional.

The radar knows:
Distance (based on echo time)
Speed of approach (based on Doppler shift)
Location (based on the direction the radar is pointing).

You know:
Distance (approximated)
Speed of approach (approximated from memory)
Location (based on the direction you are looking)

Re:it should be easy....

[elmegil]

Radar can't see the vector. It looks in one direction, and sees one dimension of a presumably 2 dimensional velocity. I can see the vector.

Re:it should be easy....

[oliverthered]

A radar can scan far faster than you can.
You can't even see very well your brain makes most of it up.

Re:it should be easy....

[randyest]

No it isn't, ABS will not ever come into play unless the driver decides to stop the car.

And that's when ABS says, "shit, stop stopping the car", you're not doing it (pumping the brakes) right, takes over, and UN-DOES your braking effort, but produces better results (stops the car faster).

It is more of an assistance to something the driver actually wants.

Um, if you're about to slam into something, wouldn't something applying the brakes be providing assistance to something you want?

Re:it should be easy....

[randyest]

ABS is invoked when I decide to put my foot on the brake,

Radar braking is invoked when you decide not to put your foot on the brake but should be.

[ABS] is designed to automatically do what I was taught to do manually before ABS existed--pump the brakes

Radar-braking is designed to automatically do what you were (hopefully) taught to do manually before ABS existed -- not run into things.

Just because it can pump the brakes faster than I can myself doesn't change that basic fact.

No, but that's the point -- it does it faster. Radar baking avoids collisions (reacts) faster than you can. You still want to avoid collisions, right?

A radar system, on the other hand, presumes to be better able to detect an impending collision, in 2 dimensions or so, better than I can in 3.

How is radar 2-D? It knows speed, distance, and location just like you, in all 3 dimensions, just much more accurately than your vision.

That sounds like some sort of intelligence to me.

Is an AND gate intelligent? It produces a defined, predictable output for a given set of inputs. So does this radar brake system -- if (collision iminent) then (apply brakes). I don't see how this is intelligence in any sense.

If it were so simple, we'd have had radar tracking cars long ago.

Oh, come on now, this is a weak one. Perhaps the hardest part of the implementation is convincing people like you that it's a good thing. :)

what's the programming logic for that look like?

[calethix]

"If the driver steps on the brakes, another system kicks in to strengthen the power of the brakes. If the driver fails to respond, the car brakes more and tightens the seat belt further to soften the blow of the crash."

if (driver_response()) {
apply_brakes();
} else {
apply_brakes();
}

Radar frequency?

[Algan]

I'm wondering what radar band they use... my V1 radar detector emits enough false positives as it is, I don't need a herd of radar emmiting hondas driving around me... on the other hand this will probably not interfere with police radar so we might be fine...

radar detector

[Free Heel Skier]

This is really going to piss me off when my radar detector goes off every time someone in a Honda is near me!

Re:radar detector

[British]

This would inspire me to get a radar detector. About 99% of my bad run-ins with fellow motorists involve Honda drivers. What makes them the most aggresive drivers on the road, anyway?

you could use LIDAR

[The Tyro]

You could use the principle behind LIDAR (police radar using laser rather than radar) if you wanted a good estimate of speed and distance.

The mechanism by which it measures your speed is a bit different, but it would give you the same data. Lidar sends out a thousands of pulses, and measures the time it takes for the backscatter from the laser to return, rather than relying on the doppler effect (or red shift, in the case of the visible portion of the EM spectrum). This method is more accurate (and thus preferred) by most police agencies.

However, that doesn't answer some of the other questions that have been raised: how does the car know what it's firing at? How does it know whether the object it's tracking is in your lane, or across the median on a long sweeping turn?

That aside, I totally agree with your sentiment regarding letting the computer have control over the vehicle (ie. tapping the brakes for me). Until they can design a system that's better than a NASCAR driver (and the computer controlled car successfully completes the race, no accidents, no skids), I'd much rather rely on my own driving skills and assessment of the road conditions.

It sounds like a neat idea... NO WAY I'd trust my family's life to it... call me a Luddite on this one if you want.

They had this back in the 80's....

[DemonMucha]

It was called KITT... the Knight Industies Two Thousand. The thing was helluva crazy... and that Michael Knight.... whew doggy!

Re:They had this back in the 80's....

[Atomic_Furball]

Thread about Kitt vs. the General Lee
http://www.landunknown.com/sk88msg/index.cfm?metho d=showTopic&ID=484

The answer to road safety.

[Alioth]

This is not the answer to road safety. The trouble is, the safer the driver feels, the more dangerous they get (see the Volvo driver syndrome - Volvo drivers are terrible, because they feel invulnerable).

I think road safety could be vastly improved if:

1. Seatbelts are banned.
2. ABS is banned.
3. Airbags are banned.
4. An 8-inch spike is fitted to the hub of the steering wheel.

Would people do their make-up or read the paper whilst driving if the steering wheel had an 8-inch spike sticking out of it at them? I think not!

Some thought

[iosmart]

The Mercedes system a few people were talking about would only be active if the cruise control was turned on. The Honda system (I presume) would be active at all times. All new MBs have Brake Assist that if it detects driver panic on the brake it will automatically boost the power...apparantly some study showed that a large percentage of accidents were due to the driver not stepping on the brake hard enough. I also saw on MBs website that they have a new safety system that seems as if it'll function similar to the Honda but there weren't any actual specifications as to what it does - http://www.mbusa.com/brand/container.jsp?/models/g lance.jsp&modelCode=glance&model=S500V&pf=0&menu=3 _0 and click on Safety. Right now it's only on the S-Class but they should add it to the lower end cars in years to come. One other thing you must understand is that a Honda is A LOT less money than a Mercedes. MANY people drive Hondas...with the introduction of this (if it works), there should be some sort of reduction in accidents.

Demolition Derbies

[elcheesmo]

I'm anxious to see demolition derbies in a couple decades. The green flag goes down, all the cars start racing towards each other, and then the computer kicks in and they all slow to a halt. Fortunately, people will still be driving their 20-year-old Hondas on the road, so you won't see many at the derby. Let's hope Chevy doesn't start using this system : )

Yet another reason for people to stop thinking

[Atomic_Furball]

This system is dangerous for one simple reason: it has no judgement. Just a set of commands that are totally incapable of handling every forseeable (and non-foreseeable) circumstance.

Will the next model tell you when you need to use the bathroom too? The model after that will eliminate the need of the driver to have any cognitive abilities at all. Even the brain-dead will be able to take a highway cruise, since the car will drive for them. Just pour your drooling invalid cousin Jimmy into the driver's seat, buckle him in, and viola! He's off to travel the country all on his own.

Re:Yet another reason for people to stop thinking

[kalislashdot]

And this is a bad thing? We can wipe out crashes once we get all the cars to drive themselves. I can't wait for the day.

Most people are crappy drivers, and don't think anyways. I am always being tailgated in heavy traffic. "Where are you going to go", they need to pass me and get in my 2 car length space for no reason. I deal with these jerks everyday.

Bring on the automation I say, as long as it runs QNX, hehe.

You all miss the point

[ganast]

The fact of the matter is that this is a tool that can be used by an aware driver. Once you take the car out on the dirt back roads, mess with the radars "mind" a bit and figure it out like some video game, you now have a new "control" for your car. You pull the factory chip, mod it up, make that radar work FOR you.

A good driver now has a conceptual "force field" that he/she can use with some degree of precision. The driver knows the car is going to brake and how much it is going to brake under these certian conditions, and can concentrate his/her efforts on other areas of the art of driving.

You thought tail-gaters were evil before... just you wait!

--gabe

Re:Older Drivers...

[Carthag]

we need to consider when you are too OLD to drive...not by just age...but, probably testing at a certain age.

In Denmark, and quite possibly other countries, there is an automatic expiry on your drivers license. My license will run out in 2051, on the day I turn 70.

After that, I will annually have to take a test that looks for dementia, reactionspeeds, and hearing/eyesight. You can be required to take these tests earlier, at your doctors discretion. He can also recommend that your license is taken away, for instance if your eyesight is degrading rapidly.

Not that this is foolproof either. My grandfather's smaller brother, aged 90 now, went for at least 5 years after he should have failed the tests. For some reason, his doctor kept approving him for a renewed license. Good thing he lives on the Faroe Islands, in a rather small community where everybody knows his car (an old Yugo).

They just jumped in the ditches when they saw him coming.

BSOD?

[PSL]

Does your holographic windshield display the Blue Screen Of Death when you crash?

Wait a minute...

[Veovis]

Does this mean if someone cuts me off I slow down?

Voice Notification Feature

[lamz]

After a collision, you hear a recording by the AOL guy: "You've got concussion!"

I remember this project at Penn State

[Anonymous Coward]

Dr. Tony Ferraro worked on this project along with my current advisor, they actually used a radar device placed in a round container stuck to the front of a car...crap was bigger back then... from the videos I saw it worked quite well. It actually compared the present situation with an enormous database full of other situations. It did set off the alarm when they quickly approached a guard rail on a sharp turn though. Among other things, it knew current speed and acceleration relative to objects in front of the car.

S Turns

[frooyo]

How will this system work when you are driving throw some tight mountainy S turns. The radar will pickup either the guard rail or mountain yet your still turing. Does the car come to a complete stop?

Re:S Turns

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know ... but that is a very good question. I guess the car would just really slow down to a crawl and your seatbelt would lock ... but your right - this would be a probably

Now what happens

[The Analog Kid]

If it brakes so much the car starts swirving and goes of the cliff that the road is by?

Deer in the road

[Anonymous Coward]

What about if a deer is in the road? They always say you should maintain speed or even increase speed to knock it over, because braking will lower the front of your car and cause the deer to roll over the vehicle causing considerable damage. With this system you would be at a higher risk of injury/damage.

Does that mean...

[vladkrupin]

...that I won't be able to run over my neighbour's cats anymore?

unexpected feature

[bbc22405]

Who will be the first to spoof the radar, so that the Honda next to you will kindly slow down and let you cut? :-)

Directional Radar

[Eightlines]

Focussing the radar seems like an easy solution in which there's no need to associate it with GPS or road conditions. Simply target it based off of your steering wheel rotation.

If the steering wheel is pointing to the right, focus the radar to the right as that's where the collision would most likely happen providing it was you doing the hitting.

Now if it was someone going to ram you from behind could it temporarily boost the speed for a second?

BRAKE != break

[scosol]

Come on people- I can't take any of you seriously when you refer to your car's "breaks" :-/

Drivers Ed

[Malicious]

Back in my Driver training years ago, I remember my instructor having his own break pedal, in the case of emergeny.
Every time he touched the thing, i wanted to hit him. If he thought for even a second that I was going to fast, he'd apply the break. Then when I would reach for it, it wouldn't be there (it would be slightly depressed) and I'd panic.
[sarcasm]
This is just what I want in my car 24/7
[/sarcasm]

Idiots - what about rear collisions?

[SuperKendall]

The real danger with this system in my mind is with rear end collisions. Sometimes braking is not a good option because of tailgaters, and the article doesn't mention anything about monitoring someone behind you. I've avoided about eight accidents in the past few years, all from tailgaters that would have hit me if I didn't swerve over in time to avoid them...

Here's the exact scenario I envision. You are driving along, leaving some space in front of you like a good driver. Suddenly, a Jerk(TM) pulls in right in front of you - and because the cars up ahead are slowing down now (which is what made the Jerk(TM) jump lanes in the first place) your cars auto-brake freaks out and slams on the brake.

Of course, what the auto-braking did not know was that Tailgater(TM) was driving (literally) right behind you. And now his bumper meets yours in an unholy union.

But I guess I few more rear-end collisions is a small price to pay for a safer car to drive. Or something like that. Wait till they try this in America, that's all I can say! Have them try out the car for a day in Boston or someplace like that and then see what they think about auto-braking.

Re:Idiots - what about rear collisions?

[morcheeba]

A freind-of-a-friend got the biggest trailer hitch he could find for just this problem. He doesn't have a trailer; it's just additional metal to slow down/inflict damage on tailgaters.

Re:Idiots - what about rear collisions?

[blahtree]

Idiots are people who don't read the article. They have backward facing radar for this.

Re:Idiots - what about rear collisions?

[racketboynick]

you live in California, do you?
that scenario sounds like my trip to and from work every day :)

Whooop, Whooop, Whooop, Pull up, Pull Up, Pull Up,

[Anonymous Coward]

Now like pilots, motorists can enjoy these lovely sounds just before they die.

Possible situation

[HopeUnknown]

So i'm driving along a mountain road, with only one lane in each direction...

I'm behind a huge truck, so I pull into the other lane to pass him.
I see headlights coming straight towards me! I better speed up to get around this truck!
*My car starts auto breaking*
Crap! No problem, I'll just reach over and press the button to turn off auto breaking...
*Seat belt tightens, pinning me to the seat*
Arghhhhh! Darn you, honda!!!

*End transmission*

"strangling" seat belts

[scosol]

wow that's a really funny joke... idiots ...

lots of cars today use auto-tightening seatbelts that are tied to the airbag system
they are considered fairly important, as the farther away from the impeding dashboard you are, the better

there are explosive charges (like a shotgun shell) that fire when you crash, they cinch up the seat belt in an INSTANT

Laser != Radar

[rhombic]

Light amplification through stimulated emission of radiation (LASER) has nothing to do with RAdio Detection And Ranging. Totally different parts of the EM spectrum there, ya know. A laser-based speed detection system can pinpoint one car from another from a half mile, but a form of radar it ain't.

Re:Laser != Radar

[bastion_xx]

LASER != RADAR, but LIDAR === RADAR, using light.

LIDAR can measure distance, speed, rotation, and chemical composition. I would assume most law enforcement "laser" units are actually based on LIDAR technology.

Some pretty cool things you can do with a LIDAR setup. We used it in the field back in the early 90s to measure water vapor coming off of lakes.

Re:Laser != Radar

[Hadlock]

I would assume most law enforcement "laser" units are actually based on LIDAR technology.

Yeah, the only people still using RADAR are the highway patrols out in the boonies, and small town cops. Everyone else has upgraded to LIDAR in the last 7 years or so. Basically, any area that can afford $5000 LIDARs have them now, with 1 or 2 still working RADARs as backups. My friend did a science fair project involving stealth and had to adjust his thesis from RADAR to LIDAR as the police didn't have a RADAR gun to loan out, only a LIDAR (with a sufficently large saftey deposit, that is).

Re:Laser != Radar

[bored]

I've got a realitivly new RADAR/LIDAR detector and most of the hits I get in Texas/Austin area are still RADAR.

Crash Detection?

[ivanmarsh]

WARNING: You have crashed!

8^O

, what happens when some idiot ...

[oliverthered]

A hit from the rear isn't as bad as crashing into the car infront, and you can claim against his insurance.

Unless your sliding down a mountain path rally style the system will work.

Re:, what happens when some idiot ...

[elmegil]

Nobody EVER got whiplash from being rear ended, nope. And whiplash is SO easy to recover from. If it causes a collision, it's not safe. Period.

Re:, what happens when some idiot ...

[oliverthered]

But is that worse than a head on colision? and you can claim for the injury off of the driver who hit you's insurance.

Re:, what happens when some idiot ...

[elmegil]

Last time I checked, who's insurance had nothing to do with safety. And I don't recall a head on collision being the only alternative to being rear ended.

Girlfriends

[Archangel Michael]

Anyone notice the error this poster made? That is right, Slashdudes don't have girlfriends.

Re:Girlfriends

[FlowerPotAdmin]

I do. And I get to finally see her tomorrow after her month-long travels. Yay!

Re:Girlfriends

[Archangel Michael]

It was a joke. Oh Wait, Never mind. So is yours. LOL

It's behind you!!!

[term8or]

I really hope they point one of the camera's out of the BACLK window too, so the gizmo doesn't stop when you've got a truck motoring along behind you.

And the answer of the humor impaired is...

[TrekkieGod]

For those humour impaired people, I'm joking.

Well, you shouldn't joke about that

Re:And the answer of the humor impaired is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you shouldn't joke about that

Yes, you should always be serious about ramming other cars. Otherwise people will stop taking the threat of it seriously, which will lead to more actual car rammings.

And you should only do it with a Dodge Truck as they are certified Ram Tough by the manufacturer.

MS Windows needs this feature

[Anonymous Coward]

It would detect impending blue screens of death; and warn the user to shut down IMMEDIATELY.

Great, but...

[SmurfButcher Bob]

...having done rescue on a few thousand accidents, and been in a few myself... I don't want some naieve black-box 2nd-guessing my decision to smash into something. As odd as it sounds, consider:
- A nice frozen bridge. You've got a stopped/crashed car or obstruction in front of you, and a 90 ton Semi coming in behind you. Sorry, but I'm gonna get through that obstruction and out of his way, thanks.
- Hitting snow/ice banks at a low speed is a stupid idea that usually gets you stuck.
- If some on-coming idiot swerves into my lane, the last thing I want to do is stop and spend MORE time in his path. Thanks, I might prefer to add a little more energy and get out of his way as quickly as possible.

This idea ranks right up there with cars that refuse to start unless the clutch is pushed in. It sounds like a really great idea... until you stall in a high speed intersection, and then you're dead along with whoever hits you. Rather a shame, considering that you could otherwise just stuff it into gear and crank your car out of the way... but hey, cars never stall, fuel filters never ice up, and timing belts never break.

- SBB

dumb

[krokodil]

This system is dumb. When I have to do emergency braking, I am not trying to stop in shortest possible distance, I am also trying to stop as
smooth as I could, so car behind me have time to react and won't crash into my back. If this system on slow speed, jam breaks each time there is obstance within 300 feet there is good chance of taigaiting idiot 30 feet behind me to hit my car.

Waiting, wishing, for automated driving

[freality]

I'll probably piss-off the red-bloded Americans here, but man, I can't wait to not drive my car. I want to have fully automated driving. I want to finish work on a Friday afternoon, go home, grab my stuff, go to my car and say "Miami Beach, Please!". I want to watch movies for a couple of hours or finish reading Dune, and when I wake up, I'm parked right at my favorite beach. Same thing for the reverse trip Sunday night and Monday mornings wouldn't be half as bad. Paint fuel-cells into that picture and it wouldn't even tweak the greens.

CMU's robotics program has been working on automated driving systems for years. When I was there I heard one of the professors had outfitted his normal home car with about $1500 of equipment and "drove" to school and back every day mostly hands-off. All based on neural-nets and some snazzy control systems.

And that was like 6 years ago. I'm sure there's wisdom in not rushing into something like this, but I also get the feeling there will be some hard lobbying against it. Like, what happens to truckers, cabbies, UPS/Fed-Ex drivers, etc. etc.? Will the (perhaps undeserved) reputation of dangerous speed-freak truckers come home to roost?

I wonder how Detroit would feel. At first, it's a shinny new feature == more margin. But beyond that, I can't help but see cars become even more commodity. All you really end up caring about is your comfort/ammenities.. there won't be as much attention to "performance".. ahhh.. Detroit will ~love~ it, BMW won't.

You could even share these kind of cars, like the Zip cars, but instead of you going to the cars, they come to you. Or perhaps just the under-carriage comes to you and connects to your personal travel cabin. Then, you pull out of the driveway and merge into a long train of like-designed cabins-on-wheels, all virtually-linked together via 802.11z. The road/car system routes you shortest-dijkstra-path to your destination and then your car parks itself once it's dropped you off. There's traffic density that would make clog up modern highways for years, but its all flow-controlled, so you go 120MpH with only inches between cars, so your trip takes half the time.

The moving sidewalk (armchair) of the future? :)

Re:Waiting, wishing, for automated driving

[MagFox]

You know, they have these great things called busses that will take you almost anywhere without your attention required. ;)

Re:Waiting, wishing, for automated driving

[swillden]

I want to have fully automated driving.

I just make my wife drive. It's very pleasant as long as I don't look out the window.

Re:Waiting, wishing, for automated driving

[srvivn21]

You might be interested in http://www.skytran.net/. It still doesn't come to you, but it is automated and (in theory) 120MPH with inches between cars...

Re:Waiting, wishing, for automated driving

[An Onerous Coward]

As someone who spends about 2 hours in his car every day, I hear you. I've never been in an accident, but I've had some very close calls and my reflexes kind of suck. For example, one time a duck landed on the highway right in front of me, and I nearly creamed an Oldsmobile trying to dodge it. Stupid, yes, but that was the decision my brain made. I'm trying to deprogram myself by occasionally whispering "death to all lower life forms" as I drive. Next time, the duck is roadkill, but I still believe that the highways would be safer if my judgments were removed from the equation.

The fact is, even the best driver among us as moments of inattention, bad judgments, irrational desires to gun it and chase down the bastard who swerved in front of you, and incomplete situational awareness.

The system would be difficult to implement on a car-by-car basis. Whatever problem the computer has to solve, it would be infinitely simpler if each car knew what the car next to it was about to do, and could warn neighboring cars about the drastic measures it expected to be taking. Networking would also have advantages because it would enable a higher degree of coordination: routing traffic away from potential jams, allowing groups of cars to drive "in formation," and clearing the road for emergency vehicles.

But that would take a massive investment, and I don't see any easy way to switch over. But a non-networked system might be useful. Even a mediocre system would be useful as a punishment for chronically bad drivers, or for people who aren't capable of driving themselves.

Another thing that's been bothering me: Traffic lights. Even with sensors, they're painfully stupid at times. An ideal system would not only sense the single car idling at the red light, but also the pack of fifteen cars heading towards it on the cross street. That way, the system might wait until after the pack has driven through to switch the light. A vision system to implement this wouldn't have to be very sophisticated, and it would speed up the commute, use less gas, and save wear and tear on brakes.

Eventually, I'm sure cars will drive themselves. We'll all be nervous at first, but I don't think a system would be allowed on the road until it was at least as safe as a better-than-average driver. But even if switching fully over would lead to the same 50,000+ deaths that we're racking up now, we would be better off.

Re:Waiting, wishing, for automated driving

[MxTxL]

There's traffic density that would make clog up modern highways for years, but its all flow-controlled, so you go 120MpH with only inches between cars, so your trip takes half the time.

The problem with this is that everyone has to have the same car performance-wise. That might be achievable. There could be standards mandated to enter the particular roadway... but then everyone using these cars/trucks will have to keep them maintained and performing in the same fashion. This probably isn't achievable. One guys car breaks down suddenly, and the whole system crashs... Literally, as in, into each other. Bob's car has a tire fly off, the 600 cars behind him are going to have a rough time if they are travelling at 120 with scant inches between themselves, no matter how smart the highway is.

Re:Waiting, wishing, for automated driving

[more fool you]

Sounds good. But what really appeals to me is being able to send the car down to the bottle shop to grab a slab, and while it's in town grab some junk food as well.

Re:Waiting, wishing, for automated driving

[blowhole]

Until you wake up from your nap and find yourself at the end of the line in Compton.

Re:Waiting, wishing, for automated driving

[Rich0]

Traffic lights. Even with sensors, they're painfully stupid at times. An ideal system would not only sense the single car idling at the red light, but also the pack of fifteen cars heading towards it on the cross street.

The only purpose for traffic lights if cars were automated would be to tell pedestrians when it is safe to cross... With automated cars you can have interleaved traffic crossing both ways at the same time. I don't think it would be efficient though - instead of taking up a rectangle of space the size of itself a car now takes up a rectangle the size of the longest dimension of both itself and the car it is interleaving with (picture how the cars would have to move - since cross traffic isn't moving in parallel you'd have to let the whole car move past you before you could enter the intersection. I'm guessing a better approach would be to have cars go straight through intersections when it isn't busy (no need to decellerate at all this way) and go in a circular motion around the perimeter of the intersection if it is busy - as if it were a traffic circle. That makes pedestrian signals even more important since cars are passing at 55mph in the circle and there is no way to know which ones plan on turning out of the circle.

Re:Waiting, wishing, for automated driving

[Rich0]

You can always build in some tollerence. Until we have 1 billion cars on the road in a single state I don't think we need only inches between them.

You don't need identical performance either - as long as the cars can reserve lanes for various speeds and adapt to each other. Most cars can handle pretty high speeds - they just don't have much power for getting there quickly. As far as limits on particular roadways that can be all computer-controlled. If it is 3AM and no cars are on the road do you care if somebody goes 15mph down the interstate? If roads are getting congested the system would automatically send slower cars down alternate routes.

Keep in mind that consumers wouldn't balk if you initially limited the rollout of the system to a mere 85mph - not too many consumers are used to rush-hour commuting at speeds higher than this anyway...

Re:Waiting, wishing, for automated driving

[Rich0]

. Then, you pull out of the driveway and merge into a long train of like-designed cabins-on-wheels, all virtually-linked together via 802.11z.

Better still you get on one in your house and tell it where to go. It drives independantly, on trains, on planes, on sub-orbital flights, on boats, whatever to get you from point A to point B given your stated preference for cost and speed priority. If a train just happens to be going your way for 50% of your trip you catch a ride. You can also pre-plan your commute - your car could tell you as you get off "by the way, if you leave 10 minutes earlier/later for work tomorrow you'll save 15 minutes of dive time".

Re:Waiting, wishing, for automated driving

[Mac Degger]

Heh...the problem is you need all cars to be wired or you have no workable system (for current and ten-years-in-the-future tech). Still, with a deadline five years in the future, all cars should be able to have such a system installed before it's put into use.

As for those traffic lights, google for a project "Green Light" (I believe) being done in Utrecht, the Netherlands. They're doing research and implemntation of a smart traffic light scheme.

Double Bonus!!

[Genjurosan]

This is great, now when I'm using my Valentine 1 radar detector, I'll know just moments before someone slams into me by my V1 going off. Perhaps I'll have just a second or two to make evasive manuvers.

Way to go Honda!

Getting Rear-ended

[Tighe_L]

That is great and all, but I would hate to be driving behind one of those cars when it applys the brakes like that. I think it would increase the risk of being read-ended by a car that does not have that system.

Will it hit the gas if it thinks it will get rear-ended? I think that a crash detection system needs to be more complex then this.

I can see all the evil injury lawyers in NY State (where I live) suing over this!

Hatch's Remote Punitive Technology

[harrv]

Maybe this is the technology Senator Hatch has been looking for. If you illegally download MP3s, your car will try to strangle you with the seatbelt and cause you to skid off the road.

It Funny

[chinakow]

That the people on a site about technology can host some many technophobes. I would have suspect more of a response along the lines of, "Wow, cool I wonder what kind of radar they can incorparate into a car? Possible millimeter wave like the skateboard YT uses in Snow crash or maybe something like what hte subhunters use to distinguish a periscope from surface chop when looking for submarines.(ah yes its called synthetic appeture radar, now I remember)" but no we get LAME replies like, "oh Lord NOOOO!! NEW TECH!! WE MUSN"T THER"RE ALL GOING TO LAUGH AT YOU !!!" Damn people , learn to be a little more positive.

Crash scenario

[KFury]

I'm in the right lane on the freeway going 62mph (100kph) and an 18-wheeler merges in front of me going 20. I'm approaching so fast that it would be dangerous to try and slow immediately to 20, both to me and to the *other* 18-wheeler behind me matching my speed (note he can't brake anywhere near as fast as my honda can.

In short, if I tried to brake, I'd get squished.

The natural alternative, learned in Drivers Training, is to move one lane to the left, only there's another car about a carlength behind me in that lane, so I've got to accelerate and move over a lane.

Just as I'm doing so, my car applies the brakes, either slowing my car so I hit the car in the other lane when I try to change lanes, or forcing me to ditch that escape route, Now my acceleration has landed me in *deeper* shit, and I crash into the 18-wheeler.

No thanks. Some times the best way to evade an accident is to accelerate, and sometimes I know that better than a computer and its tunnel-vision radar.

DISTRONIC

[Anonymous Coward]

A better version of this, called Distronic, was invented by Mercedes before.
It keeps a fixed distance to the cars ahead when cruise control is on.
When it's not, it still warns you about cars that are too near in front of you.
Now combine this with Pre-Safe and you have a better version of the Honda system.

Re:DISTRONIC

[Anonymous Coward]

The MB owners manual is full of situations that Distronic doesn't detect. It certainly doesn't react to parked vehicles. It appears to be a very conservative design in what it accepts and rejects as valid targets.

The Radartest.com guy's not to be trusted

[zrk]

However, he's probably OK when reporting about police radars, not about consumer detectors, however!

He's definitely got a burr in his saddle over the Valentine1 unit and there's more info here.

Re:The Radartest.com guy's not to be trusted

[valkraider]

Of course you (I) can never "trust" just *one* source. However, in just about every review out there the Escort Pasport 8500 trounces the Valentine 1. But that is a consumer decision, and I would hope that anyone spending $300 on a radar detector would make that research before the decision...

But It is good for people to know that police radar has advanced at a rapid pace as of late. Google is our friend...

Re:The Radartest.com guy's not to be trusted

[zrk]

"Just about every" does NOT include Car and Driver . I, for one, don't give a damn about the gripes that radartest guy does (he does say at one point that the V1 is 'too' sensitive, sheesh). I do like having some sort of idea where to look for the police, which is one of the reasons I chose what I did...

Besides, If you wanna get the latest/greatest, you don't have to do a forklift upgrade with the V1 - you send it in and they upgrade the code in it. That, I can live with.

I'm sure the Escort is a fine unit, but I do prefer my V1.

Re:The Radartest.com guy's not to be trusted

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, you could just OBEY the posted speed limit.

Re:The Radartest.com guy's not to be trusted

[Anonymous Coward]

HEY, sometimes it's good to know when you're being watched, even when you ARE doing the posted speed limit!

Re:The Radartest.com guy's not to be trusted

[Anonymous Coward]

The V1 is an excellent unit, but I prefer the 8500 for two reasons. First, it has the best KA band detection, which is what all the cops in my state use almost exclusively.

Second, the 8500 displays information about multiple radar contacts better. While the arrows are nice -- I'd like to have them too, I find knowing more than just how many radar contacts there are is useful. The 8500 displays how many signals of each band type you're receiving, and how strong each one is.. all simultaneously in an easy to read display.

And yes, there have been many instances where I've received multiple blips simultaneously, including several times where they were multiple verified cops doing radar (as opposed to false alarms like K-band door openers).

Press release from Honda

[unixwin]

Answers a lot of queries ppl had..

http://world.honda.com/news/2003/4030520.html

Honda Develops World's First 'Collision Mitigation Brake System' (CMS)
for Predicting Rear-end Collisions and Controlling Brake Operations
To be installed in upcoming Inspire,
in combination with "E-Pretensioner" seatbelt retraction mechanism

Tokyo, May 20, 2003 --- Honda Motor Co., Ltd. announced today it has developed the world's first Collision Mitigation Brake System (CMS), which predicts rear-end collisions and assists brake operation to reduce impact on occupants and vehicle damage. This system determines the likelihood of a collision based on driving conditions, distance to the vehicle ahead, and relative speeds, and uses visual and audio warnings to prompt the driver to take preventative action. It can also initiate braking to reduce the vehicle's speed. The new system will be installed in the new Inspire scheduled for release in June of this year, in combination with the "E-Pretensioner," which retracts the seatbelt in anticipation of impact.

The CMS and E-Pretensioner use a millimeter-wave radar to detect vehicles ahead within a range of 100 meters, and then calculate the distance between the vehicles, the relative vehicle speeds, and the anticipated vehicle path to determine the likelihood of a collision. If the system determines that a collision is likely, it sounds an alarm and provides a tactile warning, tightening the seatbelt to prompt the driver to take preventative action. The system also incorporates a number of functions to reduce impact on occupants in the event an impact is unavoidable, including a brake assist function that compensates for insufficient pedal pressure to reduce the speed of impact, and seatbelt control that increases seatbelt tension to hold the driver more securely in place.

Honda considers safety to be one of the most crucial issues automakers face, and as such has long been active in the fields of driver safety education, active safety (preventing collisions), and passive safety (minimizing injury in the event of a collision). In addition, Honda has been promoting research and development of 'Honda Pre-crash Safety Technologies,' which are designed to predict collisions and minimize impacts. CMS and the E-Pretensioner, which warn the driver of impending collisions and reduce impact when collisions are unavoidable, represent the first stage in the practical application of these technologies.

Outline of CMS and E-Pretensioner Operations

Primary warning
When there is a risk of collision with the vehicle ahead or if the distance between the vehicles has become too short, an alarm sounds, and the message "BRAKE" appears on the multi-information display in the instrument panel, prompting the driver to take preventative action.

Secondary warning
If the distance between the two vehicles continues to diminish, CMS applies light
braking, and the E-Pretensioner retracts the seatbelt gently two or three times, providing
the driver with a tactile warning. At this point, if the driver applies the brakes, the
system interprets this action as emergency braking, and activates the brake assist
function to reduce impact speed.

Collision damage reduction
If the system determines that a collision is unavoidable, the E-Pretensioner retracts the
seatbelt with enough force to compensate for seatbelt slack or baggy clothing,
providing even more effective driver retention than conventional seatbelt pretensioners,
which only begin to operate once the collision has occurred. The CMS also activates
the brakes forcefully to further reduce the speed of impact. The E-Pretensioner is
designed to operate whenever the driver brakes suddenly and the brake assist functions,
tightening the seatbelt to secure the driver even if the CMS has not prediced a collision.

CMS & E-Pretensioner System Configuration

â Millimeter-wave radar
Detects vehicles within a range of about 100 meters ahead, in a

A new twist to Trolling for Taillights

[Anonymous Coward]

For those not familiar with the game, visit Trolling for Taillights

Let's see who can make the guy in the Honda go from 60 to 5mph the fastest!
30 secs = +100 points
20 secs = +200 points
10 secs = +500 points
5 secs = Dude! Where's your car?!

On an another note, it would be funny if the automatic doors at your local Walmart would cause these cars to slow down involuntarily every time they drive by the entrance.

This is dumb and this is why

[onyxruby]

This has got to be one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard about in automotive engineering. First, this thing has a range of 300 feet. This range is so long as to be useless for rush hour traffic. In many metro areas you can't get 300 feet in front of you even if your driving an ambulance with light and sirens. Drivers are going to cut in front of you, and there is nothing you can do about it. The net result of this is two fold. First it desensitises the driver behind you to your brake lights. After someone has their brake lights on for 25 minutes straight, drivers behind them aren't going to know when he puts them on for real. They will become desensitised to his brake lights - this is a bad thing. The second thing this will do is cause a safety problem with the Honda itself. Since the car is riding it's own brakes, they are going to be much warmer after constant usage for 10 to minutes, and thus more prone to failure.

This could also encourage laziness in the part of the driver as he is conditioned not to brake until the car starts braking for him. Remember Pavlov's dog? Same premise works on humans as well. The worst thing about this though is that these vehicles will be driven on roads that see ice, freezing rain and snow conditions. Touching the brakes unexpectedly in these conditions can easily cause a vehicle to go out of control. This is nothing like driving on dry roads at all, and requires much more skill on the part of the driver. Since I live in Minnesota, a state renowned for it's winters and bad weather, this is not an idle concern. Vehicles with brake systems that engage without the driver pressing the brake pedal first should be banned from public roads for safety's sake. I am not referring to brake assist feature in some cars that helps push down the brake pedal when panic braking on behalf of the driver is detected. I say this all as someone who has been in a very severe accident where such a system in the vehicle behind me just might have prevented the accident (rear ended at freeway speed by full size truck).

Honda logo

[Anonymous Coward]

A radar in the front of the car stashed behind the Honda logo detects vehicles within a range of about 300 feet ahead.

Considering how many Hondas get their badges defaced and stolen, I wonder if it's smart to stash such a system in such a vulnerable place.

Only The beginning...

[jupiter7]

of an eventual movement to fully automated cars. It may take 20-30 years and the integration of numberous technologies (this, GPS, megnetic lane trackers, voice recognition, AI), but eventually our cars will drive themselves. If successful, cost effective and statistically safer than us, they may be the only cars availble for sale. Highways, which do not allow non-motorized vehicles might only allow automated diriving systems. Now, I love driving. Each new car I've bought is more performance oriented than the last. The problem is that 90% of the time, I'm in rush hour(s) traffic in Chicago. Chicago has a great public transportation system. But if you work outside of the city, you are left with little to no viable pub trans options other than driving a car. I would love it, LOVE I SAY! to be able to let the car drive my normal route on a daily basis with little to no involvement. Let me read, sleep, eat breakfast, whatever. Think of them as personal cabs that are cleaner and more cost effective over time. But there are more than just selfish cool robot reasons to look forward to this. If you get enough of these cars on the road, they will actually reduce the amount of stop and go traffic. Why? Stop and Go is a result of the human ellement. People Over and Under reacting to circumstances. Get lots of cars playing by the same rules and you have smooth traffic at a steady pace. This results in faster commutes, better fuel usage and less polution. Bring on the machines!!!!

EMP Canon

[the eric conspiracy]

What we really need is a device to detect use of a cellphone in a moving car, and steer well clear of it...

In luxury vehicles it could also fire an EMP pulse thus burning out the phone.

Smarter System == Complex Software ...

[lukme]

Let's face it, the more complex software gets, the more bugs we have in it. Personally, systems like this will be as much a hazard to other drivers as it is a bennifit. Just wait until they discover some of the simple situations they should have accounted for and didn't. I just hope I am not involved.

A good question is, how do they handle system failures?

Re:Smarter System == Complex Software ...

[Filiks]

A good question is, how do they handle system failures?

If they have any brains at all, a failure disconnects the system from the brakes, seatbelt, and dashboard, except to perhaps alert the driver that the system is not active. If all components aren't reporting normal behavior, the system disconnects. Oh, you wanted a detailed, pages long explanation which would possibly expose trade secrets? Sorry I didn't design the system, but I'm going to assume they aren't total farking idiots.

What about when braking is bad?

[eaolson]

I wonder if the system takes road conditions into account. If it incorrectly triggers in wet or icy conditions, unnessary braking could cause the driver to lose control of the vehicle entirely. The (very short on details) article doesn't really go into that. Although, since the system is only currently being offered on a rather top of the line vehicle, it may have ABS brakes standard.

A cheaper system...

[Anonymous Coward]

A cheaper system would be to install some voice recognition software in the onboard computer. When it hears the driver saying OOOHHHH SHHH*****T, a crash is probably about to occur.

Famous last words

[Mannerism]

"Yeah, dude, and it's got one of those new collision detection systems...check it out."

Ack! intersection! Ack! Corner!

[temojen]

OK, so I admit I've not read the article, but what if...

What if I'm driving towards a green light at an intersection and someone runs the intersection the perpendicular to me when I'm 90m away?

Chances are I'm not going to hit it, but the system could be activated, which could cause me to panic causing an accident that wouldn't have otherwise happened.

Or, what if I'm driving towards a corner with a brick wall. I know I'm going to turn, but the car doesn't, so It activates, which causes the car to skid and smack into something.

Or, what if I expect the system to warn me if I'm going to smack into something, so I start getting careless, then one day a cyclist comes along with a carbon-fiber racing bike... not enough metal to register as an obstacle.

my v1 is useless

[athen66]

shit, now when my radar detector goes off i won't know if it's a cop flying on my ass or someone about to smash into my ass. then the question will be, do i slam on my brakes or do i floor it?!

Honda has built a peril-sensitive car.

[Redchrome]

from _The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy_:
"Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses have been specially designed to help people develop a relaxed attitude to danger. At the first hint of trouble, they turn totally black and thus prevent you from seeing anything that might alarm you."

I see some definite parallels here...

Redchrome

Car Radars

[CPUGuy]

I think this is a very bad way to go about this. 1) How is the radar to detect what is a car, or just something else ahead. 2) What about oncoming traffic in the other lane? 3) What about the driver being able to make sharp maneuvers with the car, with this on, the car will effectivly take away the drivers ability to do this. 4) Knight Rider already has this patented :) (sorry, couldn't leave out the patent comment) A much better system would be to put a sort of locator into your car that could detect other locators in other cars, say, 200 meters out. These locators would have GPS access so it could sort through which cars are a threat. Even with this suggested system, you CANNOT have the system automatically tap the brakes, as it takes a tremendous amount of power out of the drivers hands, and could even end up being worse than having no system at all.

Re:Car Radars

[CPUGuy]

I think this is a very bad way to go about this.

1) How is the radar to detect what is a car, or just something else ahead.

2) What about oncoming traffic in the other lane?

3) What about the driver being able to make sharp maneuvers with the car, with this on, the car will effectivly take away the drivers ability to do this.

4) Knight Rider already has this patented :) (sorry, couldn't leave out the patent comment)

A much better system would be to put a sort of locator into your car that could detect other locators in other cars, say, 200 meters out. These locators would have GPS access so it could sort through which cars are a threat.
Even with this suggested system, you CANNOT have the system automatically tap the brakes, as it takes a tremendous amount of power out of the drivers hands, and could even end up being worse than having no system at all.

(sorry about the double post, forgot this was HTML formatted)

possible scenario

[Archfeld]

you are cruising on the free-way at speed, the car in fron off you slams on its brakes. You realize that you are folloing too close( just like everyone else), and quickly check the lanes to the left and right, taping the accelerator you slide to the right and avoid the hazard, giving the driver behind you ample time to break and avoid the same obstacle....NOW the same scenario, only as you scramble for an exit to the left or right, your car begins to brake by itself making a lane change MUCH harder than it would be if you were at traffic speed or slightly faster. Granted this is probably a fairly rare happening but there are a LOT of options and complications to deal with, and I for one would not feel comfortable driving in a vehicle which did not respopnd EXACTLY as I asked it to.

Re:possible scenario

[cyril3]

did you read even the /. summary let alone the article? If the driver fails to respond to the prompt from the system further prompts are issued by the system. As soon as the driver responds as you scramble for an exit to the left or right the system stops prompting. It will in fact stop braking by itself if it had started doing that. As soon as you turn the wheel the system will realize the impending rear end collision will not occur because you're not moving towards the car in front anymore and look for the next accident based on proximity and relative speed.

Re:possible scenario

[Archfeld]

You missed my point, breaking while trying to merge is NOT a recommended tactic. I did read the article and from what I can tell this will introduce like a 1/4 to 1/2 second delay depending on how alert the driver is. I am a certified race course driver and I completed dozens of driver safety and corporate driving school classes. I have the qualification if not the reflexes to be a professional driver, I do know a little about it. Breaking will already have started, the cars will be rolling forward in a pitch and seriously affect steering...

Killer App for WarDriving

[sbowles]

With all of the new wireless-enabled cars that are due to come out (like Daimler-Chrysler's UConnect) and emerging hacking tools like Redfang it's getting scary to drive a car.

Legal Liability

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Massachusetts. If you rear end a car , you are AUTOMATICALLY at fault.

Why should I be legaly liable for Honda's experiment in asssited driving when the vehicle mistakenly stops short?.

That would fail miserably

[Black Perl]

If the steering wheel is pointing to the right, focus the radar to the right as that's where the collision would most likely happen

In my scenario, when the road curves ahead of you, there is a time when your steering wheel is pointed at oncoming traffic. Thus you would come to a sudden stop when in fact, you shouldn't.

FYI

[arhines]

...ZZZ had an article on this a few months back.

thought it was from microsoft!!

[Anonymous Coward]

darn! I misread the title and thought this was from microsoft - scared the living day lights out of me! *phew* its just honda.

Hmmm

[Jahf]

This could make for some funny games of chicken.

Maybe I can convince the local PD to buy them :)

Legal Challenges?

[Mr. No Skills]

I'm having a hard time imagining this being sold in the US. Wouldn't the first time someone got hurt (child hit, accident not avoided, etc.) cause a montrous lawsuit against Honda because the system failed to prevent someone from being hurt? Couldn't someone sue claiming that they didn't need to be as attentive because the car takes care of that? I know people can sue for anything regardless of merit, but this seems like Firestone Tires on Ford Explorer all over again. As control is taken away from the driver, the liability for driving starts moving to the manufacturer.

Also, any hackers out there expected to come up with jamming devices or false signal senders? It isn't too hard to imagine someone getting a kick out of causing an accident behind them. Or just wanting to get a tailgater backed off by triggering their braking system.

I can understand in countries not as trigger happy with lawsuits, but I gotta think Honda is opening a can of worms with active avoidance in the US.

Nothing like breaking hard...

[JFMulder]

... on icy roads in winter. You're more likelly to get an accident with this car. That system is doomed to failed.

Problem is, however...

[gillbates]

That gadgets such as anti-lock brakes and airbags have actually made the situation worse by lulling drivers into a false sense of security.

Anti-lock brakes are a classic example of optimizing the vehicle for only the stupidest of drivers; while they give the idiot driver some vestige of steering control on slippery roadways, they actually increase stopping distances on dry pavement. (think about how often you drive in the rain... I'd say it's less than 5% in the Midwest) The net result is that driving is now more dangerous - today's cars can't stop as quickly, yet very few drivers increase their following distance to compensate. Instead, the average driver thinks, "hmm.. airbags, anti-lock brakes - I don't have to worry about getting into an accident..."

The biggest problem experienced drivers have with the newer cars is that they take control away from the driver. The last thing I want my vehicle to do in an emergency situation is to behave unpredictably, even if it's doing the right thing. If I'm driving along and the vehicle activates the brakes, my first thought is "There's something wrong with the engine, why am I slowing down?", not "I'm about to crash, better hit the brakes." At highway speeds, the time it takes for me to verify oil pressure and temperature could easily be the difference between a safe stop and a rather nasty accident. And with anti-lock brakes, I need an even longer distance to stop.

As for anti-lock brakes, not trying to troll, but the fact that I have steering control is pretty useless when I'm in the middle lane of a crowded expressway and traffic suddenly comes to a screeching halt. I'd rather have brakes that stop than a choice of where on the grill I'd like to place that Honda in front of me.

Re:Problem is, however...

[DavittJPotter]

"...think about how often you drive in the rain... I'd say it's less than 5% in the Midwest..."

Except when it rains when it's 33 degrees outside. It snows here, too, sometimes. :)

ABS has yet to let me down in my pickup. You can't 'pump' the brakes 15 times in one second. You can't "feel" impending lockup. Only after you begin to skid - then you release the brakes, then you apply - skid - release, etc. Your brain takes what, 1 second to respond to skid - then you release/reapply. The ABS has already pulsed the brakes 6-7 times before you even would register the skid. My old Nissan pickup didn't have antilock, my new S10 does - and my S10 does better in the ice & snow every time. ABS works, and I consider myself to have "an above room temperature IQ".

Re:Problem is, however...

[gillbates]

You can't "feel" impending lockup

Yes you can - in a way. Under normal braking conditions, 60% goes to the front brakes, 40% to the rear brakes. Under this scenario, if you are coming to a stop on slick pavement, usually the right rear tire will lock first. At this point, even should you continue with the wheel locked, you've only lost 20% of your braking power. If you ease off the pedal a little, you could easily retain 90 to 95% of optimal braking power. With the ABS on my S10, it feels like I lose 50% of my braking power when it kicks in. And the sensitivity is ridiculous - I've almost rear ended other drivers at stoplights numerous times because a single pothole or bump in the road tripped the ABS on dry pavement.

Antilock brakes aren't designed to stop the vehicle under emergency conditions - they're designed to give the driver steering control during braking. Which of course is useless if you can't steer your way out of an impending accident and instead need real braking power. I too have an S10, and I fear the ABS - I've noticed that two things happen when it activates:

1. I lose stopping power - I see the front end of the truck come back up, and it feels like I've lost half of my braking power.
2. The ABS system continues to engage until I either step off the brakes completely, or come to a near stop. If I go over a single slippery spot on the pavement, the ABS continues to pump the brakes long after I'm back on good pavement. A single pothole can trip up the ABS system for the entire duration of my stop.

So much for safety! I've never been at risk of rear-ending drivers at stoplights until ABS came out. Now I have to begin braking much sooner, because something as simple as a pothole could trip the ABS and cause me to slam into the guy in front of me. With non-abs brakes, I can look at the pavement conditions and pretty well figure out how fast I can stop. But with ABS, there's no telling how much braking power I'm going to have at any given place on the road.

so print stuff out

[autopr0n]

You can always print out emails and keep them saved in a secure location. Sure, the software that runs these things can be pretty funky, but in general in runs well and has lots of redundancy. It's just a pain in the ass to deal with all those physical bills when I can pay 'em online or even setup my bank account to do it automaticaly.

Besides, what would a 'web developer' know about radar technology? I think this is the real problem. A lot of geeks think they're 'smart' and when they hear about something they don't understand they think it must be impossible.

Re:so print stuff out

[Anonymous Coward]

"A lot of geeks think they're 'smart' and when they hear about something they don't understand they think it must be impossible."

*Ding!* You get a point.

The reason slashdotters are so skeptical about new technologies is because they're a bunch of arrogant pricks.

Here, mod this one down too

[drinkypoo]

I have karma to burn, fucko. If you're going to mod me down because you don't agree with me, I might as well sap your mod points before you use them on someone who can't afford to lose karma.

Re:Here, mod this one down too

[Steveftoth]

Actually I modded you down cause you've got a bad attitude and need to spend some time in the corner before spouting off.

Besides, you've been modded back up anyways, so cut back on the coffee.

If you're still mad next time you get mod points just mod-bomb me. Going around swearing isn't going to earn you any points either.

I disagree that you need to be an amazing driver to be able to drive on the roads, like you seem to think from your posts. Since you imply that you are pushing your car (not to the limits but still...) when you drive. Regardless of how amazing a driver you are, you won't always be able to dodge other bad drivers. Nobody is forcing you buy a car with this system installed anyway.

Re:Here, mod this one down too

[drinkypoo]

Actually I modded you down cause you've got a bad attitude and need to spend some time in the corner before spouting off.

I have a bad attitude because I disagree with someone's assumptions? That makes no sense.

If you're still mad next time you get mod points just mod-bomb me. Going around swearing isn't going to earn you any points either.

Sorry, but I don't abuse the moderation system. I spend my mod points modding people up, not down, and I don't mod just because I like or dislike someone. I mod the comment, because that's what mod points are for.

I disagree that you need to be an amazing driver to be able to drive on the roads, like you seem to think from your posts.

Again, you are making unwarranted assumptions. I think people need to pay more attention, though.

Since you imply that you are pushing your car (not to the limits but still...) when you drive. Regardless of how amazing a driver you are, you won't always be able to dodge other bad drivers. Nobody is forcing you buy a car with this system installed anyway.

Oh no, I know you can't always dodge bad drivers, though so far I've done very well. However, I used to be a bad driver in that I did not take my driving privileges seriously, and as such I got in a couple of accidents; One for pushing limits amongst other cars (I ran a red) and one for not paying adequate attention (I ran another red.) Both of these were prior to the age of 18, which I think well justifies the inflated insurance rates teenagers pay. I speak as one who has made his mistakes and hopes not to make more.

Now, when I drive, I pay obsessive attention to everything. Just when I'm walking to my car I look around for other people walking to their cars, what traffic is like on the roads I'll be pulling onto and those which feed into the parking lot, et cetera. When I'm about to go around a turn my head is turning all over the place like a damn own while my eyes are darting as well, to make sure that there's not a kid behind a bush or a car coming from somewhere else such that they could pull onto the road, when they are or are not supposed to, and run into me. I watch obsessively for anything any other driver could do. I don't make rapid lane changes any more, instead I come over at a sedate (but decisive) pace so that if someone else decides that they want to occupy that space, I can just let them have it.

As for not being forced to buy a car with that system; Not yet. But it could be only a matter of time before such things are mandated on all on-road vehicles by law. Even before such a dire event occurs, I am concerned about other drivers using it for several reasons. One, it will give them a false sense of security, and I want people to feel somewhat insecure on the road, though not so much that they are afraid. Just that they are constantly in mind of what a dangerous thing driving is, to themselves and to others. Two, people will be distracted by playing with it, as they often are by cruise control. I think cruise control is a pretty bad idea, but I do use mine occasionally. I don't like to, because not using the pedal actively while watching the speedo and tach means I have one less piece of information. Gas pedal feel (IE, how hard am I pressing?) combined with the "seat dyno" (AKA butt-o-meter) gives you a lot of information that will help you decide, for example, how much braking you will need to do if something bad happens. And Thirdly and Finally, if the system malfunctions or works as designed according to a bad design, then it will cause additional hazards. This seems extremely likely because it is an uncertain and dangerous world.

Re:Here, mod this one down too

[Steveftoth]

Really I shouldn't to have modded you second comment down, but sometimes I do make a mistake. I do think however that your first comment was not a '5' comment, but that's the mod system.

You are a paranoid, paranoid person. If you don't trust technology then you should really just get off the road. I mean your car could fail at any time, brake lines snapping, axel breaking, who knows what might happen! I hope that any technology that is brought into cars is tested so that the probibility of causeing problems is much lower then the probibility of helping. This is not always the case ( 8+ Cylinder engines for sport cars) but for safety features like this I think that they are taking a much closer look at the effects of this system on the drivers safety.

The modern car is so complex and full of possible problems that it's amazing that it works at all. There is already one computer controlling every aspect of every new car's engine, so why not add another one. If you main computer fails then there are backup systems, just as in this system. They can't release a product with this kind of killing potential in the event of failure without a good backup system. If a computer controlled breaking system were to fail then probably the best course of action would to be to stop the car (with the driver's action) and not start again.

Course then you'll probably say "what if the backup fails". Well, lets hope that never happens.

Let's also hope that your break lines never snap and your gas tank never explodes. There are just some things that no matter how many precautions we take can and will happen.

Re:Here, mod this one down too

[drinkypoo]

The modern car is so complex and full of possible problems that it's amazing that it works at all. There is already one computer controlling every aspect of every new car's engine, so why not add another one. If you main computer fails then there are backup systems, just as in this system.

Actually, while you are correct that there is only one computer controlling every aspect of your car's engine, you are incorrect about backup systems; at the very least, they are not the norm. I have worked on a number of EFI cars and none of them have a backup computer. They do have a failsafe mode such that if a sensor the car is dependent on fails (not including the crank angle sensor, which is mandatory, because without it the car has no idea what is going on) then it will run with defaults to get you home. In this mode the car is extremely inefficient, meaning you get poor mileage, and have nasty emissions. However, if the computer dies, no backup system will take over.

Also, I haven't heard of this happening with any modern ABS systems, but many "older" (early nineties and prior) ABS systems, when they fail, fail really, really badly. The best case is that when you stomp on the pedal (as drivers with ABS are used to being able to do) the brakes lock up and you slide. The worst case is that you are unable to get much behavior in between no braking and locking up; This is the normal behavior for failed ABS.

Incidentally, many modern cars (2000+ models) have no less than three computers. One for the engine, one for the transmission, and one for the ABS. They are separate but connected components. The proper kind of failure in any of these systems could disrupt the activity of the other two. I'm not too worried about that, but I thought it deserved a mention.

Let's also hope that your break lines never snap and your gas tank never explodes. There are just some things that no matter how many precautions we take can and will happen.

I'm somewhat concerned about my brake lines; They are the original flex lines on an '89 car. I do however have some nice stainless steel braided brake lines which are legal for use in California (they have factory-affixed fittings on the end) made by Hawk Brake which I will be installing shortly, probably about the time I do my 300ZX brake upgrade. (I have a 240SX.) And the odds of the gas tank exploding without being shot with a HE round are pretty much nil, since fuel has to be atomized (or, what do you call it when it turns to fumes?) before it will detonate. You can shoot a gas tank and all that will happen is that it will leak, nine times out of ten, and I've never been shot at. Yet. Closest I've come to that is seen someone unloading a clip down the street at someone else... Thank goodness.

New automotive technologies are certainly tested, but the real world is a dangerous place. I think the emphasis should be taken off development of technologies to make driving safer, and put on development of technologies to minimize driving. For instance, I like the idea of cars which lock onto slots when you get on the highway-equivalent and simply take you where you're going at the highest possible speed, eliminating the desire to speed (those who feel the need for speed can get their kicks on the track - did I mention that I rarely if ever go more than 10mph over the limit on the highway, and that only when I'm going with the flow of traffic?) and all chance for some oblivious idiot to cause the deaths of others by falling asleep or what have you. I'll settle for railways loading cars on, though not modern US train technology. There are all too many derailments.

Re:Here, mod this one down too

[The Clockwork Troll]

I'm not above admitting when I've made a bad judgment.

This time, however, I was dead on.

Butthead said it best.

[Anonymous Coward]

ummm......no.

The solution Re:The Problem

[AndyChrist]

"the weight of the vehicle will transfer to the front wheels, possibly causing the rear ones to lose traction and induce an oversteer (Timmy spins out and causes an accident)."

Everyone should learn to drive on ice. (all you floridians and californians don't know shit about driving and should have your licenses suspended the second it starts to snow.) You can't avoid these facts on ice, so either you learn to drive really slow, or you learn to control the vehicle to keep it from spinning. Or you ditch it. Regardless, you're not causing many accidents.

"Or how about proximity? Notice how, when there's a small piece of debris in the road, most drivers give it a good 4-6 feet of berth just because they don't actually have a sense of the boundries of their car."

I usually drive over them, if I know they'll fit under the car and between the wheels.

Fargo

[ashitaka]

Oh, man I can't read that without thinking of the scene in Fargo.

Steve Buscemi is standing beside his car in the snow-covered parking lot, blood streaming from the bullet hole in his cheek, the kidnapee's father dead on the ground having just been shot multiple times.

And the "you left your key in the ignition" warning softly chiming "ding!, ding!, ding!..."

so just turn it off

[autopr0n]

I'm sure the software will alow you to disable the feature, if not buy a nothere car.

The really important question!

[bitusmeus]

I'm shocked - SHOCKED - that no one has asked the obvious question: Will it cause your tomato sandwich to automatically eject if the pump gets caught in your trouser leg?

I bought one also.

[delcielo]

I bought it for a few reasons:

Obviously, the gas mileage is good. I know some will say that it's possible to get that out of other cars (the VW Golf TDI comes close); but I don't see how that's an argument against the Hybrid. It still gets comparable or better mileage than those cars. So what's the big deal? Cost? I got $2,000 off my taxes this year. That helps mitigate the added cost.

I like the car. I like the way the CVT feels. I like the way the car looks. I like Honda.

I also like the concept; and it will never get better if we don't pursue it and support it with purchases. I don't kid myself that I'm going to make up the price difference in fuel savings. I figure if I have the car 6 or 7 years, I'll just about break even. But the Hybrids that are out then will hopefully be much better than the current ones. The most often cited gas-only comparable care is the Golf TDI. It's available now after 100 years of tweaking and working on gas engines. The Hybrid already beats it slightly in MPG after only a few years. Barring hydrogen, I think this is the way to go.

You can ignore the fact that you're driving a Hybrid if you want, and treat the car like any other. So it's not like I've given up anything to buy this car. It's a Civic, with the normal Civic look, with about the same cost over its life, and so far it runs great.

I bought mine in Atlanta while visiting my brother; and drove it back to the Kansas City area (Topeka). I've since driven back to visit him at about 900 miles each way. It did fine on the highway, passing when I needed it to, getting 50MPG, and generally behaving like every other car I've owned.

In short, why not buy the car? Why is buying it considered so novel?

Grill my balls

[flowerp]

So you better don't pass by in front of a Honda (at a stoplight or a pedestrian crossing for example) ... IF YOU STILL WANT TO HAVE CHILDREN LATER.

Intelligent Cruise Control

[dcw3]

I bought a new Infiniti FX45 just a couple months ago, and one of the nicest features on it is the Intelligent Cruise Control (ICC). It uses a radar located inside the front bumber, to detect vehicles ahead (adjustable to 100, 200, or 300ft via a button on the steering wheel). It will apply up to 25% of maximum brake force in the event it "sees" something ahead. For you doubters out there, it works well...not perfectly, but well. The owners manual doesn't recommend using it in certain situations, but those are mostly common sense cases. Also, you've got the option of switching to a traditional crusie control mode, with the radar of

Re:Older Drivers...

[furchin]

I think Dennis Miller put it best.."I don't think you should be allowed to drive IF you are old enough to remember when there WEREN'T any cars..."

And certainly if you CAN'T remember anymore, but used to be able to.

There is a diffrence between "feeling" and "being"

[autopr0n]

Just because you feel safe when you are in control dosn't mean that you are actualy less likely to get into an accident. Technology is failable, yes. But so are humans.

Nature had an article about this...

[projecto2501]

Nature magazine had an article about this recently. Radio astronomers have been lobbying against it since they predict that it would make ground based radio observations impossible and also screw up satelite imagery. In the past they've had good luck at keeping certain bands free, but now it's the common good of science investigation against saving human lives, and it looks like they might lose this one.

Obligitory Python reference

[Brian Knotts]

"Here, that tomato just ejected itself."

Derivative technology

[raiderx]

Gulliver Amazing, isn't it? We have also developed a tomato which can eject itself when an accident is imminent.

Pither Even if it's inside an egg and tomato roll?

Gulliver Anywhere! Even if it's in your stomach, and it senses an accident it will come up your throat and out of the window. Do you realise what this means?

Pither Safer food?

Gulliver Exactly! No longer will food be squashed, crushed and damaged, by the ignorance and stupidity of the driver! (becoming slightly messianic) Whole picnics will be built to withstand the most enormous forces! Snacks will be safer than ever! An simple pot of salad dressing, treated in our laboratories, has been subjected to the impact of a 4,000 pound steam hammer every day for the last sixteen years and has it broken?

Pither Er....well...

Gulliver Yes, of course it has...but there are other ideas - the safety straps for sardines for instance.

A tomato leaps up out of the glove compartment and hovers, then it ejects itself out of the car window

Pither Here, that tomato just ejected itself.

Gulliver Really? (embracing Pither excitedly) It works! It works! (the car crashes)

How about the Plastic bag stuck to the front grill

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens if a plastic bag or a sheet of newspaper is kicked up in the air slams into the sensor? Does the vehicle automatically slam on the brakes, so that the driver behind slams into the back of your car?

Speaking of Honda...

[Anonymous Coward]

This has got to be the coolest car ad I've ever seen. All real. Wow!

Big non-boonies highway patrols still use RADAR

[Chazman]

CHP (California Highway Patrol) uses Ka-band RADAR almost exclusively. In fact, in the last five years of driving around southern California, the vast majority of the detector hits I've gotten that I could pinpoint to a particular law enforcement source have been Ka-band RADAR. I've only been hit with LIDAR once. That was a Newport Beach city police motorcycle unit. How do I know this? I've got a Valentine-1 and a Lidatek Laser Echo, and I keep them both on nearly all the time.

Yes, LIDAR has greater range and greater selectivity (can pick out a single vehicle) than RADAR. But it also requires a stable platform and sighting equipment to be used properly. It cannot be used from a moving vehicle. RADAR can. It cannot be used in a shoot-from-the-hip quick reaction scenario. RADAR can. It cannot be used without a sight attached to a stable semi-fixed platform. RADAR can. For these reasons, the demise of RADAR is vastly exaggerated.

Re:Big non-boonies highway patrols still use RADAR

[JDWTopGuy]

For these reasons, the demise of RADAR is vastly exaggerated.

But didn't netcraft confirm it? I read somewhere that RADAR was dead... some kind called RadarBSD...

Thank you for the informative post, and why the heck do you need two radar detectors in your car? Are you the guy who almost totaled my Yugo by driving by at 200 MPH? Man, the rushing air alone made my car flip over. I shouldn't have eaten chili!

(Please moderate me down, I've gone insane!)

Re:Big non-boonies highway patrols still use RADAR

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you the guy who almost totaled my Yugo by driving by at 200 MPH?

Know how to double the value of a Yugo?

Fill the tank.

New Technology is OK until your life depends on it

[AHumbleOpinion]

Generally speaking, I am surprised to see how negative Slashdotters are to new technology, especially before knowing much about how it works. The assumption always seems to be that the implementation will be completely useless, dangerous and insecure.

New Technology is OK when its just geek toys, but when your life depends on it things are different. A historical example: Dive computers for SCUBA diving. Basically a SCUBA diver can stay at a given depth for only a certain amount of time. Exceed that time and going straight to the surface is no longer a safe option, decompression stops are now required to avoid injury or death. The traditional way to determine time was to use the US Navy dive tables, or something closely based on these tables. In the 90s dive computers appeared and I recall a discussion on a dive boat. Everyone was interested and curious, but who was actually using the dive computers? Doctors, lawyers, business types and such. Who was using mechanical analog guages and dive tables? Engineers, programmers, and other techies.

Seatbelt and Seat improvements? Lo-tech good?

[beaverfever]

While hi-tech safety gizmos are great, why is it so hard to get simpler solutions put into place? The manufacturers' answer to SUVs high centre of gravity, poor handling and associated rollover problem has been to develop software/hardware which helps the driver control the vehicle - why not just build a better car? (I know - cost-effectiveness, plus the ability to gloat in sales campaigns about high-tech gizmos)

How long will it be until the auto manufacturers decide the public is 'ready' to want four-point seatbelts? They've been 'testing' them for ages.

Then there's the issue of car seats collapsing backwards in rear-end accidents (which can crush the legs of rear passengers and render front seatbelts useless, so front passengers are thrown about), but the Big 3 in North America claim this is not an issue and current strength specifications (imposed by the government) are more than sufficient.

I suppose I am jaded by the auto industry's long history of fighting, tooth and nail, against safety regulations and standards imposed by washington. To the corporate mind, auto safety is an issue only to the extent that it can reduce payouts due to litigation.

Re:Seatbelt and Seat improvements? Lo-tech good?

[thebigmacd]

Why not build a better car? They ARE, they are using technology to do it.

Re:Seatbelt and Seat improvements? Lo-tech good?

[beaverfever]

They are applying technological band-aids to flawed designs.

Re:Seatbelt and Seat improvements? Lo-tech good?

[thebigmacd]

If you can solve the problem any better, you are welcome to.

It's a crutch, an excuse to be lazy and stupid

[Chazman]

Otherwise, you have to assume that you have a better understanding of customer preferences and this radar technology than does Honda.

I unfortunately know one thing about the average driver, especially the average American driver. They're lazy. They want everything done for them. They don't want to learn and hone driving skills. They don't want to develop quick reflexes and intelligent reactions, even if their life depends on it.

Until and unless this technology becomes provably as good as a well-trained, well-practiced, alert human driver, I'm going to be in favor of more training and practice for drivers, and against this technology. The more technology like this makes it into the mainstream, the lazier and stupider drivers get, and the more socially acceptable that laziness and stupidity gets. That is a danger to us all.

Re:It's a crutch, an excuse to be lazy and stupid

[Alan Partridge]

"Until and unless this technology becomes provably as good as a well-trained, well-practiced, alert human driver, I'm going to be in favor of more training and practice for drivers, and against this technology."

This is nonsense, of course. Traction control, launch control and ABS have all been banned from Formula 1 - if the best (track) drivers in the world go faster with the aid of these technologies (and they DO) why do you think you're so great that you can't benefit from them?

Re:It's a crutch, an excuse to be lazy and stupid

[Alan Partridge]

it just occurred to me that launch control is still present, though there was talk of banning it.

Question of priorities instead

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have such a problem with them getting this working, I think it's just a wrong priority and a waste of their company's resources at this time.
Here are two tasks they should be focusing on instead:

1) They need to perfect their walking robots to the point where it will be able to go to work for me, go grocery shopping, and hand me a beer out of the fridge when I ask it. Did I mention cleaning the apartment?

2) Hydrogen-powered levitation cars. It's year 2003, and we still have no flying cars! Something must be done about this!

Big trucks have had this for a while

[DonGar]

They've had this for a while on the big trucks, where the system costs in the $100k range.

They really seem to work, because they've been shown to boost the safety records of the drivers/companies that use them.

I used to have an article about it laying around. I dug it up when a friend and I were discussing what it would take to really build a self-driving vehicle for mass production.

If something gets in your way, TURN!

[Chazman]

I regularly approach what would appear to a radar system to be an obstacle directly in my path at speeds that are clearly too high to allow braking to a stop before colliding. Why? I'm going to turn. Turning or dodging are often much better collision avoidance strategies than straight-line braking. Until the system can understand the whole environment and read the driver's mind to determine their intended strategy, then the statement "Chances are that if your approach speed is to high for your breaking distance then you going to crash." is pure bullshit. If a good human driver has determined that turning is better than braking in this situation, then no overly simple system should interfere with the driver's execution of that strategy.

And yes, a little tap on the brakes can indeed interfere with turning. That's how you kick the tail out and start a spinout.

Re:If something gets in your way, TURN!

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

The people working at Honda are not stupid. Infact they probably know more about this subject that you, or anyone else in this entire forum. Do you not think they would have taken things like turning, and surface conditions into account when designing this system?

Also, a person probably isn't going to swerve if they are asleep, or other wise don't notice they're about to have a collision. If you're talking about the system not swerving, rather that people relying on this type of system, then Honda probably realise that this is too hard/dangerous, and that while braking isn't nessesarily going to avoid an impact, it can atleast reduce the speed of the impact.

No, it's sexist!

[Anonymous Coward]

When I've seen the drivers of these things, the only thing they have in common is being male.

Aha! Ricer is a sexist term!

Years of development

[awtbfb]

Actually, these types of systems have been studied intensely for years. The US DOT has a whole program centered on smart safety devices called the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (IVI). Many of the OEMs have also been pursuing this in their own labs.

I should point out that intelligent cruise control (speed adjustment to maintain gap between cars) is already in some cars in the US market (e.g., Infinity Q45). Europe and Japan have more models to choose from (cite your favorite US lawsuit quote here). ICC (aka ACC) with limited (~33%) braking authority is just around the corner.

Also, and perhaps more relevant to /. fears, the Eaton Vorad collision warning and ICC system has been on the market for years. There are a lot of trucks out there with these in use.

Insurance companies...

[Richy_T]

Are quite corrupt. They'll deny claims for anything they can base on having the system operative and for anyhting they can blame on nothaving the system operative.

Rich

What good is this?

[El]

Based on my experience with accidents, I don't have a problem with hitting the person in front of me... I have a problem with all the SOBs around me hitting me! This is only useful for people that don't pay attention to their driving!

ahem

[ChrisCampbell47]

Wow. For the 90% of you who have your panties in wad about how this can't possibly work, please go back to your video game consoles and Mountain Dew. Do you really think you're the first person to have thought hard about the problem?

buzzer a bad idea

[SideshowBob]

In that type of situation, a sudden alarming sound is only going to worsen the stress that the driver is in, causing him to overreact.

Hello pot

[SuperKendall]

Mind saying where it says that? All I see is this:

A radar in the front of the car stashed behind the âoeHâ logo detects vehicles within a range of about 300 feet ahead. The system initially pulls on the seat belt and brakes slightly to warn the driver. A buzzer also goes off and a small light flashes on the dashboard.

Where does it talk about rear facing radar? Nary a mention that I can see. Unless you have information from other sources, it's true I didn't go to Honda's site to look up more details or attempt to bribe engineers on the project with a princely sum to see if they had considered this (which I still doubt they have).

Awesome, an anti-tailgater system!

[Anonymous Coward]

When someone tailgates me (i.e., I can't see where their front tires touch the asphalt in my rearview mirror) when I'm doing 70mph or more, I give them a little "chin music"-- I stomp on my brakes for a split second, just long enough to make it look like I'm panic-stopping. This usually clues them in that I'd appreciate it if they'd back off a tad. Go ahead and call me a dick for doing that if you must, but I have my reasons: A few years ago, I got creamed by a schmuck in an SUV who was following too closely and driving too fast for the rainy conditions. Someone cut someone off farther up in the exit lane (I suppose, I didn't see it), and everyone behind that person had to panic stop. I stopped safely, then looked in my rearview mirror and saw nothing but grillwork and the Ford logo. Boom. Since then, I do not tolerate tailgaters.

I imagine someone will come up with a spoofer pretty quick so that when a dipshit tailgater in a car with one of these systems is on your ass, you need only point a garage door opener-looking remote at their grill and hit a button, and their car will do the rest.

Re:Awesome, an anti-tailgater system!

[Anonymous Coward]

When some fuckwit taps their brakes when I'm tailgating them (instead of getting out of the way like they should), I either move closer (fun), or undertake them and hack their freaking nose off (more fun).

The only reason I ever tailgate someone is when they're going too slowly for the lane they're in, or if they've pulled out on me.

Lane discipline costs nothing, and is sensible.

Re:Awesome, an anti-tailgater system!

[oshy]

So what excuse to tailgaters have when I'm doing 70mph (road speed limit) and overtaking other cars? Have I got to wait at the side for the tailgaters to push their way past before I'm allowd to go past a line of trucks doing 40mph? And when I get past the truck at the front and about to pull safely infront of it (without cutting their nose off) I get the tailgater overtaking me on the inside as I'm indicating and pulling over (nearly causing an accident on its own). Its happened a few times. Since then, when being tailgated when overtaking a convoy doing 40, I do 41 (rather be hit at 41, than 70. Would rather not be hit at all. You decrease your stopping distance, I have to slow down to increase it). I sometimes use combinations of fog light and window washers (aim them high) to get the hint across. Have gobbed the occasional half chewed cookie out the sunroof for added fun (as a pasenger. Would be dangerous as a driver).

Re:Awesome, an anti-tailgater system!

[Anonymous Coward]

You must leave a hell of a gap after the last truck, then.

Rule of thumb - if you can see all of the vehicle in your rear view mirror, it's safe to pull over (especially if you're going faster than them).

You could also try using your mirros before overtaking - if you see someone approaching fast, ait till they've gone, then pull out. I do this myself, despite being an impatient SOB when held up by idiots.

Re:Awesome, an anti-tailgater system!

[oshy]

Usually use the 'rear view mirror' guide, but they still swerve in before I'm clear. If their engine seases when squeezing in, they are spam in a can with extra tomato sauce. I also check for speeding nutters before overtaking, but when someone is doing 120, they can apear from nowhere when you are still passing the large convoy of trucks. (If only truck drivers would do the same checks when they overtake)

What is trully astonishing....

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that anyone would ready that crappy article and think they have enough information to discuss the system described.

To illustrate my point I will now attempt to describe a personal computer with an equal level of accuracy: A boxey thing with some buttons to push.

The more appropriate discussion based on the article would be the very poor level of reporting in general, and of technology specifically.

insurance

[know_op]

No one has mentioned the insurance companies yet. Will the automaker be responsible if the crash detection fails? Sounds like a lot of liability to me even if they make the system intelligent enough.

Parent is dumb and this is why

[nutshell42]

It is redundant (no link just check about half of the previous postings)

It is wrong

Did I mention it is *really*,*really*,*really* redundant

And the parent is so stupid to assume a highly complex system would be done by someone who isn't even able to figure out problems so simple that some half-wits on /. saw them in the 5 seconds between reading the story and hitting the reply button. stupid really, stupid. Really. Stupid.

But apparently that's the way to get Karma...

(Don't mod me, mod parent redundant, thx)

No that's Hyundai

[Openadvocate]

Nope, that would be Hyundai. I mean, what's the point owning a Hyundai if you can't brag about it.

Interesting research paper

[nomadicGeek]

Here is an old 1998 research paper that describes some of the preliminary work on such a system. It looks like research into this kind of thing is at least 5-6 years along. Honda doesn't make crap so I'm sure that it is pretty far along by now.

I drove a Mercedes SL500 a few months ago. It has the radar controlled cruise control, etc on it. If you go too hot into a corner, it can brake individual wheels too help control the skid. The kind of stuff that you can't do on your own.

There are a lot of the "I understand physics so I'm a better driver" kind of posts. Accidents happen fast and not always because of things that you do. It isn't only stupid people that get into them. You can be doing everything right and still get killed.

Anything that helps in a split second live and death instance I am all for. In many cases these systems can kick in and do their thing much faster than you can and they can do things that you can't like brake individual wheels, tighten the seatbelt, deploy and airbag, and just about anything else that you can imagine. These little differences can be the difference between surviving and not.

Another thing that this helps is to avoid stupid accidents while you are talking on a cell phone, playing with your mp3 player, eating, and other things that you really shouldn't do but everyone does. Most of us spend so much time in our cars that it would be nice to see things totally automated where we could relax, get work done, etc. Wasn't that all supposed to be working by now? Who's in charge of that project? You're late.

What I think we should do...

[Kysh]

... Is outlaw airbags, and instead mount a large spike in the center of the steering column. Remind people that they're not inside some magical foam cushion that they can arbitrarily sling about and be safe due to the 'magic of modern technology'. Remind them that they're operating a vehicle that most likely exceeds two tons, sharing the road with others of the same proclivity, as well as motorcyclists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and so forth.

We don't need to make crashes less dangerous, we need to make crashes less frequent. We need to make people take driving SERIOUSLY.

Driving is life or death, and not just for those of us who ride motorcycles. The road is not your racetrack, the road has nothing to do with 'macho', the road is not for showing off. It is there to be used, to be enjoyed, to get to your destination or to get nowhere at all.. But it must be used responsibly in peril of death or dismemberment of you or others.

I think a track school should be mandatory for licensing, and that there should be a final test with a minimum lap-time. Driving is a skill, a right that must be earned, not a right that's guranteed.

Frankly, that said, some people just shouldn't be driving. They don't have the attitude nor the aptitude to drive without risking the safety of others. For example, people who drive 65mph in the left-hand lane and do not yield to faster traffic. Or people who will be travelling along with nobody in front of them on a straight road and just tap the brakes every few seconds. Or people who incessantly refuse to use blinkers- Or who signal their ACTION with their blinker and not their INTENTIONS. Or those who refuse to let others in when they should.

-Kysh

Just what we need

[Del Lardo]

Whilst it's fairly obvious from driving for 5 minutes that a large number of people should be banned for life do we really want another system that encourages people to pay less attention to the road. How about Honda develop a system to replace airbags that shoots metal spikes into the driver in the event of an accident. I recon that would make people much safer drivers and it would soon make sure that the pants ones were kept off the road (for good). :D

My [educated] guess on how it works

[MarcQuadra]

Everyone keeps ranting about this. I have a simple solution:

the computer 'brain' attached to this radar probably discards anything approaching faster than the car's forward motion (assumes it is in another lane, how else could it be moving 'backwards'?). And also discounts anything approaching at the SAME speed as the car (the 'world'). The only thing left are things moving SLOWER than the car's forward motion, the 'brain' figures out their range and general location, (checking the steering to make sure you aren't on a curve) and makes an adjustment to your speed to reduce the possibility of a disasterous crash.

This thing probably DOESN'T [even attempt to] work if you're cruising at 90MPH towards a parked car (nor should it, because that's fair grounds for removal from the gene-pool). It helps you not rear-end folks when you're moving significantly faster than the rest of the folks on the road. I'll bet the auto-braking will discourage all the assholes in Hondas who tailgate me and weave lanes for two hours every day.

In this corner...

[Merk]

That's right folks, it's a knock-em-down, drag-em-out battle for the best driver. In this corner, weighing in at 250 pounds, chock full o' twinkies, we have Joe "The Human" Blow. And in this corner, weighing in at 2 grams, in its beautiful version 1.0 glory, we have 0xDEAD "The Computer" 0xBEEF

Fred: This looks like it's going to be a real match Bob, what do the stats say?

Bob: Well Fred, each contender has some real things going for them. Let's start with "The Human". "The Human" has quite the sensory system. Using his peripheral vision alone, he can see about 150 degrees, side to side, and about 90 degrees up and down and at an incredibly high level of detail.

Fred: Wow, that's impressive, and "The Computer" is going to have a hard time matching that?

Bob: That's right, the computer is going to have tunnel vision by comparison. He's going to have to do a lot of guessing to determine what's actually out there. No matter how clever his trainers are, "The Computer" is going to have a real disadvantage when it comes to raw sensory input.

Fred: But "The Computer" has some advantages of his own, doesn't he?

Bob: Of course! Speed. "The Human" has reaction speed measured in milliseconds. The Computer can react in microseconds. Sometimes that reaction time is incredibly important.

Fred: But "The Human" is the vet here. He's got years of experience. Won't experience give "The Human" an edge?

Bob: That's really the question, isn't it? "The Human" has lots of experience, but how much of that experience is useful? Unless he's been in a near-accident before, his experience might be useless. On the other hand, that's exactly what "The Computer" has been training for all this time. He's pretty single-minded about it, but he knows his stuff.

Fred: So in the end, it comes down to this. "The Human" is the wily, adaptable veteran, he's a little slow, but he's been at this for years. He's also got a whole lot of ring-sense. On the other hand, "The Computer" has been training really hard. He might not have the experience, but his reactions are superb. I have no doubt "The Computer" is the champ of the future -- but is he ready for primetime yet? We'll soon find out!

braking and turning

[Merk]

I'm a bit of a racing fan so let me use a few observations from that. ABS helps if you're braking in a straight line, but no form of gas/brake traction-control system helps when your tires lose traction sideways. Once the wheels start to slip to the side they're gone and only counter-steering can help.

The tightest corners can be made when you're not braking or accelerating. You want the car to be completely balanced so that the load is balanced equally between the front and rear tires. Too little downforce on the front and you understeer. Too little downforce on the rear and you oversteer and potentially skid out. While it's true that you can "corner faster" in degrees per second when you're going slower, it's much more difficult to corner well under heavy braking than it is to corner when you're neither braking nor accelerating.

When you're taught "defensive driving" techniques for avoiding an accident, they always teach you to brake, then take your foot off the brake to swerve so you don't end up skidding. The problem I see here is that to do this kind of maneuver well takes coordination. You have to take your foot off the brake as you make the swerve, but if someone/something else is controlling the brake, can you do this well? Even if the system monitors your steering wheel input, will you be expecting whatever it does to the brake once it starts using it?

Re:braking and turning

[WolfWithoutAClause]

ABS helps if you're braking in a straight line, but no form of gas/brake traction-control system helps when your tires lose traction sideways.

I don't really agree, although you have a partial point. If you are cornering and the braking system induces a skid, then reducing the braking force is extremely likely to recover the skid.

Once the wheels start to slip to the side they're gone and only counter-steering can help.

Most racing cars are unstable- they tend to have a rearward mass balance and this means that if they start to spin- well they reach the point of no return pretty quickly. Road cars tend to have more weight towards the front, and more particularly, have a front suspension set up to understeer. This tends to mean that the front tires will skid before the rear- meaning there is far less chance of a spin anyway.

The tightest corners can be made when you're not braking or accelerating.

Yes, in any car this would be so; it's the circle of friction deal going on here. However chances are extremely high that you won't be making a maximum g turn when the emergency occurs.

You want the car to be completely balanced so that the load is balanced equally between the front and rear tires. Too little downforce on the front and you understeer. Too little downforce on the rear and you oversteer and potentially skid out. Yes, well, that's racing. The cars are not the same- most road cars have essentially no downforce at all.

While it's true that you can "corner faster" in degrees per second when you're going slower, it's much more difficult to corner well under heavy braking than it is to corner when you're neither braking nor accelerating.

True, however ABS makes this a lot easier.

The biggest problem is that braking tends to make cars understeer. This means that more steering lock is needed to go around any corner that you may be in; and the driver must react appropriately. However, some ABS systems can probably compensate for that too- different amounts of braking on different wheels can in theory dial that effect away anyway.

Fucktard!

[Anonymous Coward]

You wouldn't NEED to do any of those things if you were even an above average driver. And a skilled driver can stop faster than ABS EVERY TIME in EVERY CERCUMSTANCE - there are studies - look it up.

Re:Fucktard!

[lostchicken]

Yeah. Why do Formula 1 cars have traction control? Is Kimi Raikkonen not an above average driver?

And tell me, when you are driving down the road, can you brake just your left right wheel? I didn't think so. The Vehicle Skid Control on my car can, though.

Pre-existing Collision Warning System

[adagioforstrings]

This is a bit late, but Eaton Corporation has a collision warning system called VORAD made for semi-trucks. There's a short little video here that gives a little demonstration. I'd bet Honda's is somewhat similar.

Can't wait to see the microsoft version...

[ross.w]

An animated paperclip appears on your instrument panel:

"It looks like you're going to crash. Would you like to:

* Apply the brakes
* Tighten your seatbelt
* Pray
* Kiss your arse goodbye?"

One word:

[achurch]

Trains. As in Tokyo trains.

You only have to get used to the fact you can't breathe during rush hour.

GPS?

[readpunk]

If I am not mistaken Mercedes was testing (R&D of course) a gps system which completely drove your car. Don't know how that would of have worked with civilian GPS but regardless, this was years ago, why is something like this (ref. article) just coming up for honda R&D wise? Start making flying cars assholes.

Fully stop?

[burden123]

Unfortunately, Japanese regulations don't allow for the system to fully stop the vehicle.

I should hope not! I could only imagine what would happen if a large empty cardboard box blew infront of you on the highway. You'd surely die when the grig following you barrles into you at 110km/h.

The warning system is a good idea however.

Re:New Technology is OK until your life depends on

[datawar]

Engineers, programmers, and other techies also love doing things 'the hard way' because... well... it's just more interesting that way.

Sure I use Nautilus to move files and whatnot, but no, it's a command line for me.

And yes, people who are very good at driving can use stick and fine tune their cars, but for someone like me, getting to the destination, getting there fast, and getting there safe are more important than tinkering with that particular piece of technology.

I think many /.ers have a negative view of new technology because they see old technology as 'the good old days' and want everyone to share their love for whats under the hood. However, this does not mean that the new technology is any worse than the new technology...

What I really want

[whereiswaldo]

I really want a system that will drive my car for me - more or less - while in stop and go traffic. I think this is totally within reach of our current technology.

Basically, the system would use a laser and sense how far ahead the car in front of you is. If more than 10-15 feet, keep moving. If less, slow down or stop. The system would only work if you are doing 30 kilometers per hour or slower, for safety reasons. Once traffic picks up again, it automatically disengages and you drive manually again.

dude

[lukme]

If they have any brains at all, a failure ... . Oh, you wanted a detailed, pages long explanation which would possibly expose trade secrets? Sorry I didn't design the system, but I'm going to assume they aren't total farking idiots I don't have the time nor the inclination to read pages of pure conjecture based on the notion that the designers must not be farking idiots.

Re:dude

[Filiks]

What makes you think I like reading on /. pure conjecture from people like you assuming the worst and offering situations in which the system could fail? Okay maybe you really expected to get an answer to your question from someone who knows what they're talking about. That person would still most likely be working for the competition, or have the appropriate technology background. That person wouldn't be able to tell you what the system does in a failure. That person could only write pages of pure conjecture based on the notion that the designers must not be farking idiots.

Have you ever WATCHED other drivers?

[spun]

But we mortals can already, most of the time, handle simple situations while driving.

I don't know about you, but I have seen drivers putting on clothes and makeup, talking on cellphones while juggling a PDA and steering with their knees, shouting at the kids in the backseat, recieving what appeared to be oral sex, eating salad with a fork while holding the plate and steering with their elbows, and looking for things on the floor of the passenger side. Simple situations? Yeah, but not while driving. I've never seen it happen, but people do die doing stupid things like that in cars. This system is designed for situations like that, not for situations where the driver is actively manuevering the car to avoid the danger.

What about Kids with Radar Jammers / Interferers?

[nlt]

So I'm driving on the freeway and I wonder why the kid on the back seat of the car in front of me is pointing a Pringles can at my car... Next thing I'm stationary on the freeway with cars swerving to miss *me*... Lets hope they're all honda's. j.

Good for putting on makeup while driving!

[spike it]

With this new device, I will now be able to put on makeup and do any other thing that will divert my eyes from the road. Ingenious! *rolls eyes*

Yeah try that in rush hour traffic on 680

[Archfeld]

here in Northern Calif and you will get run over. For self preservation, you drive the speed of traffic.

A question of liability

[fish_in_the_c]

i know this topic is probably almost dead, but i had a thought about liability. I mean. If the automated computer on a car messes up and because of that someone rear ends you or you rear end someone else. Who is responsible. Reality is that equipment failure is at fault, but the insurance companies are not going to like that answer because they want to have someone blamed so they know who's rates to raise. Or maybe they will just refuse to insure cars with this type of equipment on them.

Whao I said WWWHOA

[ratfynk]

"Unfortunately, Japanese regulations don't allow for the system to fully stop the vehicle."

Not to worry trees can do the job.

Being from northern Canada gives one a different perspective. Just try an automatic breaking system on our roads in the winter. The results would be very interesting indeed. The last device one uses to control a car on ice or mud roads is the breaks.