Self-Parking Car Available In Japan

sinjayde writes "Yahoo!/Reuters is reporting that Toyota has released a car for sale in Japan that is able to park itself: 'Toyota's new hybrid gasoline-electric Prius sedan uses electrically operated power steering and sensors that help guide the car when reversing into parking spaces.'" No need to rely on the reverse parking formula anymore?

Comments

It had to be done...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, car parks you!

Re:It had to be done...

[Lars T.]

In Soviet Russia, Gorky parks you!

Re:It had to be done...

[heapacreep]

So much for parking by braille. So much easier if you asked me...

Re:It had to be done...

[hyperventilate]

For the reports of Prius owners in the states, check http://egroups.com/l/toyota-prius/ I've had mine since 2001 and have never had a problem. It is quite fast, though the 0-60 test is deceptive 'cause the batteries run out of juice halfway up to 60. In the real world the driver almost always hesitates instead of flat out accelerating 0-60. There aren't too many stoplights on 60 MPH streets, after all. But the smooth acceleration of the CVT and the Stealth Mode driving at slow speeds are great fun.

Re:It had to be done...

[danila]

Unfortunately, in [Soviet] Russia the number of cars skyrocketed after the collapse of the USSR. This coincided with the unwillingness of Russians to pay parking tickets, which gave rise to parking in places where parking is illegal. The authorities tried a countermeasure - arresting a car and placing it in custody, but the courts ruled out that it's illegal (in Russia you can't deprive anyone of property without a court decision, not even a drug user/dealer). Still, Russians don't pay the tickets, so there is no way to stop rampant parking. The drivers park on the grass, in the flower-beds, in the playing ground, under the "No Parking" signs, around "No Parking" signs, near the firestation exits, on central city streets, everywhere. The ability of Prius to fit itself into the parking space would not be particularly useful for Russians, because they can just leave their car where they see fit. :)

P.S. This is true for St. Petersburg, situation may be slightly better in other cities.

A dumb question

[AnimeFreak]

Would you get a "fail" if you used this feature during your driving examination? I managed to pass it, but for those who cannot seem to master parallel parking, this must be a boon.

Re:A dumb question

[LiquidCoooled]

i imagine that this could be treated similar to automatic gearboxes, which if i remember rightly, you could use and take your test in, but the examiners guided you away from them initially, so you understood the concepts.

Re:A dumb question

[PhrostyMcByte]

Really? When I took my driving test a year ago parking wasn't on it.

hmm, not so sure....

[mut3]

you still gonna do some work here, since it only helps you back in. so, if you hit the car next to you, dont blame it on the car (like you normally do)!!

dependency

[djshake]

what happens when we forget how to park cars ourselves? technology is good, but people are getting too darn lazy these days. is parking really that hard? survey says: only for old people

Re:dependency

[wo1verin3]

>> is parking really that hard?

I'd like you to meet my girlfriends mom if you ever make it up to Canada. The money spent on this option will be made up in reduced insurance costs fairly quickly. (not that it matters, but she is asian)

Re:dependency

[mikey13]

What happens when we forget how to drive a stick-shift? Oh wait, most young people have, and it's not a big issue.

Re:dependency

[Alizarin Erythrosin]

Obviously you've never been on a college campus. I've seen people overhanging spots, making it impossible to park in the one next to them... or being so crooked that you can't get into or out the spots on EITHER side. From the looks of it, the "new generation" of drivers (and some of the "current" generation... people 30+, etc) don't park well as it is. And yet, if I break their windshield with a brick, I am the one to get in trouble.

Plus my mom can't back a car into her driveway in a straight manner to save her life. I guess this would be nice to have for those places where you need to back into a parking spot to load something in the trunk. I'd say it would be useful, as it appears it would leave room around the car for people to get in and out.

Re:dependency

[Gogl]

And here's the irony: I agree with you that the only possible justified use of these sorts of driving-aid devices would be to help old people (although maybe I'm just callous because I generally think that if they're too old to drive they just shouldn't be driving), but only the young people will be willing to use them. Hell, I'm not even that old and I wouldn't trust some sort of auto-parking thing. Only people who are young when it comes out and grow up with it will be used to it and willing to use it themselves.

I bet it was the same thing with automatic transmission at first. A car changing gears on it's own, many of the people who were only used to manual probably didn't particularly want to make the switch. Some will switch, but the vast majority of the transition depends on time.

Or to make a long story short, new technology can take upwards of a generation to really assimilate into society. But you probably knew that anyway, I just felt like pointing that out as it seemed pertinent or something.

Re:dependency

[NanoGator]

"what happens when we forget how to park cars ourselves?"

Is it really all that likely? It's simply a navigation task, not some particular combination of voodoo prayer and the position of the moon. Calculators didn't kill the study of math, elevators didn't kill the climbing of stairs, and even if you made those arguments it's arguable that society has grown to a higher level since both these devices came along. So tell me, why would a self parking car make people forget how to park cars? That's a ridiculous, cliche filled, statement.

"but people are getting too darn lazy these days."

People are smarter than they ever were. They do a lot more these days than they did in the olden days. Lazy?

"is parking really that hard?"

If it were, dontcha think that these things would have been around ages ago? Back in the 50's they had a car with a fifth wheel so you could pivot your car into a paralell spot. Didn't exactly take off. However, technology has gotten a lot better these days, it's gotten cheaper, and car companies are in a competition to get more marketshare. What you're seeing here is a result of competition, not some need to park cars. Besides, have you ever had a valet driver bump your bumper? Happens to my car daily.

Re:dependency

[MidnightBrewer]

Ever park in Japan? This system was designed for the most crowded country in the world, where your driveway is about an inch bigger than your car all the way around.

I know, I live here, and parking is absolutely insane. Everywhere else on the planet is spoiled in comparison. Yet the Japanese manage to not ride each other's bumpers.

Re:dependency

[JanneM]

Um, what happened when we forgot how to crank-start the engine or manually adjust the spark timing when driving? Has the general loss of knowledge about how to properly use an inkstone led to problems?

Yep, with every new advance in how we interact with the world, we get a loss of knowledge on how we used to do it before. Is that necessarily bad? No.

Some "primitive" knowledge is naturally very important to keep around; indeed, some could save your life. Things like how to use a map and compass (rather than GPS)or how to set and maintain a fire and where to find good shelter.

A lot of forgotten knowledge, however, is best forgotten by anyone but the curious or historically interested. People interested in old writing technologies will certainly want to know all about how to make a quill. I won't ever need to know that, and neither will anybody else.

If manual parking as a skill disappears, well, good riddance. As a matter of fact, if manual _driving_ becomes a thing of the past, I would not shed any tears, unlikely as that would be considering the psychological factors of driving.

Re:dependency

[bob65]

It's simply a navigation task, not some particular combination of voodoo prayer and the position of the moon.

I agree. We can't "forget" how to park cars without "forgetting" how to drive. Take, for example, someone who claims to have forgotten how to park a car, but yet knows how to drive a car safely otherwise. Well, just say to that person, "Drive into that space between those two cars." And voila. That person has just parked a car.

Re:dependency

[pipingguy]

People are smarter than they ever were. They do a lot more these days than they did in the olden days. Lazy?

How many people do you know that cannot drive a manual transmission car? Probably about 80%.

Are people actually smarter now?

When you say "do a lot more" what exactly does this mean? Time spent on the computer? Useless chatting on cellphones simply 'cause you can? Pretending to be busy?

"Doing more" and being more effective are two different (but not necessarily mutually exclusive) things.

Re:dependency

[swimmar132]

People are choosing to have more stuff and make more money, rather than work less and have more leisure time.

Come on, this is basic Economics 101.

Re:dependency

[adrianbaugh]

People are smarter than they ever were.

People have more knowledge than they used to. They're still just as dumb as ever though.

Re:dependency

[Anonvmous Coward]

Seeing as how this thread was started by somebody's comment that self-parking cars would make people stupider, I am a little surprised the responses are getting modded off-topic. At least nail the guy who started it.

Re:dependency

[pipingguy]

People are choosing to have more stuff and make more money, rather than work less and have more leisure time.
Come on, this is basic Economics 101.

Sure, that appears to be the case.

But when does it end? Do you want your kids to have to work 80 hours a week just to make ends meet? I'm assuming that your level of comfort does not include two expensive automobiles, a quarter million-dollar house and a boat.

How much stuff is enough? Is the neverending acquisition of "stuff" covering up for other inadequacies?

It's a fear and peer-based phenomenon. Competition is great but it easily morphs into me too-ism and stunts brains. Most geniuses "compete" not to do a "in yo face, motherfucker!" dance in the enemy's end zone, they do it because they have to.

But everyone wants to be a hero.

Re:dependency

[NanoGator]

Ha! I got a chance to meta-mod the insightful moderation of the parent post I was roasting! Heheh

Re:dependency

[Unregistered]

It's simply a navigation task,

Funny, form the way most parking lots look it must be prtty hard. I mean honestly, how do you manage to use three parking spaces for a volkswagon?

Re:dependency

[demonbug]

I bet it was the same thing with automatic transmission at first. A car changing gears on it's own, many of the people who were only used to manual probably didn't particularly want to make the switch. Some will switch, but the vast majority of the transition depends on time.

And then they will wake up and realize that automatics suck, and switch back to manual becaue they are more efficient (although this may become less true w/ improvements in CVT), offer superior performance (again not so true now as it once was, but in typical consumer cars it definitely is), are more fun, and are cheaper. Automatics are for old people :)

Parking assistance is another one of those things that just isn't necessary, or even particularly desirable, but which may become difficult to avoid in the future. Any word on how long it took for the Prius to park? And why, for dog's sake, put it in a prius? Put it in one of the SUVs, then maybe it will do some good.

Re:dependency

[wo1verin3]

Heh you wouldn't be saying that if you saw her try to back up. Lighten up. :)

Re:dependency

[SEWilco]

You've never seen ducks trying to park, have you?

Re:dependency

[dknj]

ACTUALLY, they showed a demo of this on the today show (in NYC) back in 1991 or 1992 and they said it'd be on the market in 5 years. I eagerly waited around for its release in 97 and saw nothing. Its good to see that the idea was completely shelved :)

-dk

Re:dependency

[wo1verin3]

->> but I took issue with your quote:

Sorry bout your luck!

Re:dependency

[MidnightBrewer]

I'm finding it hard to relate your post to what I said, or the parent. Care to clarify?

Re:dependency

[NetMagi]

I completely agree. I HATE automatics.. . cars will never be 100% capable of "knowing" when I want to shift.

I suppose when yer old and gray and all you care about is getting there it doesn't matter. .but I enjoy driving. . I treat everything like a challenge. .I'm not an aggressive fucktard that rides the asses of everyone else, but alone on a windy road and nice weather I have FUN in my 5-spd. .PERIOD

Re:dependency

[rifter]

Let me have an hour with your sister.

What? so you can teach her how to handle your stick?

Re:dependency

[bob65]

True, but given enough time, any person capable of driving should be able to figure out on the fly how to parallel park, as they really have all the driving skills necessary to do so.

driving test.

[woodchip]

1. buy car that can park it self
2. sell driving lesson school for people who are afraid to parallel park on driving test. with the promise they can use car on the test.
3. ????
4. profit.

Re:driving test.

[bersl2]

sell driving lesson school for people who are afraid to parallel park on driving test. with the promise they can use car on the test.

In some states, it is no longer a requirement to know how to parallel park in order to get a license. Therefore, even though I've been driving for two years, I still can't parallel park.

Sad but true.

Re:driving test.

[be-fan]

In Virginia its not a requirements. And yes, it is *very* sad that you cannot parallel park :)

Re:driving test.

[Huogo]

CT dosn't require you to know how either, and I don't know how (well I've never really done it).

Re:driving test.

[Jardine]

In Ontario parallel parking is on both driving tests (That's right, two tests, blame graduated licensing) but if you fail that portion, it's not an automatic fail. It depends on where you are, but a lot of places don't have spots that require knowing it.

Re:driving test.

[smilingirl]

I live in Louisiana, and I can not parallel park either. Didn't practice in driver's ed and wasn't on the driving test. It was in the text book in driver's ed though... but I need to actually *practice* something to know how to do it, not see a picture.

This is not good when a lot of the parking around college is parellel, and I have to pass up empty spots because I don't know how to park in them. Thankfully the lot by my dorm is all regular parking.

Re:driving test.

[bersl2]

I live in Louisiana

Then yay for us!

Re:driving test.

[zakezuke]

In some states, it is no longer a requirement to know how to parallel park in order to get a license. Therefore, even though I've been driving for two years, I still can't parallel park.

I never thought it was a requirement in any state.

I rather thought the test was setup with a number of specific tasks you had to peform, and you got graded on each one.

In Washington, I remember being told that if you refuse to parallel park, you would lose more points then if you tried and failed, unless you hit a cone. But also, from what I remember, you could pass the test either way even if you fail backing around the corner and parallel parking, which actually I did.

I can parallel park though I prefer not to, esp with my new car that you can't really see the front end while seated inside.

Re:driving test.

[cfallin]

In some states, it is no longer a requirement to know how to parallel park

True in Oregon - it's been replaced by parking and then backing along a curb (at least that's what my driving instructor said - I'm not 16 yet and so haven't taken the test).

Re:driving test.

[wampus]

I had to learn in Wisconsin. Since I LOVE parallel parking so that assholes from the school on my street can't get out, its a skill I use on a regular basis.

Re:driving test.

[Igmuth]

Why? What if you never have any need to parallel park? Do you really need to have that skill?

Personally, I think there are more important skills to emphasize in driving. Like proper signaling. Learning not to tailgate. Knowing that a few snowflakes does not mean you need to go half the limit.

Ya parallel parking is important if you live in an area that has it. But other basic driving skills that are lacking are more important.

Re:driving test.

[be-fan]

Personally, I think there are more important skills to emphasize in driving. Like proper signaling. Learning not to tailgate. Knowing that a few snowflakes does not mean you need to go half the limit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Those aren't skills. That's common sense.

You need to know how to parallel park because if you ever get into a city, it'll be very inconvenient for you if you don't know how.

Re:driving test.

[benpeter]

Florida: 1 full 7 year driving license (in auto or manual) aquiring: 1) multiple choice test with q's like: At a rail road crossing the boom is coming down and the lights flashing do you: a)drive faster and hope to get underneath in time b)slam on your breaks as hard as you can c)come to a stop and wait until the train goes past. (Admittidly I was thinking about b for a while) 2)back out of car park 3)drive around block and observe stop sign 4)come to a stop within 30m at 30mph 5)reverse in a straight line for 30m 6)complete a straight in park (straight in I kid you not) Your done certified imbicile driver allowed to drive any land yacht of your choice across the vast freeway system of Florida. So now I wait for 5 more years until I have to mail in and get my new license. Quality.

Re:driving test.

[PD]

More important than all those things: choosing the proper lane. Things are so bad around here that I find that if I get into the slow lane I can pass all the slow cars loitering in the passing lane at high speed.

Re:driving test.

[atallah]

I can parallel park though I prefer not to, esp with my new car that you can't really see the front end while seated inside.

is there a car that you can actually see the front end??? Its all a matter of getting a feel for the size of the car.

Who pays?

[moehoward]

Will your insurance company pick it up if you (I mean it) damages another car?

In the US, these have to pass some rigorous gov't inspection and testing before they are allowed on the road. I don't think I want the liability.

Is parking really that hard? Are people really that stupid and lazy? Don't answer that. Can I get a robot to feed me my cereal in the morning?

Re:Who pays?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

The way liability insurance is structured, you pay regardless. Anyone, and by logical extension, anything you grant control of the car is covered by your policy.

I don't think you will have the option of recovering damages from the manufacturer. You ultimately pulled the switch that told the car to auto-park.

Re:Who pays?

[LetterJ]

This is why I don't think we'll see cars driving themselves in the U.S. any time soon. They've built the vehicles so they can handle the freeway without a driver (some documentary I saw). However, even if the rate of accidents with self-driving/parking vehicles is lower than with real drivers (and I'd tend to believe it could be) even 1 accident would launch liability lawsuits galore.

Re:Who pays?

[wonton_mein]

"even 1 accident would launch liability lawsuits galore."

In that case, the state can adopt a no-fault policy, thus eliminating frivolous lawsuits and those "middlemen".

Re:Who pays?

[wonton_mein]

The car is being sold in Japan, not the U.S. I agree in order to sell in the U.S., it must pass lots of inspections and testings. In hindsight, a reserved parking space in cities like Tokyo and Hong Kong can easily exceed that of insurance premiums, so lots of car owners resort to parking on the cheaper/metered parking spaces located on the streets. So a self-parking car can actually save them money (assuming the drivers have mediocre parallel-parking skill). Imagine waiting on a mediocre driver who's attempting to manually parallel park, on a busy street in Tokyo. Multiply that by N.

Re:Who pays?

[Gnulix]

even 1 accident would launch liability lawsuits galore.

Sadly enough the "Don't hesitate, litigate" mentality of the public is holding technology back in many fields. If it's a good ol' idea that's killing people, such as guns and booze, it's OK. But if anything new comes along and even as much as distress someone it's got to go. "Oh, my god! I broke a fingernail on the computer keyboard. I'm gonna sue the manufacturer!!!"

Of course, this is only valid in the US. Which goes to show that you don't have to live in Iraq for the americans to come along and drag you into the dark ages.

Fuck it, not even I know if I'm trolling or being serious...

Re:Who pays?

[bfields]

However, even if the rate of accidents with self-driving/parking vehicles is lower than with real drivers (and I'd tend to believe it could be) even 1 accident would launch liability lawsuits galore.

Speaking from complete ignorance, just trying to think through the economics of this--if the self-driving system actually lead to less accidents, then in general you'd expect there to be less money overall awarded in liability lawsuits. The difference would just be who would be responsible--some liability that was previously the driver's would become the car manufacturer's. So you'd expect the automaker to end up spending more on liability insurance (raising the cost of the car), but you'd expect the car driver's liability insurance to decrease correspondingly.

The driver's insurer could say "buy this (more expensive, because of the technology and the costs of the maker's insurance) self-driving car and we'll give you a discount."

So naively it's not obvious that the increased liability on the automakers' part would make the whole project impossible.

Maybe an automated highway is more complicated than something like a self-parking mechanism, because many more parties are involved (e.g., the people who built and designed the highway), but still, if they could prove that there would be a decrease in accidents, then it might be possible to distribute the costs of risks in a reasonable way.

I sincerely doubt, however, that it is possible for anyone at this point to *know* that the accident rates will be lower. Without more experience, an automated highway sounds like a risky venture--it might initially seem to be safer, but then a subtle bug might cause something catastrophic to happen after it's been in use for a while. Perhaps it was the difficult-to-forsee problems that they were worried about in the situation you describe. But if the threat of suits here is encouraging caution, that strikes me as a good thing--surely radical changes affecting something as critical as highway safety *should* be undertaken very cautiously.

--Bruce Fields

Re:Who pays?

[NanoGator]

"Is parking really that hard? Are people really that stupid and lazy? Don't answer that. Can I get a robot to feed me my cereal in the morning? "

Yeesh. Some car company goes through all the R&D to make an interesting upsell, and suddenly the collective intelligence of society is measured? WTF?

Re:Who pays?

[randyest]

Here, let me help: you're trolling.

For future reference, here's how I could tell: (1) you created a false dichotomy, (2) the false dichotomy is based on nothing at all, not even the usual anecdotal evidence presented in such case and (3) you assail the war in Iraq in a silly way.

Hope that help!

Re:Who pays?

[tftp]

Without more experience, an automated highway sounds like a risky venture--it might initially seem to be safer, but then a subtle bug might cause something catastrophic to happen after it's been in use for a while.

Autopilot sounded like a risky venture too. Who would trust flying an airplane to a box of hardware? But nowadays it is more reliable than a human (though not as versatile), and one would be a fool not to engage the autopilot at cruise altitude.

Humans are far more dangerous as drivers than as pilots. Cars are separated by just few meters of space, barely enough to stop in time. If the driver is distracted and loses 0.5 second in braking, he is in trouble. Automatic system won't have a problem here. So it is advantageous to use automated systems wherever they offer a benefit; and definitely long stretches of highways are best suited for such automation.

Re:Who pays?

[Alan Hicks]

Blockquoteth the poster:
I don't think you will have the option of recovering damages from the manufacturer. You ultimately pulled the switch that told the car to auto-park.

How long before we come across cars with something like:

Shamelessly stolen from the BSD copyright notification

THIS PARKING SYSTEM IS PROVIDED``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE MANUFACTURER BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES

This is simply some text included to beat the damned lameness filter. Some one should really see about removing the lameness filter for people with positive karma. It's just too damn much trouble to re-type that copyright notification to make it all lower-case. Staroffice wasn't able to change the caps to all lowercase and read it in a form

Re:Who pays?

[Hellasboy]

The US is so lawsuit happy that companies don't want to bring out their innovative products here. I guarantee that if these options became available to the US that the first person to get into an accident with this (if the fault of the car or a person) that Toyota will get sued and insurance companies will sue each other for who will take the blame.

by the way, another example of this was rearview LCD cameras. They've been in certain Japanese cars since '91 (that I know of) but didn't make their appearance here in the states until this year.

Re:Who pays?

[BJH]

Use vim. Go to the start of the line and 'guM~' should do the trick.

Re:Who pays?

[BJH]

Ah, my apologies - 'gu$~' is correct (brainfart).

Re:Who pays?

[mt-biker]

Will your insurance company pick it up if you (I mean it) damages another car?

Well, will they pay if you ram another car with your cruise-control on? I imagine so.

I think this is pretty cool - I've seen BMW demonstrating the same technology.

It's a pretty typical geek thing: "Hey, we've already got sensors on the front and back of the car, we're moving to electrically powered steering, and the computer can calculate the path into the parking place better than most drivers. Let's get coding!"

I don't know how the Toyota system works, but in the BMW system, the driver still operates the gas - the car takes care of steering and (I think) brakes. So it parks no faster than you're comfortable with.

Another cool idea from BMW was to replace the hand-brake lever with a button. Saves place in the car, and allows them to do cool things like engaging the hand-brake automatically when you come to a stop, and releasing it automatically when you drive off. Can you still do hand-brake turns with the thing? No idea!

Now, as to whether we need more and more of our lives to be automated, that's another question. But, like a robot vacuum cleaner, the tech is pretty interesting.

(No, I don't drive a BMW - I just work here!)

Re:Who pays?

[atallah]

in MI we have no-fault insurance - it is supposed to keep rates lower, but we still have higher rates than IL, IN, OH (i believe that all of them are not no-fault)

Re:Who pays?

[mink]

Ohio has no fault insurance as a minimum requirement.

Parking is easy

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Now find me a car that can FIND parking by itself. That I will pay money for.

Re:Parking is easy

[whiteranger99x]

Now find me a car that can FIND parking by itself. That I will pay money for.

Thats an easy enough solution...just get yourself a tank and parking problems will be a thing of the past ;)

Re:Parking is easy

[rmohr02]

Buy a UPS truck. You can park those things anywhere.

Re:Parking is easy

[Dark Lord Seth]

Ever heard of trains? Sure, getting a ticket for one of those might cost you some vital organs and a trip to the local pawn shop, but all that can be ignored by abusi- er, hmm... putting my student's card to "creative use". I've never had any problems with some Toyota in the parking spot of a train and I highly doubt it ever would be a problem were it to happen anyways.

Re:Parking is easy

[pyros]

It's called a Canyonero.

Re:Parking is easy

[Ralph Wiggam]

I looked into buying a UPS truck and you can't do it. When the trucks get a certain age (25 I think) they're disassembled and the usable parts and made into a new truck. Pretty efficient system.

-B

Re:Parking is easy

[Nexzus]

In Vancouver, Canada:

Turn on your hazards anywhere you damn well feel like it.

Voila! Instant parking spot.

(this is probably applicable in any other city. I notice it here because, well, I live here)

Re:Parking is easy

[rmohr02]

Well, I bet you could buy another truck of roughly the same model as a UPS truck (many delivery trucks fit this description) and paint it brown. Putting the logo on would be more difficult.

And I know you can buy trucks like these--I work at a county highway department (summer job), and we recently auctioned off our 10-15 year old "bus", which, painted brown, could pass as a UPS truck.

Re:Parking is easy

[boojum.cat]

just get yourself a tank and parking problems will be a thing of the past

I always thought a large forklift would come in handy when parking... It's cheaper than a tank, and probably gets better gas mileage too.

Re:Parking is easy

[canning]

I'm not trolling but I'm pretty sure this has derived from the Asian countries and because of the large Asian population has been accepted.

I'm living in Singapore and you wouldn't believe the spots drivers feel it's appropriate to turn on their hazards and park. Even when their actions clearly cause traffic to backup they have no problems doing it and generally no one says a word.

Re:Parking is easy

[SEWilco]

I'll just show the camera the parking lot at my office, then do a half-hour of reading while the car is driving to the parking spot.

Re:Parking is easy

[Lemmeoutada Collecti]

In addition to the disassembly of retired trucks and very careful disposal of remaining parts, UPS drivers are required to be ready at any time to show their ID proving they are a UPS driver and thus authorized to park in loading/unloading/restricted zones.

Re:Parking is easy

[EvilTwinSkippy]

In Philadelphia we have a lot of high-volume 2 lane one-way streets going through center city. So many people are double parked in both lanes we call them "The Center City Slolem".

Re:Parking is easy

[Zerbey]

Assuming you live in the US you can have a Doctor get you a disabled permit for practically anything (sore toe, being overweight... you name it, seriously). There's nearly always disabled parking available.

Re:Parking is easy

[rmohr02]

Hence the "+1 Funny" mods instead of "+1 Insightful" mods.

Re:Parking is easy

[rmohr02]

Believe it or not, some cars that are not exactly alike may look alike. If a FedEx truck was painted brown and a UPS logo was stuck on it, I doubt I could tell the difference.

Good for Toyota

[Ugodown]

I have been impressed with Toyota's tack record in terms of innovation. Energy friendly cars were just the beginning, now integrating technology like this into cars will really make them sell. A far cry from what is being done with American and European cars (exept for the energy part).

self merging cars,...

[epicstruggle]

what we now need are cars that merge onto highways for us. Just like how fighter planes take off without the need of pilot input. I dont think many drivers would go for a car that drives for them, but something that makes merging into fast/dangerous traffic would be greatly appreciated.

later,
epic

Re:self merging cars,...

[bfields]

what we now need are cars that merge onto highways for us.

Unfortunately merging is one of the maneuvers that requires the most communication; in busy traffic you really have to negotiate with the other people on the road--signal and move over a little, watch to see if the approaching driver acknowledges you, and then, depending on the reaction, either move over a little more or retreat and wait for the next gap.

Exactly the sort of procedure I'd imagine to be most difficult to automate....

--Bruce Fields

Re:self merging cars,...

[sklib]

Actually I'd prefer it the other way.

Merging into traffic is one of the exciting parts of my morning commute -- sort of a game to see how far forward I can get ahead of the traffic, and still weasel cleanly in. Same thing with changing lanes at just the right time. Even if a machine could do a better job than me, I would still rather do it myself.

What I want is a car that will automatically stay a couple of car lengths behind the guy in front, and just sit there and stay in the lane so I can read a book or something, and I believe we are at least some of the way there (intelligent cruise control).

Re:self merging cars,...

[fucksl4shd0t]

Unfortunately merging is one of the maneuvers that requires the most communication; in busy traffic you really have to negotiate with the other people on the road--signal and move over a little, watch to see if the approaching driver acknowledges you, and then, depending on the reaction, either move over a little more or retreat and wait for the next gap.

How about a radar? I'd like a radar, personally. It'd be a heck of a lot more useful than mirrors, and could be really helpful when vision is impaired for some reason or other (fog, busy street, etc).

Re:self merging cars,...

[shri]

Sounds a lot like the POD car that Toyota had announced.

Toyota says the pod can express up to ten emotions through its lighting and mechanical system. The car has lights embedded in its hood that change color along with the car's mood. Wash the car or refuel it and the pod's hood glows a bright orange. If the driver hits the brakes too hard, the pod glows an angry red.

The pod can also learn the driver's tastes in music, television or shopping through the use of something called a "mini-pod." That is a hand-held device that the driver can connect to his or her home computer, where it stores the owner's preferences among various shopping and entertainment choices. The mini-pod also acts as an electronic door-opener for the car, and ignition starter.

Re:self merging cars,...

[ari_j]

From BBSpot's 'Which OS Are You?' Quiz:

You're driving on the freeway during rush hour, and traffic is at a crawl. You're in the far-left lane, but you need to get to the far-right lane to get your exit. Do you:

I don't drive

Courteously signal your lane change, checking your blindspot, waiting for a good samaritan to permit passage

Creep into the neighboring lane, scaring cautious drivers into giving you a wide berth

Come to a complete stop, turn on your hazards, get out and place emergency flares in a diagonal line across all four lanes

Roll down your window and instruct drivers to get out of your way with your bullhorn

Re:self merging cars,...

[Lars T.]

It would be great to automate if most cars would have that ability. Unlike humans they wouldn't be stubborn and (more importantly) they could comunicate with cars they can't see.

I for one welcome our new auto-car overlords.

Re:self merging cars,...

[gmby]

The bigest problem with merging is the "brakers"; people that think it's easyer to merge when they hit the brake! Makeing everyone behind them have to punch it from a dead stop to get on the freeway. Here's a hint "MATCH SPEEDS!" That's what on ramps are for! They call them "ramps" because they give you time to lauch your slow a$$ up to speed to mearge.

Or if you prefer.

1. Push gas hard.
2. Watch traffic. Match speed.

(THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART)

3. "MEARGE!"
4.Get to work on time this time.
5. Profit!

Mmmmm, That felt good. ;)

Re:self merging cars,...

[xenoandroid]

The last one...

Re:self merging cars,...

[davew2040]

You and I must not be driving on the same planet.

Re:self merging cars,...

[fiannaFailMan]

Merging in the US is so difficult because of the cloverleaf junctions that don't allow a long acceleration lane and force traffic coming off to cross the path of traffic merging on. Solution? Roundabouts. They solve both problems.

Obvious joke

[gilesjuk]

What happens when the system crashes? :)

BBC Story

[Arc04]

Here is the BBC's take on the same story.

The technology for this was shown off months ago - I saw the story. I am glad it is finally being released to the public.

Re:BBC Story

[whimdot]

I love the headline "Self Parking Car Hits The Shops", sounds like there is still some work to do.

Re:The article text to avoid /. effect:

[AdEbh]

Thanks for that. 'Cause you know Yahoo gets /.ed every time.

- ebh

Not new

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not new. I've seen a similar system nearly 12 years ago used by a handicapped photographer at my high school. His car was retrofitted with a very similar system that would park the car by itself.

Re:Not new

[Surak]

Yep. They've been showcasing this stuff at a special handicapped mod vendors area (in the basement of Cobo) at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit at least a couple of years now. Saw it first-hand myself...they really sell this stuff, but it's a bit expensive.

Re:Not new

[germano]

the tecnology itself not, but the way they made it cheaper and avaliable to the mass market, is very innovative. Can you say that P2P is not new because Usenet used P2P?

I can't say I...

[bob670]

really enjoy driving anymore as it is, and with most major metros (and smaller metros as well) experiencing some level of gridlock, I drive as little as possible in areas where this would be of any real use. I know we are talking about a car company, but I would rather see this kind of effort go in to public transportation/mass transit.

Re:I can't say I...

[r_cerq]

I would rather see this kind of effort go in to public transportation/mass transit
What, like a bus that actually gets there on time, has a seat for you, it's driver has change for your ticket fare, and doesn't drop you off right in the middle of a puddle? Hah! Might as well ask them to park themselves... hmm... waitaminute...

Re:I can't say I...

[AVryhof]

Or a bus that watches for cars in the next lane over, or the road the bus is going towards. And a nice audible alert that passengers can hear

"You just ran a stop sign and almost killed someone stupid!" or "Only morons don't look before pulling into traffic"

Re:I can't say I...

[sean23007]

This technology in a mass transit system? How often does a city bus ever need to parallel park?

Re:I can't say I...

[bob670]

I said effort, not this specific technology. Bunch of damn literalist.

Re:The real question

[EvilTwinSkippy]

How lazy CAN we get?

Robots to auto-post to Slashdot?

The forgotten danger

[menscher]

When backing into a space, your front end swings out a bit. So you have to watch for traffic approaching from behind before you do this. Does the car think to do that? No? Whoops.

Re:The forgotten danger

[germano]

The system is not completely automatic. so the driver still has to control the brakes.
There is too much risk involved in making a completely automatic parking. What if a kid run to catch a ball behind the car? Toyota for sure doesn't wat to be liable on these cases.

bigger engine and motor

[evenprime]

I'm more impressed by the fact that the engine in the new prius is now 78 horsepower(it used to be 70 hp) and the motor is 50kW/67hp (it used to be 44 hp).

Toyota did the right thing. The new prius is bigger than the old one (now a midsize, not a compact), has fewer emissions, more horsepower, and accelerates faster. Now, if they could only make it cheaper, too....

Re:bigger engine and motor

[thanasakis]

From what I've read in their sitethe prius consumes only a fraction of the amount of fuel a normal car would need to cover the same distance. This is done by running the motor at optimal rates (I gather there is no transmission) and feed the electic motors. When you brake, the motor not only does the motor stop automaticaly, but your kinetic energy is being transformed back into electricity.
So, even if it is more expensive than a normal car, you could get your money back out of fuel economy in 3-4 years depending on how much distance you cover every year.

Re:bigger engine and motor

[mosch]

The prius has a continuously variable transmission, which is why it can run the motor at optimal rates.

Re:bigger engine and motor

[MBCook]

Cheaper? Last thing I heard Toyota was selling them at a loss. Is that still true? Are they profitable yet?

It may be more expensive, but as other comments point out, the gas savings is MASSIVE so over the life of the car it will easily make up the difference.

Re:bigger engine and motor

[ejaw5]

I just hope in a few years they'll release a hybrid equivalent of a Camry V6. Oh yes, I got 200 hp and gets 50miles per gallon!

perhaps a little too optimistic, but I wouldn't be suprised.

Re:bigger engine and motor

[randyest]

What, do you drive it only downhill? (Maybe the reverse of the route I took to school when I was a kid, which was uphill, both ways . . . )

If not I call bullshit. According to Toyota themselves, the V6 Camrys max out at 33MPG (highway), 23 (city):

Manual transmission 23/33 [6] 23/33 NA
Automatic transmission 23/32 23/32 23/32

I can't even squeeze 50MPG out of my V6 Jetta (which is several hundred pounds lighter than a Camry), even if I drive like a grandma afraid of acelleration. I usually get 20-30 in real life, according to the Jetta's computer thing, but I love to acellerate. My wife gets a litter better, but not 50.

Re:bigger engine and motor

[ejaw5]

the 50mp/g I was refering to was for the v6 hybrid system that (hopefully) will release. sorry for the misunderstanding.

Re:bigger engine and motor

[Hellasboy]

The Camry V6 has recently been upgraded in the Lexus line and is currently using a 3.3L V6. This engine will replace the current V6 in the camry and news is that the RX330 (with the new engine) will have a hybrid option that is supposed to give it 40-50mpg with a performance upgrade.

How cool

[ExEleven]

But can it pay the meter, and reverse over the parking cops trying to give you a parking fine?

cluster

[chochos]

I can imagine a Beowulf cluster of these. It must look exactly like rush hour.

FUCKED UP MODERATION

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're modding parent of this post up, then you must think he's right. If you're modding the parent poster up, then you must think he's right.

What the fuck? Moderators are horrible, horrible creatures. They can't really *do* anything at all.

Re:FUCKED UP MODERATION

[AdEbh]

I was being sarcastic.

- ebh

importing one

[Sarin]

Be carefull if you want to import one, in Japan they drive on the left hand side.
I imagine when you try to autopark in a right hand side country it will park in the middle of the road instead of the sidewalk.

Re:importing one

[rmohr02]

Well, I'd assume Japan has some one-way roads, so it would make sense that the Japanese would anticipate parallel parking on both sides.

Re:importing one

[Jardine]

What if you reversed the polarity?

Re:importing one

[Izanagi]

This system is for reversing into a spot not parallel parking. The you can leave without backing out, a safer venture.

1.RTFA
2.CTFA (comprehend)
3.??
4.Profit

Re:importing one

[Soul-Burn666]

New acronym: RC?P. Read, Comprehend, ???, Profit.
Or should it be, as most slashodotters do: Comprehend (from comments), Read (because the comments), ???, Profit.
The acronym will now be suitable: CR?P.

Re:The article text to avoid /. effect:

[serial frame]

At first, it looked like the first sentence said "Car That Can Park Put Itself Up For Sale." It's probably just me, but I think a car that can put itself up for sale is probably more eloquent than one that can't.

Better yet

[earthforce_1]

A car that continuously drives itself around the block, and avoids the need for parking. (Or parking tickets) Paying for the extra fuel is probabably cheaper that hourly parking in most major cities, and certainly would be in Japan.

Re:Better yet

[djshake]

an hour of parking in new york city is $1.50 in most areas. an hour of driving about 20 mph is 20 miles obviously. an average car lets say gets 20 miles to the gallon. gas costs more than $1.50 per gallon in most areas.

this is a gross oversimplification, but cost efficiency is about the same. the real solution is to bring a friend to sit in the car and read with the emergency lights on. cop comes, they can move, and they don't need to pay for parking.

Re:Better yet

[El]

In some cities like San Francisco, it's cheaper to pay somebody to keep driving your car around in circles than it is to pay for a parking garage. Why pay thousands for an automated system when you could pay a teenager $6/hour?

obvious answer

[rootofevil]

then the rest of it crashes too, duh.

Interesting Idea

[ewhenn]

How about we adapt this technology so that it automatically detects if the parking spot is for a handicapt or not. If the owner parks illegally in one of these spots, the car backs the F$&K over them.

yes...

[holzp]

yes, but can it automatically flip the bird to that !@&#^$ who stole the spot from you, because is impolite car was made in the usa?

Wrong place for intelligence

[El]

What we need is a car that watches the driver, and says things link "You're drunk! I'm NOT starting!" and "Hang up the cellphone and pay attention to your driving!"

Re:Wrong place for intelligence

[mosch]

the first one exists.

Re:Wrong place for intelligence

[Hellasboy]

Toyota intriduced a concept last year (sorry, forgot the name) that monitors the driver. If the driver appears to be sleepy, the radio turns on loud. If the driver is sad, it plays happy songs. If the driver is drunk, it calls the police (ok, it doesn't do this last one).

It looked ugly as sin and had some funky neon lighting on it. But it was just a concept.

Re:Wrong place for intelligence

[El]

Actually, if the driver is really drunk, it automatically drives him to an old girlfriend's house...

Parking Algorithms

[kmahan]

It'll be interesting to see if different parking algorithms popup for different vehicles.

Obviously for the prius you need a fairly conservative routine. With restrictions like "don't bump the vehicles in front/back" and "there must initially be enough room for the vehicle to fit."

For a Hummer or Abrams tank I think you could probably relax the restrictions a little. If you need to widen the spot a little you could probably give the vehicles in front/back a little bump. Or just park on top of another vehicle.

I wonder how good the parking algorithm is when parking next to the edge of a cliff?

Yuck

[Anonymous Coward]

More technology in a car?

These days, cars are so complex that to even think about servicing one, you need a Ph.D. And fault finding in your own garage? Forget it. I'm probably well set up, well beyond most even normal revheads, and yet I look at this car and just wonder how the hell I could even possibly think about maintaining myself.

But that's not the part that really gets me. What really gets me is that cars are becoming so much more simple and dumb to operate, the real level of skill to drive one is lowering appreciably. Now, when it comes to suspension and brake technology, that's not a bad thing, you cant have a car that stops and handles too well. But it's more of the throw the thing in D and accelerate off, switch off brain that the rise of technology is beginning to breed.

I personally find driving a pleasure, but I truly hate when the car begins to interject. Traction control? It should be my right foot (given I drive RHD). Skid control? That's called appropriate steering / accelerator / brake response. Looking out for danger? That's called my eyes and ears. Being able to park? That's called learning how to do it properly!

My preference is for a good, high performance 4wd turbo. No Anti-lock, no skid and traction control, just lots of power, good tyres, a car with really good response to my inputs and a chassis that communicates what is goign on to me.

Enough of these rubbish do-dads that frankly, no good driver would ever need. Bring back some purity into the driving experience. I dont care how advanced this Puris is, I will not even think about going near one.

Frankly, a 1920 Model T is a more rewarding experience and those things are POS. But there really is something about the skill needed to drive an old car with a crash box..... somethign that brings a smile to your face and you truly enjoy the experience. Or doing 9,000 rpm in a loud rotary. Or pulling burnouts in a massive V8. Or dirt road drifting in a turbo 4wd.......

As if this.... appliance could ever match that. Bah. Turn them all into scrap.

Re:Yuck

[man_ls]

I agree....and speaking as a teenager, I get to say this without any bias.

Drivers need to know that it's a privlidge, not a right.

That said, anyone whose had their license for 3 months and gets a speeding ticket, gets their license suspended for the next 3. And then the cycle repeats. Do it 3 times, and you lose it for a year.

I can't count the number of times some retarded kid with his girlfriend in the seat next to him, has cut me off in traffic, forcing me to panic stop or swerve out of the way, either into another lane (dangerous) or off the road (dangerous)

Maybe a large ($1000+) fine could be paid instead to forgo the suspended license...enough that most teenagers don't have it, and most parents will beat the living shit out of them for having to pay for it. Or, even better, make the parents directly responsible for the fines their underaged offspring incur...

That way, the people who are inclined to abuse their transportation, won't be. And, since it only applies to the first time you get your license, it doesn't matter if you're 16 or 18 or 38...You follow the same rules.

The "maturity" of the driver has nothing to do with it...it needs to be impressed that they can't do anything they want to.

Re:Yuck

[ergo98]

"Enough of these rubbish do-dads that frankly, no good driver would ever need."

Traction control and anti-lock brakes both can accomplish feats that the best driver on the planet Earth couldn't accomplish, given that they are modulating their input thousands of times per second, absolutely optimizing power/braking and acceleration. They aren't necessities, and you could approximate them, but don't fool yourself into thinking that you could do a better job. If you claim otherwise, then I'd suggest that you should have relay wires installed in your dash to let you handle the spark timing yourself as well.

Where technology has just finally offered a better choice is in transmissions: Until recently the "standard" was always the superior driving choice, as the automatic options were hydraulic circuitry turds often with 3 gears. Now there are continuously variable automatic transmissions that achieve the absolute perfect coupling between power plant and road surface all of the time. Alternately the computer controlled 5 or 6 speed automatics are quite extraordinary now as well.

Re:Yuck

[csimicah]

These days, cars are so complex that to even think about servicing one, you need a Ph.D.

I hear people say this, and I wonder if they've ever even seen a modern engine.

Granted, I can't fix a broken engine computer. Luckily, engine computers are solid state devices that almost never break. Other than that, what can't you fix about a new car? You can still change water pumps, do brake pads and rotors, change clutches, replace power steering pumps, alternators, ball joints, etc, etc, etc, same things you would have done on a 60's car.

Of course, instead of rebuilding a carb, you swap out an injector, though I've never had one go bad. And instead of doing timing/replacing points/caps/etc., you do... nothing. Other than some past VW and GM design flaws, solid state electronic ignitions don't tend to go bad, being solid state.

Re:Yuck

[be-fan]

A solution would be to just cull all the teenagers :)

Seriously, though, I think the driving tests need to be 10x harder. If half the people failed them, the roads would be a whole lot safer and more pleasent.

Re:Yuck

[CrowScape]

More technology in a car?

Yes, I remember the good 'ol days when there was no technology in a car. No ABS, no automatic transmition, no radio, no power windows, no catalytic converter, no aluminum frames, no steel, no glass, no engine, no tires, no wheels. Those were great cars, and safe too. Not a single accident involving one. Not like today, where every part of a car is dripping with technology. Damn you Henry Ford and Karl Benz!

Re:Yuck

[LiENUS]

You are aware your car has three gears arent you?
high, low, and reverse. theres no need to select a gear, you either downshift or you dont

Re:Yuck

[sanx]

Traction control and anti-lock brakes both can accomplish feats that the best driver on the planet Earth couldn't accomplish...

How I can put this? Bollocks! Whilst it is true that no driver can modulate brake pressure on four individual wheels 10,000 times a second, it is also true to state that most expert drivers don't need to. They know how hard to brake and can modulate brake pressure well enough to get the best out of their vehicle. Rally drivers could never use traction control and ABS. Why? Because they require their cars to slide and the wheels to spin. It's the fastest way of getting from point A to point B.

What is true is that for most drivers running down to Walmart for a six-pack, traction control and ABS offers them the greatest level of safety.

Re:Yuck

[rebelcool]

Because they require their cars to slide and the wheels to spin. It's the fastest way of getting from point A to point B.

I'm thinking this wouldn't be such a great idea on everyday roadways. The point of traction control and ABS isn't so jackass drivers can run around like rally racers. Why would you even mention that? That is the stupidest example i've yet read. The point of ABS and ETC are to head off the consequences unpredictable accidents and road hazards before the driver has to. Both have saved hundreds of lives.

Oh let me guess, now you'll use the 'dumbing down the driver' argument and ignore the whole hundreds of saved lives thing. Cause you know, rally racer skills in the average driver are a better thing to strive for than a technical solution that works.

Re:Yuck

[sanx]

Hey - now here's a trick. Try reading and understanding what I posted before replying to it.

My comment was that the previous poster's statement that "Traction control and anti-lock brakes both can accomplish feats that the best driver on the planet Earth couldn't accomplish..." was incorrect. The reference to rally driving was to indicate that, in some circumstances, ABS and traction control do not a safe car make.

I also went on to say "What is true is that for most drivers running down to Walmart for a six-pack, traction control and ABS offers them the greatest level of safety." which is exactly what you were trying to flame me not saying.

Have a nice day.

Re:Yuck

[CrayzyJ]

"anti-lock brakes both can accomplish feats that the best driver on the planet Earth couldn't accomplish"

This is utter crap. I read an article (Car & Driver , maybe...it's 2 am and I don't feel like looking for it) stating that ABS takes almost double the amount of space to stop. The only advantage ABS has is to prevent stupid people from jamming on the brakes on ice. Period. It's a device for the lowest common denominator, and the rest of us now have to stop in twice the distance. Ergo, the original poster was quite correct, "no _good_ driver would ever need" (emphasis mine).

Re:Yuck

[cowlum1]

Traction control and abs breaks are not necessarily an advantage for most profesional drivers. WRC rally cars and most high level racing cars still use standard shifts or driver controlled automatics, ie the car pyhsicaly makes the change yet the driver designates when.

Your comment on spark timing is simply stupid - think about it.

All in all, you've missed the original posters point. The automatic transmissions, abs, power-steering and even seating positions we get in road cars a very much dumbed down versions. Unfortunatly with this ease of use, pure driving enjoyment is also lost. Your comment makes me think you enjoy cars from afar and have never really had a serious interest in anything more than the latest gimmick.

Most modern cars are designed to sell to all people - including clumsy people. Great example's of how simpler driver orientated cars are best often come from lotus - espicialy the recent elise. Its a shame these cars are USELESS for mr lack of co-ordination, the old and the lazy because the keep the driver alert - which is sorely needed these days with lazy boy suspesion, cell phones and exeptional sound profing which leaves a human relaxed when traveling at deadly speeds.

Re:Yuck

[Reapy]

ABS saved me from an accident. A car to my right, up ahead in front of me, was making a left. The car stopped, looked (??), and still pulled out in front of me while I was traveling 40 mph and was so close that full on breaking in good conditions would have plowed me into her driver side door.

I hadn't been in a panic situation like that. I had played around with the car before, so I was familiar with driving it somewhat out of control. But when something unexpected like that happens and you panic, my foot went right to the break. I managed to steer left of the car, actually heading towards cars waiting to make a left onto the road the driver was pulling out of. I then steered the car right, past those cars, back into my lane, and then I just recall my car fishtaling a bit before getting straight again.

Without the ABS my full breaking would have probably locked the wheels and I would have drove right into the cars making the left, or I might not have even been able to swerve around the car in front of me.

There was no option to stop the car and have a tighter stopping distance, it was just too close. ABS doesn't increase your stop distance so much that it's a signifcent advantage not to have it.

A good driver should be able to identify anything that would cause hard breaking soon enough to slow up and break before hitting whatever it is. Anything else that pops out at you has to be steered around, there won't be time to stop.

Maybe later in life after I have been driving for a lot longer and in more near hits, I'll be calm enough to not panic and pulse my breaks and control the skid around the obsticle, until then, give me abs please, thanks.

Re:Yuck

[Reapy]

I agree with you to some extent. You do lose out on pure driving experience with all the safty features. In my roomate's vw GTI we usually turn off the ESP when driving in the snow so we can enjoy our driving. The thing is, when you are enjoying driving, chances are you aren't driving as you should be on public roads. Not for one second should you be drifting through a turn as fast as you can like a rally driver on the public roads. If you want to be driving like that, you should be on a race track, or in an area designated for that type of driving, not out on what you think are abandoned roads. You never know when that guy decided to take his dog out for a walk on the road, and is standing in the middle of it because cars dont come there. Anyway, if such is the case, and that's what you like doing, chances are you will have a car designed for driving hard on the track, and that's where the car should stay, on the track. Driving on public streets should be dull and boring and safe. For every person out there who can't make a quick decision and follow traffic patterns unknown to them, theres a guy who thinks he knows the road too well and is driving too hard for the traffic. Both of these people cause accidents. Enjoy your driving on the track, and keep it off the streets, where you could hit me, because I didn't see you coming up on me at 120mph when I decided to change lanes.

Re:Yuck

[Cochonou]

"Seriously, though, I think the driving tests need to be 10x harder."

I tend to disagree. There are several things to keep in mind:
- Driving is not a privilege, in most situations it is a need for everyday's life. Making tests harder would only make the learning curve longer.
- Even this would probably not have a real effect on road safety, as once you've passed your test you can drive as bad as you want (until you're caught by the police or crash in a tree).
To illustrate this, let's take the example of France. This country has "difficult" (compared to several other countries) driving tests, but still experiences a high rate of mortality on its roads...

Re:Yuck

[be-fan]

I tend to disagree.
>>>>>>
Really, do you have this conversation often?

Driving is not a privilege, in most situations it is a need for everyday's life.
>>>>>>>
Iffy. I live in one of the most driver-unfriendly parts of the country (suburbs of DC) and you can get around if you know the bus routes. Exceptions should probably be made for people in less densely populated areas, where bad drivers can't cause as much damage, but half the people not being able to drive would be powerful incentive for decent public transportation to get built.

Making tests harder would only make the learning curve longer.
>>>>>>>>
That's the point. That, and filtering out those who truely don't get it. The current driving tests barely require sentience! One of the questions I remember from my test was identifying signs. The signs all had their names written on them (Yield, Stop, etc). A pigeon could do the pattern matching involved!

Even this would probably not have a real effect on road safety, as once you've passed your test you can drive as bad as you want
>>>>>>>>>>
Your logic is flawed. In both cases, people who intentionally drive badly can drive as badly as they want. However, in the second case, you don't have those who just have bad driving skills. IIRC, the statistics show that most accidents are not caused by skilled drivers driving badly, but unskilled drivers driving badly. Also, drivers who would otherwise drive badly (teenagers) might not if they had to undergo a more rigerous screening process first.

To illustrate this, let's take the example of France. This country has "difficult" (compared to several other countries) driving tests, but still experiences a high rate of mortality on its roads...
>>>>>>>>>
That's because French roads are insane. Paris has no lane markings on the road, and in the countryside, the average speeds hit 160-170km/h.

Re:Yuck

[cowlum1]

I agree completely with your post. If i made it sound as though im a street racer im not. I personely own two vehicles. One is a reasonably late model celica the other a 30 year olb BMW. The celica is no fun and therfore i drive around like an old man, its my daily beater, its wonderfully reliable and i always drive it cautiosly. The BMW spends most of its time in the garage being worked on - most of the time it doesnt need it, its just simply fun to modify.

As many posters have said there is a greater need for driver education, both in car handling and road reading.

ps. the bmw is fun at 50kph....

Once again i couldnt agree more with your post.

Re:Yuck

[Cochonou]

"IIRC, the statistics show that most accidents are not caused by skilled drivers driving badly, but unskilled drivers driving badly"

That's an intersting point that would, as you say, invalidate my logic.
Could you link me to more information on these statistics ?

Only in America

[Anonymous Coward]

If people ever actually think stuff like this is a good idea, we need to raise the tax on gasoline. No wonder we're so dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

Re:Only in America

[Jad LaFields]

Yeah, but when you think about it, while oil eventually will be in short supply, right now it isn't. And let me tell you, the supply of usable real estate in a place like New York City is, well, very limited. The cost of building a parking garage there would be very expensive, and I'd imagine even more so in Tokyo. I wouldn't be surprised if parking in Tokyo was several times more expensive than the equivalent gas you'd burn driving around.

Re:Only in America

[daveo0331]

The fact that the car is moving doesn't stop it from taking up space. The only way to stop the car from taking up valuable real estate is to park it outside the city and ride a train/bus/taxi into the city. You could also use the space more efficiently by building a 20 story parking garage.

If you think downtown traffic is bad now, imagine what would happen if everyone hired drivers to avoid having to park.

Re:Only in America

[Osty]

If people ever actually think stuff like this is a good idea, we need to raise the tax on gasoline. No wonder we're so dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

If people ever actually think frivolous taxes are a good idea, we need ... dammit, too late. See the upcoming Seattle $0.10 latte tax to pay for childcare for single mothers (yeah, yeah, it's just for child care in general, but dammit if I wanted to pay for child care I'd have a child, not a latte). Yes, I know it's not been passed yet, but given the hippy morons out here, there's a 90% chance it will pass.

No wonder we have such a big government.

(PS If you didn't get it, the point is that arbitrary taxation is not a solution. If people follow the original parent's suggestion, which was in jest by the way, then more gasoline will be used and thus prices will increase -- thank you free market. Such a tax is unnecessary to bring the change you appear to desire.)

highways and magnets

[doormat]

The freeway you're talking about is Interstate 15 near San Diego, CA. They built a single lane, multi-mile segment on the inside median, with magnets under the road every 100'. The car would be programed to follow the magnets and make course corrections. There were also ultrasonic sensors on the front and back. The demo had 3 cars at 100mph, 10' apart with the system engaged.

Re:highways and magnets

[numberthree]

The only problem with a road system that relies on magnets would be the construction required to implement it. Down the street from my house, they've been widening an intersection since before Summer began.

I think I read somewhere that in 1995, there were nearly 4 million miles of road total in the U.S.A. If it takes a transit team that long to widen one busy suburban intersection, we'll all be driving floating cars by the time they're finished. At least, we hope.

Re:highways and magnets

[drinkypoo]

That's a prototype, a solution which they could implement THEN. NOW, by using radio triangulation (GPS? Or more easily, something more local. RFID?) :) and inertial tracking (MEMS Accelerometers?) you could somewhat trivially design a car that drives itself, as long as all the other cars used the same system, which is to say they would respect the lanes of traffic, and not run into one another.

The only problem then becomes crap-in-the-road (or lack of a road) avoidance. However if you had traffic monitoring statistics collection and-or mesh-networked sharing of data (it's okay to be a star network) then cars can individually detect something in the road that they should not run over, or the fact that the road has been damaged, by using radar or sonar, and handle the situation. This will not work without ABS and is best-implemented using all wheel drive.

In fact, I just had a really great idea which I am an idiot to share unless I narrowly provide a "prior art" style musing that defeats some asinine patent; put RFID tags in all the road paint, on all the reflectors, etc. End up with an RFID tag every square inch or so in paint. Now use vehicles that drive along and scan them periodically. This will tell you everything you need to know about road geometry.

Obviously every road doesn't need this technology, just interstate highways. Then everyone's cars can go as fast as they want them to go (within reason) and they can cooperate on methods to do this.

I realize that I'm oversimplifying things a lot, and it would be easy and reasonable for any of you to say "Well then go do it and shut the fuck up" but come on, all of these are solved problems. You might not be able to do it economically today, but you certainly could do it, and make it safer than counting on people, who are unreliable. Sure a person might be able to make a judgement call like "I don't need to slow down to go around this dead dog, just go a foot onto the shoulder" and a car says "holy shit to go around this large thing I'd have to go onto the shoulder and I have no idea if that's safe!" So the car is going to nail the brakes (don't worry, it's ABS) and maybe even downshift a few times (if you got a tiptronic or similar) and pester you to go around it manually. This is a problem because your car can probably brake a lot faster than a person can, unless the person is in a car with better brakes, and is really on the ball, so this is why it's so important for ALL cars allowed on these roads to have the system. It's really not because we're afraid that the cars will do something wrong, you can solve that by making them slow down and/or stop rather than do something questionable. Take the unpredictable humans out of the equation and bang, you're done.

Of course, it might well be more intelligent to replace the freeways with some kind of trains, which cars are attached to. Maybe they could even switch cargoes while in motion, but that's unnecessary. Some kind of routing system (we all like dynamic routing) could handle the problem neatly. You'd pay less for travel when the queues were empty, of course. I personally think that this might be the best model. Maintain the interstates where they are major business corridors, which is to say that they're used all day, but pare them down some, and put all the long range traffic on trains.

Since that will never happen, let's start with the RFID tags in the roads. Anyone want to give me a big lump of capital? :)

Reminds me of a bad card I read

[zapp]

On the front was a picture of a woman trying to parallel park, crunching into all the cars around her. The title was "Why women can't drive..."

on the inside..

Because men will tell them this is 6 inches:
--> ==== <--

Needless to say it wasn't quite the punchline I was expecting :)

Re:Reminds me of a bad card I read

[slipgun]

Give a woman an inch, and she'll try and park a car in it.

Re:The real question

[CoolRay]

Sigh... we're already there -- see Google News!

Re:No, it doesn't.

[Exiler]

*scribbles all the corrections to his horrible spelling in with Crayon*

*whistles innocently*

Self-parking car

[McWilde]

Now I know what to get my girlfriend for a present.

If I had a girlfriend of course.

Marketing nightmare

[DriftingDutchman]

I don't see how this can be sold in a western culture given the enormous potential for lame jokes.

how great an idea that would be.

[YllabianBitPipe]

come up with a way to put gps devices in parking meters that kick in when the space is empty. then anyone in a car with a gps unit can see where they are.

Re:how great an idea that would be.

[randyest]

Great idea! Except that, in general, cities wouldn't like that. Parking meters are a source of income (from the tickets issues when the expire), not a distribution system to be made more efficient. Why do you think it's illegal in many places to feed a meter that's not your own?

Re:how great an idea that would be.

[Jad LaFields]

Would it even have to be GPS? Couldn't it be some kind of infrared/radio/I don't know transmitter that would alert your car that there is parking spot within 40 ft on this block?

Re:how great an idea that would be.

[bob65]

And then everyone rushes to the empty space, and when everyone is 5 meters away from it, the gps unit shows the space is occupied, because a single car has just parked in the space.

Why stop there?

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens when we forget how to park cars ourselves? technology is good, but people are getting too darn lazy these days. is parking really that hard?

What happens when we forget how to shift gears ourselves? Technology is good, but people are getting too darn lazy these days. Is shifting gears really that hard?

What happens when we forget how to ride horses ourselves? Technology is good, but people are getting too darn lazy these days. Is riding horses really that hard?

Etc etc etc...

How stunt drivers do it

[Anonymous Coward]

Get front wheel drive manual car with a very very good handbrake.

Head towards the parking spot at a fair speed, as perpendicular to the spot as you can. Swerve car and pull handbrake and then brake and counter steer so that you neatly skid and slide in sideways.

With this method you can park in a spot that's practically the same length as your car - just depends on how accurate you are.

Getting out requires a bit more space - the length of the space must be slightly more than the diagonal length of your car. Pull handbrake to max, turn steering wheel max (to lock) towards side you want to exit from. Stomp on clutch, red line engine, release clutch, burn rubber and gradually spin car out of space.

Not recommended in uncontrolled environments.

Re:How stunt drivers do it

[sanx]

I believe the world record for parking in a space using this method was done by a British stunt driver (forget his name) who managed to handbrake into a space 17cm longer than the car itself and stop with both wheels within 10cm of the kerb. It took his about four tries to do this.

The stunt driver in question made his name doing the same stunt in TV ads for the Austin Montego car - a car so truly f'ing awful that it deserved to be confined to the great car crusher in the sky upon launch.

"progress" inevitable, feedback loop

[YllabianBitPipe]

Cars are getting more automated and automatic all the time. So people become lousier drivers, and the car companies will take this to mean MORE automation. At the rate we're going they'll put the cars on autopilot. You just tell 'em where to go and the car will take you there. Whether you like this or not is kind of besides the point ... crappy drivers will necessitate this kind of driving, and soon people will become so soft they'll prefer it. Maybe along the way there will be some not too subtle hints, like, if you insist on leaving the auto pilot off and driving the car yourself with a non-auto pilot car, your insurance rates will be jacked up accordingly.

You're kind of car afficionado ... saying you like a 1920 model T and a car that drives well without all the automatic crap. My guess is, you like to open up the hood and know what's going on. I think you're in the minority. Most of us just want to get from point a to point b and that's it.

Re:I won't give up Stick!

[aashenfe]

Unless my next car has a CVT. The Toyota Prius is actualy looking pretty goot at this point.
Why are Ford and GM so far behind? They don't have CVT's. They are just talking about Hybrids, I'm not holding my breath.
Toyota and Honda have had Hybrid's and CVT transmisions for years now.

Re:Sounds good

[NanoGator]

"But can it run Linux? sorry, I had to :) "

It can, but nobody wants to type man headlts.

Re:I won't give up Stick!

[HTMLSpinnr]

It's not a true CVT, but an E-CVT, because there are no varying gear ratios to change torque multiplication. The car has one single speed and engine torque output to the wheels is varied by resistance on an electric generator. This is driven through a pretty slick planetary gearset which gets the job done. Gobs of electric motor torque takes care of slow speed starts so that the car performs somewhat like an ordinary car.

I know. I own a 2002 Prius, and have ordered the 2004 (too bad they don't have self parking here in the States).

Go see the article on How Hybrids Work at howstuffworks.com

Glad to see they put this in a hybird car.

[ModernGeek]

I love the Hybrid car philosophy, it is a step away from gas-guzzling SUV's. This is a great incentive for people to buy a Prius over another car too, and the body on the new models look alot better than the older ones. My friends dad has a Prius, and it drives fast, and it rides ALOT more smooth than a traditional car. I just don't know why this idea was never embrassed before. Also, how come we don't have cars that can drive themself on the interstate? It doesn't seem like it would be hard at all, since they could just implement sensors into an interstate quite simply since it is all managed by the government, an open standard could be created by the Govt, and all the car companies could follow.

Re:Glad to see they put this in a hybird car.

[thefultonhow]

Why don't they have cars that drive themselves on the interstate? Actually, 5 or 6 years ago there was a pilot program where they deployed magnets in 13 miles of California freeway and equipped Buicks (yeah... go figure...) to do the whole automated driving thing. But that never got any farther than those 13 miles, as far as I know. Why?

Well, I'd have to guess it's a similar reason why we never converted to the Metric system--infrastructure problems. Simply put, there are far too many miles of highway (46,000-somthing at last count), far too many sensors per mile, and far too few tax dollars to spend on the project. It was the same thing with Metric in the 70s--the government said we'd be metric in five years, only to find out the hard way that there were too many miles of freeway, too many die changes, too much opposition from corporations... you get the idea.

Re:Glad to see they put this in a hybird car.

[zero_offset]

I love the Hybrid car philosophy, it is a step away from gas-guzzling SUV's. This is a great incentive for people to buy a Prius over another car too, and the body on the new models look alot better than the older ones. My friends dad has a Prius, and it drives fast, and it rides ALOT more smooth than a traditional car. I just don't know why this idea was never embrassed before. Also, how come we don't have cars that can drive themself on the interstate? It doesn't seem like it would be hard at all, since they could just implement sensors into an interstate quite simply since it is all managed by the government, an open standard could be created by the Govt, and all the car companies could follow.

You claim the Prius rides more smoothly than a traditional car, but I suspect your experience with cars is merely limited to low-end econoboxes. Try hopping into a decent mid-range Benz one day for a smooth ride.

The hybrid concept was not previously embraced because (1) people didn't care about that kind of thing (it doesn't come cheaply or easily), (2) the cars look awful; it is only recently that the national sense of style has been so stunted that the design of the Prius is considerd somewhat acceptable, and (3) the technology wasn't really up to the challenge until recently (in any affordably mass-producible sense). I would also question whether it's actually being "embraced" yet -- I'd say it is still something of a curiosity at best, although it is definitely gaining ground.

We don't have cars that drive themselves because this is a very complicated problem to solve. It may not seem like a hard problem to you because you probably spend too much time watching TV (an admittedly gratuitous conclusion I'm drawing at least partially based on your command of the written word). There are plenty of people doing real work on the problem (here and here are some examples).

Furthermore, "they" would be facing a mighty huge bill to "implement" these sensors you're dreaming up, and your statement that government involvement would somehow magically simplify everything only further detracts from the value of your commentary. The project you can read about here estimates 7.5 miles of highway will cost $200 million to rebuild with a sensor-based system, with 80% of that cost being borne by "them"... who are, of course, actually us, better known by the name "taxpayers".

Re:Glad to see they put this in a hybird car.

[Paulrothrock]

I've ridden in a Prius and a Passat, and the Prius is both quieter and smoother than the Passat. Haven't tried a Benz, but the infinitely variable transmission makes acceleration quick and smooth and the low-resistance wheels and aerodynamic design make for a very quiet ride.

Self driving cars are stupid. High speed rail would be much cheaper and much more efficient.

Re:Glad to see they put this in a hybird car.

[JuggleGeek]

Also, how come we don't have cars that can drive themself on the interstate? It doesn't seem like it would be hard at all, since they could just implement sensors into an interstate quite simply since it is all managed by the government, an open standard could be created by the Govt, and all the car companies could follow.

In the US, this would lead to a legal nightmare. I doubt it is as simple as you seem to believe, but I do believe that it could be done. We'll never see it because of the legal risk.

Re:Glad to see they put this in a hybird car.

[Cochonou]

"Self driving cars are stupid. High speed rail would be much cheaper and much more efficient." This is indeed quite insightful.

Re:Glad to see they put this in a hybird car.

[smithmc]

You claim the Prius rides more smoothly than a traditional car, but I suspect your experience with cars is merely limited to low-end econoboxes. Try hopping into a decent mid-range Benz one day for a smooth ride.

OK, so let's have hybrid Benzes, then. (Hybrid-diesel, of course...)

Re:Glad to see they put this in a hybird car.

[rifter]

Also, how come we don't have cars that can drive themself on the interstate?

We have cars that are smart enough to drive themselves on the interstate if they are the only cars on the road; or rather, computers whose ai is sophisticated enough to handle this. The problem is that no ai is sufficiently sophisticated to handle the randomness of real-world driving conditions, especially human drivers.

So essentially we would need all cars to be smart cars to get smart cars to drive themselves. In the meantime, we are stuck with all humans driving.

Re:Glad to see they put this in a hybird car.

[zero_offset]

High speed rail would be much cheaper and much more efficient.

I'm on the fence about light rail. Given that few of our major population centers have a layout well-suited to adding it after the fact, I doubt it would ever be cheap, but in the larger cities it is undoubtedly handy.

Re:Glad to see they put this in a hybird car.

[ModernGeek]

Coudln't it be a slow transition than, and everytime they build a new freeway, or do maintenance, they could add the system and slowly convert it that way, and they could map out which freeways and such do have it, and which don't, and they could have signs like, "This is an autodrive freeway" and when it ends, the car could alert the driver that they have to take over.

Re:Glad to see they put this in a hybird car.

[ModernGeek]

You claim the Prius rides more smoothly than a traditional car, but I suspect your experience with cars is merely limited to low-end econoboxes. Try hopping into a decent mid-range Benz one day for a smooth ride.

My boss has a Benz, it is about as quiet and smooth as a Prius, only more expensive, flashy and less gas mileage.

The hybrid concept was not previously embraced because (1) people didn't care about that kind of thing (it doesn't come cheaply or easily), (2) the cars look awful; it is only recently that the national sense of style has been so stunted that the design of the Prius is considerd somewhat acceptable, and (3) the technology wasn't really up to the challenge until recently (in any affordably mass-producible sense). I would also question whether it's actually being "embraced" yet -- I'd say it is still something of a curiosity at best, although it is definitely gaining ground.

1) Alot of people have been and are interested, I have talked to people about the civic hybrid/prius/insight, they all loved the idea and want to know where to get one, I tell them the local car dealer. 2) The Civic Hybrid looks like a Civic, the Prius has a new body, and the Insight is going to be replaced with the Civic Hybrid most likely, and ford is working on a ford escape hybrid.

We don't have cars that drive themselves because this is a very complicated problem to solve. It may not seem like a hard problem to you because you probably spend too much time watching TV (an admittedly gratuitous conclusion I'm drawing at least partially based on your command of the written word). There are plenty of people doing real work on the problem (here [arizona.edu] and here [pcmag.com] are some examples).

Why do you think I watch alot of TV and why do you think I don't know that it is a hard problem? I just don't see as much publicity on the idea as I thought there would be.

Furthermore, "they" would be facing a mighty huge bill to "implement" these sensors you're dreaming up, and your statement that government involvement would somehow magically simplify everything only further detracts from the value of your commentary. The project you can read about here [berkeley.edu] estimates 7.5 miles of highway will cost $200 million to rebuild with a sensor-based system, with 80% of that cost being borne by "them"... who are, of course, actually us, better known by the name "taxpayers".

I think if it was implemented over time with an RFID-type of system, it could be done much cheaper, such a system is being researched. Oh, and if you hate buzzwords and marketing fluff, I don't know why you would be a fan of the Benz.

Re:Glad to see they put this in a hybird car.

[thefultonhow]

They tried that with Metric too (Interstate 19 being the notable example). It didn't get off the ground either. Furthermore, it is a lot more expensive to convert to automated highways than it is to convert to Metric... think about it for a second. Interstate and other road signs have to be replaced periodically anyway, so why not print out a new one with Metric instead of US units? As to other stuff, most engineering and manufacturing, all science, etc. is already done in Metric.

In contrast, with automated freeways, they would have to put a bunch of expensive magnets in the roadway that wouldn't have gone in there before. The cars would also have to have much more equipment, what with a sensor to follow the magnets, adaptive cruise control, automated steering, electronic brakes.... There's a reason why they only put these things on Mercedeses and BMWs--they're really expensive. Imagine if a base-model Honda Civic cost, say, $25,000!

With that said, this stuff is probably going to get cheaper over the years, and we've already seen the trickle-down effect with things like ABS, now available at your neighborhood Yugo dealer, practically :p . So the economies of scale will eventually allow all of the infrastructure except the magnets in the highways to fall into place. Maybe if our presidents would stop cutting taxes there would actually be enough money in the coffers to implement such a large-scale infrastructure change.

On the topic of automated highways, read Kim Stanley Robinson's The Gold Coast, which contains something like a good picture of the infrastructure and implications.

I thought VCR programming was EASY BUT....

[Anonymous Coward]

"is parking really that hard?"

This begs the question:
Is programming any VCR to record a program really that hard?
Is setting the clock on any VCR really that hard?

I say NO, but we (I) live in the USA, land of idiots where VCR's freaked people out that the VCR Plus system had to be created, and now PVR/DVR have come to abolish VCR...but it's pathetic the stupidity of my fellow americans...

THUS
I venture to say that parking for most of us isn't hard, but for morons it is...plus even intelligent slashdotters are not awesome at parallel parking on the streets of San Francisco when trying to run down the 1 or 2 hot chicks that are on TechTV...

Re:Sounds good

[the_archivist]

Your just driving along and the car gets /. ed now what?

AI driving would be much more efficient

[jesterzog]

I dont think many drivers would go for a car that drives for them, but something that makes merging into fast/dangerous traffic would be greatly appreciated.

It's too bad, because if people and infrastructures were convinced to support it, more intelligent cars would help to solve a lot of traffic problems. It'll probably happen eventually, but only after someone eventually does it and everyone sees how useful it is.

There are certain driving tasks that computers simply can't perform, such as around town with spontaneous pedestrians and so on. But driving on most parts of the open road isn't quite as complicated, as long as it's sufficiently protected from the less predictible events that occur around populated areas. If specially designed cars were able to join a road that only allowed other such cars to use it, then travel would be much faster and much safer. When entering the open road network, the driver would become a passenger.

Computers react more quickly and more accurately than humans and they can be given more information about the surrounding road than people can. Consequently it would be possible to safely have much faster speeds and much closer following distances, fitting more traffic on the road and moving it much more efficiently and safely than human drivers ever could. Translation: Far fewer traffic jams and people having more time to spend doing other things.

why?

[ShadowRage]

Why are we encouraging laziness? bad enough people already can barely drive, so why make it easier for them to be better screw ups, stop microsoftizing everything people, because if the technology fails, what are people gonna do? Like one dude said, market these to people who honestly need the technology (eg, semi-paralyzed people, older folks, etc) Stop giving people an excuse for being dumbasses.

Self driving cars.. hmmm... sounds familiar

[gad_zuki!]

> what we now need are cars that merge onto highways for us.

Yes! Yes! But there's so much wasted space between cars on the freeway. What if we attach them all with some kind of coupler. Now refueling them would be a pain, so lets just put electric wires over them and let them feed off the juice. Cars are kinda small and a waste of space, what if we make them more boxy. We can call them box cars or something.

Now all those drivers are wasting their time because you only need one driver to umm conduct all those cars. We'll call him a conductor. Hmm, there might be something to this idea of transportation for the public. I can't think of the right word, but my train of thought is really onto something.

thats silly.

[rebelcool]

are you going to complain about the existance of the automatic transmission as well? Or how about turn signals... its less lazy to stick your arm out the window to point where you're going.

I for one am a crappy parallel parker. I'm a great driver.. i just suck at maneuvering my car into a tight spot parallelwise. I would welcome this any day.

Or what about those darn public transportation riders... actually letting other people drive FOR them!

Re:thats silly.

[ShadowRage]

well those are reasonable, becuase you need to keep your hand on the wheel 99% of the time. you dont want to be turning with your arm sticking out and then you get hit, also, people are led easier by lights. and you cant see an arm at night very well. automatic transmission can be handy, I prefer stick myself, gives the car guts.

I saw this today

[abhisarda]

on the NHK channel(Japanese TV, nhk.or.jp). It is actually a very spiffy car. It looks sleek and more like a mini-minivan than the regular Prius. Also, this model was black in color.
In the demonstration the man driving the Prius stopped the car a little ahead of a parking spot, then on the LCD screen, pressed the left & right buttons(Im guessing, cuz it was in japanese and too small to read) and then the car parked itself right on the spot intended. The driver at that time was "look ma, no hands". There were front and rear cameras and while parking the car was emitting a sound similar to the "put seatbelt on" one.

Not quite

[KlausB]

> In some cities like San Francisco, it's cheaper
> to pay somebody to keep driving your car around
> in circles than it is to pay for a parking
> garage. Why pay thousands for an automated
> system when you could pay a teenager $6/hour?

Maybe because new cars only start at $10,000/apiece ?

way ahead...

[hankmask]

I saw the demo on the nightly news(in Japan). Pretty cool! I've been in japanese cars with camera equipped visual parking guides but the auto park takes that one step into the future.

Probably not parallel parking

[putaro]

I didn't see any video so I can't say for sure, but here in Japan we don't parallel park that often. Not much street parking available (when you do street park you're usually double or triple parked). What people do do, almost obsessively, is back into parking spaces. That's probably what the Prius was doing.

Ding, anyone?

[aspelling]

I leave in Boston and parallel parking in MIT area almost always includes pushing cars at front and back of your vehicle. Does anybody tested self-parking system to push other cars precise enough to get away with bumper scratches only (i.e. witout breaking plastic)?

I can't wait for the bugs to fall out of this one.

[tjstork]

The Toyota Prius that backed over an old lady because she was small and wearing something that absorbed the signature. The Toyota Prius that smashes itself on Philadelphia curbs... The Toyota Prius...

Yeah, bring this car on.

SMASHPRIUS.VBS

[tjstork]

I can just see it now... autoupdate feature of self driving car gets hijacked by hackers...

Misread title

[ndogg]

I completely misread the title as "Self-Panicking Car Available In Japan." I was thinking some Japanese inventor went insane for a second.

Ahhh...bugger!

[jo42]

Now more fat lard arsed Americans won't be able to drive worth shite...

Re:Sounds good

[Anonvmous Coward]

"It can, but nobody wants to type man headlts."

Ma'am, I figured out why your headlights wouldn't come on. You had the caps-lock on.

Automated highways

[zakezuke]

Maybe an automated highway is more complicated than something like a self-parking mechanism, because many more parties are involved

I don't think an automated highway is all that complicated. Basicly rather then a strech of flat road, the vehicel drives on a set of metal rails. For scaleability you can add additional compartments for more passangers, and even additional engines. Not only can you read the paper or use your laptop, but you can even fetch a bite to eat. The need for safty belts is not quite as nessicary as the vehicel travels in one direction and traffic flow is pre-determined. I hear it's all the rage in europe!

but does it work the other way...

[AllynM]

...cause if it did, it might have helped this guy

forget reading the article... heres the video!

[AllynM]

i've managed to get behind the scenes video of this nifty system in action. pretty amazing i must say.

note: the real system is likely toned down a bit :).

I'll be impressed when...

[billscarwasher]

...the autopark performs this well :)

Prius parking video - working (hyper)link

[AllynM]

thats not chopped by the /. filter.

http://www.toyota.co.jp/company/prius/advanced_eq/ pop_ipa.html

Speaking of which

[gotr00t]

I don't really get why the drivers side is always on the opposite side of the side of the road that you're supposed to be driving on (drive on right side of road = left side driver, drive on left side = right side driver) as I think it would be much easier to just put it on the same side. This way, people won't complain that I'm always too close to the right side of a lane.

Moreover, being right handed (I just happen to be in a country where cars drive on the right side of the road), I find it is much easier to operate the steering wheel with the right hand and shift with the left, and not the other way around. I just cannot steer with my left hand no matter how hard I try, therefore I just end up crossing my arms and it looks really weird.

Magnets are old school, look out for WAAS and LAAS

[Charcharodon]

Burrying stuff in the road for auto-drive cars isn't going to happen as many other posters have pointed out, it will take forever and cost a rediculous amount of money to implement. Along comes GPS and it starts looking promissing. GPS has come along way from it's old 100' error rate. The current GPS system is down to 3 meters accuracy. WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation System) when it comes online fully in 2005 will drop that down to 1-2 meters, and it's little brother LAAS (Local Area Augmentation System) down to almost 1/2 meter. Both systems will provide for a vastly improved navigation systems, but will finally have enough accuracy to let us kick back and take a nap on those long road trips. No concrete needs to be poured, just some extra on board equipment in each car and a string of LAAS towers every 5-10 miles or so down the highway.

Finally!

[axelbaker]

I am a parking valet. All I have to say is I hope this puts me out of work. I cannot believe how few people can't park their own car. I have seen more $100,000 cars rammed in to cement pillars than I can count. I hope one day I have the disposable income to destroy a car thats worth 8 times my current yearly income (yes I do make about $12,000 a year, shut up and tip a little better you arrogant middle class BMW drivers and yes I am bitter)

More likely

[appleLaserWriter]

When a system is available for widespread use that takes control away from the humans and places it in the hands of predictable machines, what insurance company will insure a car that has a steering wheel?

Insurance companies will definitely favor the self driving car over "real drivers." When there is a lawsuit, the insurance lawyers will .forward it over to the makers of the self driving system, most likely insured by another company.

Consider drunk driving, for example. With self driving cars, the only way a drunk driver can kill themselves is by drowning in their own vomit. Look for cars that have vomit drains in the floor soon.

Should be tractable

[appleLaserWriter]

When driving in New jersey, the merge procedure is as follows:

1) Match car speed to just faster than ambient traffic
2) Identify a suitable spot to slide into
3) Position my car near the spot
4) Rapidly glance at the driver, don't make much eye contact
5) Move closer to spot until it begins to open up
6) Slide in safely.

The key here is that no one wants to give up their lane position, so you have to give the no choice. When there is an option to have a high speed freeway collision or let the other driver merge in, most will allow the new driver to merge in. It is very important to step near the threshold of danger without stepping over. You don't want to cause an accident or road rage.

Of course, in Seattle, the procedure is entirely different:

1) drive
2) slide into one of the numerous 2-carlength slots

The 520 to I5 South merge, possibly the wors in Seattle, is nothing compared to any number of North 'Jersey merges.

I think a fast copmuter with high resolution data acquisition should be able to solve either merge.

From the article:

[soliaus]

DVD navigation system

I never knew dvd's could navigate for you, good job toyota!

Calculators didn't kill the study of math

[frovingslosh]

Calculators didn't kill the study of math,

You apparently haven't seen, like I have, a young victim of the American educational system reach for a calculator to figure out how much to deduct at the register for a 10% discount. I kid you not, she wasn't figuring out the 90%, just the 10% which she then entered as a discount. When I questioned why she used the calculator she stated quite simply that she wasn't good at math. I don't think she ever understood how I gave her the result before the calculator did or why I made a comment to her.

Re:Calculators didn't kill the study of math

[mark-t]

You apparently haven't seen, like I have, a young victim of the American educational system reach for a calculator to figure out how much to deduct at the register for a 10% discount.

Down the block from where I live is a 7-11 where I have had multiple occasions to have taken in a handful of (3 or 4) pop bottles for a deposit refund, and bought something at the same time, and watched the cashier use a calculator to figure out the difference so that they'd know what to charge me.

I have jokingly remarked to my kids on more than one occasion that they wouldn't be qualified for a job at 7-11 because they know how to do math. They get my point and laugh with me because they've also seen the cashiers there do the same sort of thing. Truly, truly, truly abysmal when one can't figure out that 4x20 is 80 cents, and 3.25 minus 80 cents is 2.45 faster than it would take you to punch half that stuff into a calculator.

I would argue that calculators haven't hindered math as much as the shift in policies at lower level grade schools. In particular, elementary schools are very reluctant to fail kids because "it could damage their self esteem". Again, I've seen this happen... to one of my own kids, no less. It took a lot of work on my wife's part and my own to get him caught up to where he was supposed to be. We did it, to be sure... but it wasn't easy (and he didn't really have much fun that summer either... doing what amounted to homework almost every single day for 2 months). Of course, the upshot was that he was ahead of the game at the start of the next year.

Fail Safe? This is a hard problem!

[Inflatable Hippo]

> What happens when the system crashes? :)

This is actually an insightful question.

With a self-parking car you're basically putting control of a large dangerous piece of equipment in the hands of a computer very near to pedestrians.

In this instance, just having the car stop and brake when it fails seems like a good plan.

But other things it's got do "deal with" will include:

- children running behind the car
- sensor damage and obstruction
- objects it's navigating by (other cars) moving
- uneven surfaces - potholes
- Sensor confusing "obstacles", gates, cliffs
- Mechanical failure - bad clutch, brakes etc.

These are things the developers are going to have to deal with and will have to convince regulatrory bodies that they've got an answer.

A simpler solution to self parking

[Inflatable Hippo]

(And I'd be amazed if nobody has tried this).

No computers or fancy algorithms.

Fit a car with 4 small wheels that extend on hydraulics until the main wheels are clear of the ground. These wheels would be mounted at 90 degrees to the main wheels alowing true sideways movement.

Park NEXT to your space and deploy the "parking wheels".

Electric motors in the wheels gently move you in sideways and stops when you hit the sidewalk (pavement if you're from the U.K. like me).

In fact you could leave the car jacked up like this to make it easier to get in and out for the infirm.

It would also make wheel changing and inspections far easier.

Obviously this is going to take up room in/under the car but lets face it, some of these SUVs have plenty to spare.

But remember - don't park next to a cliff and nudge the park button with your elbow by accident...

Re:A simpler solution to self parking

[DirkDaring]

Been done long ago, posted on /. even.

So it doesn't REALLY park itself

[SamDrake]

The video was very enlightening. YOU pick where the car should wind up, using a GUI on the dash. YOU press "OK" after a full screen of legalese pops up. THEN the car goes where you told it to go, very slowly.

Waiting for a hacked version

[milosoftware]

So I'm waiting for some dude to hack it and have the car follow you (or any target of choice) around like a puppy, or just drive it with a PDA, wristwatch or whatever . . . 007 eat your heart out :-)

Who's fscking price range???

[hesiod]

> [previous technology] would put picture phones out of most people's price range.

As opposed to current phone cameras, which are found in cereal boxes. WTF!?!?!? These things are ALREADY out of most people's price range. Journalists often seem to think that everyone makes $50,000+ a year, like them.

What I really need

[Hoi Polloi]

Here in Boston I don't need a cark that can park itself, I need a frigg'n parking space!

Localized version

[Metroid72]

I wonder if they're going to release localized versions of this system. Not because of the Right Side/Left Side thing, but because in places like New York, you have to push the front and back vehicles to get out of the parking spot. Especially during the winter.

Re:I won't give up Stick!

[einstein]

where did you order it? I haven't been able to find a dealer in PA or MD willing to take an order from me yet!

oh please

[jav1231]

Great. Take an under-powered hybrid and drop a feature into it that prices it on par with a "normal" car and see who buys it. No one. Then again, why am I worried. Like Linux PDA's, this car won't even be imported. JAV

Re:I won't give up Stick!

[HTMLSpinnr]

Dianne Whitmire, Internet Fleet Manager with Carson Toyota in SoCal. I'm actually part of Toyota's Pioneer Preorder program. Toyota had a special marketing campaign for 18,000 "Prius Pioneers" who ordered their 2001 or 2002 Prius through the Internet the first time around. These 18,000 or so customers got a special letter offering them the first chance to purchase a 2004 with specific options, again over the internet. Even w/o self parking, I couldn't resist.

Dianne's got over 17% of the orders within the LA/Southern California region (a pretty large cut in this area considering the number of Toyota dealers). She's got people flying/driving in as far as 1800 miles (Texas and Washington) to buy from her. Carson is closest to the Long Beach port (they get the cars first), and this dealer does ALOT of Prius volume.

Good luck in your search. The cars won't be here in the States till at least 10/15/2003 as production started 8/27/2003. First cars will be dealer demos and pioneer preorder fulfillments. Dealers stock will probably arrive after all of the preorders have been fulfilled.

Come on over to the 2004-Prius Yahoo! Group to learn more. Some of the people in this group have really good dealer recommendations. Some dealers know nothing of the new car, some know alot and already have orders lined up.

Good luck!

URL Correction

[HTMLSpinnr]

That's 2004-Prius Yahoo! Group. Damned copy/paste...

But what happens if the car backs into something..

[JasonBigham]

... or someone? Sue the owner, the carmaker, or??? This is one of those times where the laws have to keep up with the innovations.

Found the secret

[Syberghost]

According to this version, it uses "censors". So that's the secret; some government official follows you around and parks the car for you!

That's all well and good...

[mark-t]

But what happens when the car in front or behind you leaves while you're parked and some other nimrod pulls in, leaving you insufficient room to get out with the same ease that you pulled in. Can they automate pulling out of a tighter squeeze than the one you pulled in to? I doubt it.

HELP call road side assistance

[redog]

My car keeps rebooting?

40 years old

[cryptogryphon]

A British engineer, Archie Butterworth, invented just such a device, known as the Sidler decades ago. He fitted the working prototype to a Jaguar, no less.

This just in:

[geekoid]

Not only does NanoGator not have a sense of humor, he has no ability whatsoever to detect other people using humor.
You have been warned.

Re:This just in:

[Anonvmous Coward]

The original post was modded as insightful when he responded to that. Even if the joke was patently obvious, his response still earned him a +5, so it's not like he flew off the handle.

As for NG not having a sense of humor, there is evidence to the contrary. He constantly gets modded up funny.

Kindly fuck off.

OTOH

[geekoid]

you could have the system notify the other vehicals it wants in, and the other vehicals would create a gap. thus removing the asshole that just can'y bring himself to let you in front of him...even if he is about to get off the freeway.
This would be a boon to lane changes as well.

Get!!!

[geekoid]

I made one for my girlfriend, who I will also be building.

Re:But what happens if the car backs into somethin

[geekoid]

traditionally, vehical maintianance is the responsibility of the vehical owner. so If you car is npt functioning properly, then it is your fault. Now if you prove it was a software glitch, that owuld be the manufacturer fault.

Self Merging Cars?

[Cappy Red]

I have been watching waaaay too much anime recently.

*honks*

Re:Magnets are old school, look out for WAAS and L

[Charcharodon]

You've obviously never been to a major city such as LA or St Louis during heavy traffic. 1/2m is plenty good enough for highway travel, better than what most humman drivers can do.

Re:I won't give up Stick!

[Rick the Red]

"CVT transmission" is redundant. CVT == Continuously Variable Transmission. And GM sells at least one, in the Saturn VUE.

Re:I won't give up Stick!

[aashenfe]

Are you saying I'm redundant, I repeat myself, I say things over and over?

I guess I didn't search the internet long enough to find the Saturn. How long has it had a CVT?

Re:I won't give up Stick!

[Rick the Red]

I'm not sure, but I think the Vue had an optional CVT from day one, or at least from soon after launch. I drove one and it's reeeal smooooth. Too bad it's not available in the V6 4x4, but CVT's have always suffered from low torque capacity.