Slashdot Mirror
Radar For Safer Driving
KarmaOverDogma writes "The New York Times reports that in the next few years, auto manufacturers may look to use low powered phased-array radar in the back of cars, in combination with enhanced mirror displays, to help reduce accidents related to so-called 'blind-spots.' The system currently under devlopment is a result of a partnership between Valeo, an auto parts supplier, and Raytheon, a military contractor. They note that according to data from the NHTSA, In the last 10 years such (blind-spot) accidents led to 1.5 million injuries and caused more than $360 billion in damage in the United States alone. With an expected cost of around $500.00 (depending on the configuration), will this low-power radar system from the 1970's really help make driving safer?"
A slightly longer version of the article can be found here: http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/techscience/story /0,4386,233212,00.html
And here is the NYT Text for those of us who value privacy online:
Radar Brings Vision to Cars' Blind Spots By TIM MORAN
Published: February 2, 2004
Valeo Raytheon Systems A radar system that scans adjacent lanes and flashes a warning icon in the rearview mirror could reduce lane-change collisions. PHASED-ARRAY radar, a technology used by the military to guide missiles to their targets, is about to take on a civilian mission: alerting drivers to the presence of vehicles in the cars' "blind spots."
Miniaturized and drawing a small fraction of the power required to track targets like supersonic fighter jets, the automotive radar systems are designed to detect vehicles lurking in areas blocked from the driver's view. These so-called blind spots can be a result of improperly positioned rearview mirrors, structural necessities like the pillars that support the car's roof, or a cargo load that blocks the driver's line of sight.
Drivers often compensate for blind spots by turning their heads to glance out the side window. But there is a drawback to doing this when changing lanes or merging into the flow of freeway traffic - the driver's eyes and attention are diverted from the road ahead. And older drivers may have difficulty twisting to catch that quick glimpse.
Systems that electronically patrol the space around a vehicle are already available on some new models. Employing sonar, laser or radar technology, the devices detect unseen objects very close to the car or operate an advanced cruise control that maintains a set distance from the cars ahead, rather than simply enforcing a predetermined limit on vehicle speed.
The newly developed blind spot monitoring system, which required scaling down the military-type phased-array radar units to fit automobiles, could be in showrooms within a few years. Like the latest Doppler radar that tracks approaching storms, phased-array systems can determine the distance and closing rate of an approaching vehicle, and also add the capability to track its path continuously. The system was developed jointly by Valeo, an auto parts supplier, and Raytheon, a military contractor.
W. Scott Pyles, a business development manager at Valeo Raytheon Systems, the companies' joint venture, said his company's analysis of National Highway Transportation Safety Administration data indicated that some 300 people a year died in accidents caused by side-to-side collisions. In the last 10 years, such accidents led to 1.5 million injuries and caused more than $360 billion in damage, according to the data.
While that may be a small fraction of the 42,815 deaths reported in 2002, it is a fraction that has been mostly ignored - and one that could be reduced, Mr. Pyles said.
"All of the efforts have gone into solving the damage that occurs when a side impact happens, such as air bags, but nobody has done much to stop them from happening in the first place," he said.
Phased-array radar is an ideal foundation on which to build an early-warning system, as it is able to collect data rapidly and to track moving objects. With styling trends shifting toward higher beltlines - the lower edge of door windows seems to rise with every new design study unveiled on the auto show circuit, encroaching on the driver's view - the need for blind-spot detection devices would seem to be increasing.
Traditional radar systems broadcast high-frequency electromagnetic waves, determining the distance to an object's location by analyzing the echo reflected from the target. Rotating antennas, a common sight around airports, sweep the radar beam around the horizon to develop a 360-degree view, but the picture is updated only when an antenna completes another full revolution. Doppl
How many roads must a man walk down? 42.
Or you could just check your mirrors and then look over your shoulder before changing lanes like they teach you to do in freakin driver's ed!
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
Don't we already have proximity sensors for that purpose?
I watch to much Star Trek. When I first read the blurb I thought it said "low power phaser array" and I thought "Man I gotta get me one of those."
It would really come in handy during rush hour though.
Chaos reigns within.
Reflect, repent, and reboot.
Order shall return.
Only if it jams cell phones in the process...
a millisecond before someone rear ends you!
If that'll help with anything is another matter.
I doubt this will fix the issue of drivers with a 360 degree blind spot...
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
I was driving a while back, I have a little area above the mirror to set stuff in, I put my sunglasses up there and noticed that with the convex shape of the glasses, I was able to see all around the back of the car, now granted that distances were obscured b/c of the odd shape, but what about a convex rear-view mirror, which would allow for greater visibility? Simple solution, no fancy electronics.
Yes, it will make it safer. Having a full power circular radar that locks and tracks all moving objects within 200 yd would make it safer still.
We have multiple technologies such as this that will make driving a car much safer... the most important thing is making them cheap enough to be affordable and practical on vehicles.
Davak
... so the US-only percentage is probably disproportionately bigger than it should be; in the rest of the world cars have small and narrow blind spots and you can usually see behind the vehicle just fine.
...Seeing as using headlights and turn signals are apparently optional in the State of Washington. Sorry to troll, but as an East-coast transplant here in rain city, I've been meaning to get that off my chest for a while.
In Soviet Russia, all our base are belong to you!
For this to help in any big way, it needs to come preinstalled in new cars. Even then, since, most people that have already bought/own cars may not be willing to get this extra feature, no matter how helpful it may be (see Navigation Systems), I wonder how many lives it will really save.
huh ?
.us really stuck in the 1950's ?
We've had rear radars in cars for years.
Is
How many additional accidents will be caused by the extra stimuli caused by these systems? I see this to be as distracting as cell phones.
This reminds me of a previous story where they said something along the lines of, "Now drivers no longer have to worry about blind spots, and can concentrate on driving"... It was in regards to some detection system built into the light poles along side highways.
At what point does the driver get away with, well the beeper didn't sound, so I assumed there was no one beside me... I'm upset at how little people bother to actually pay attention when driving, and relying on some device to warn you if your manuever could potentially kill someone or be safe is just insane!
Maybe I'm old fashioned, and maybe it's the fact I ride a bike in traffic, but I'm sick and tired of people not paying attention while driving, and this is not going to help, it'll make them even lazier...
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Yes of course an elimination of blind spots will reduce accidents. As long as the "data" is presented in an intelligent and non-distracting way to the driver.
This won't eliminate this type of accident as a lot of people don't even look before changing lanes. Not much you can do about that...
Though if the radar senses a vehicle to the side of you and is displaying to you that there is a vehicle to the side of you, it may include that data in the black box which may be used against you and label you as inattentive or wreckless.
No. Nien. Nyet.
It's not that hard to take a quick peek over your shoulder before you turn your signal on and merge. Most drivers around here don't even bother with the turn signal. Adding technology will not make inherently unsafe drivers [or the drivers around them] more safe.
the system alerts the driver by lighting a warning icon on the outside rearview mirror for that side of the vehicle.
I dunno. I actually think a lot of accidents are caused by lack of focus resulting in twisting and turning around too. Folks focused on the guy behind them not seeing that the car before them has its breaks on.
I've always been of the mind that a HUD is the way to go: not only for this collision information, but for things usually hidden behind the steering wheel (tac, speed, fuel). I think the integration of radio controls into the steering wheel is a great step in keeping people focused where all the kinetic energy of the car is going.
And, really, do you need to look at a rearview mirror if you have an icon before you saying "clear to left"?
What is music when you despise all sound?
I just wish people would use their goddamned side and rearview mirrors PROPERLY. If you set 'em up right, there ARE NO blindspots.
American drivers, as a rule, suck. One more reason I want to live in germany.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
if one of the things they taught in driving school was how to adjust your side mirrors properly.
Most people have their side mirrors adjusted so as to point back down the side of the vehicle, which is not very useful. If you adjust them to point into the next lane over, you can completely eliminate the blind spot. A good way to set this up is to put your head against the side window and adjust the left mirror so that the side of the car is just barely visible, then align your head with the centerline of the car and do the same with the right mirror. With a little tweaking, you should be able to track passing cars on either side from the inside mirror to the side mirror to the side window without ever losing sight of them.
How does the radar get your attention when it detects something?
A noise? How will I hear that over my radio? Think how the clicking of a turn signal can go unnoticed for miles.
A visual cue on the dash? But my head is turned looking for traffic, I won't see it. Again remember the blinking light of a turn signal.
Will this cause people to not look before changing lanes, etc? Will they become completly reliant on the technology? Is that neccesarily a bad thing?
One thing though, at $500 it's much cheaper than that rear looking camera that some new luxury cars have. And for those cameras to work you have to be looking at the little screen not behind you, or in front of you, or out the side window. Doesn't seem to help the situation there.
Devil Ducky
MY peers would get out of jury duty.
At $500/car it is not really worth it. 1.3 billion cars are sold ever year in the US. In one year it would cost more than all the damage in the last 10 years.
now i can just flip on my new phased array radar and sterilize bad drivers!! i cant wait.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
here.
--
Slashdot: Racism against Indians OK. China bad, USA good. Blue pill in water supply.
Perhaps the effort would be better spend on:
1) Proper driver education - skills and attitude
2) Proper enforcement of driving laws
3) Banning repeat offenders from driving - with jail for recalictrant people.
Bottom line - quite a few people lack the necessary motor skills, intelligence, and attitude to be allowed on the road.
What would make driving safer would be to require better qualifications and a different license class for 5'1" women to drive 12,000 pound, 20-foot trucks in parking lots designed for sedans and hatchbacks.
What would make driving safer would be to require better qualifications and a different license class for 5'1" women to drive trucks with 400 horsepower engines which are utilized primarily to travel the two blocks from the bank to the grocery store at 75MPH, tailgating everyone else on the road all the way.
That would be a start. Yeah, the radar might help too, but then again, perhaps there wouldn't be a ten-yard wide blind spot if a) the windows weren't five feet off the ground and b) if a more sensible vehicle size could be offered, like say, five tons instead of six.
Just a thought.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
I don't understand why the "turn-head-and-look" technique of checking blind spots is so much effort these days...
I think a device like this would be much more useful in larger vehicles (trucks, busses, etc). Of course, every hoity-toity SUV manufacturer on the face of the planet will be offering it to Jane Soccermom and Joe Businessman. ugh.
One more thing to distract people who already don't know how to drive... If the crash statistics go down, it won't be by much.
The sticker found on convex mirrors. Many vehicles got rid of these on the drivers side mirror, leaving them on the passengers ... I wonder why?
Trucks have BOTH, but the convex mirror is noticeably smaller. I personally can not live without such mirror on longer trucks, ESPECIALLY for reverse parking.
Now, if they could set it up to be active only under certain situations, that would be good. I'd say, for starters, that it should be active whenever:
- You're in reverse
- You have your turn signal on
- You start to turn more than lane-centering at 30mph or more
- You're slower than 30mph
But I'd be pretty annoyed at seeing lights flick on and off during normal highway driving. Maybe make it switchable - always/sometimes/never - as well.You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Or just other cars?
It amazes me every day the kind of shit drivers pull. Driving tests are little more than go-around-the-block, thank you ma'am. It should be expensive and difficult to get a drivers license.
Education, defensive driving, and plain watching what you're doing should be the rule, not more distracting gadgets in the car.
y
In Japan, the side mirrors on not mounted by the doors, but by the headlights. This change of angle gets rid of the blindspot. Is it ugly? A little, but it works well.
I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress -J Adams
...and tied into the speedometer. I'd love something that made an alert tone when the car got too close to the vehicle in front (distance determined by speed, of course). Folks over here drive too close to each other at 80mph, it's no wonder that we have so many fender-benders in the fast lane of I-95.
Oh, no... now my radar detector will go nuts all the time! I'll never know when dat copper's commin...
X, K, Ka... it will cause my V1 to go nuts.. and if it interferes with police radar guns it might prompt then to switch to Lidar guns that much quicker... and you typically don't get enough warning because of the narrow beam.
How is this informative? This product's been available for ages at little dollar stores and stuff... What's next, he'll want a concave side mirror?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
In many countries it's illegal to hold a phone while driving, but some studies suggest even hands-free systems are distracting enough to be a hazard.
Does it come with a heads-up display and say "Enemy drivers detected. Eliminate [Yes]/[No]? [Yes] "
The other cars around me (in particular those in my blind spots) should be "visualized" via synthetic 3D noises (with configurable annoyance level) over the car stereo.
-Max
If you're not lining up the inner edge of your drivers side mirror with the outer left edge of your inside center mirror, you're going to miss a lot of things... but if you do, there is no blind spot, no surprises, and life is good.
--Mike--
Try this site: Adjusting Your Mirrors Correctly
CMDRTACO CHECK YOUR EMAIL!
when they could just make the body out of tranparent aluminum?
I don't really know as that this will make driving that much safer. If my radar detector is going nuts 24/7, then I very much doubt that I would feel all that safe about speeding. And if I turn it off completely, then that would increase the danger of getting a ticket even more. What's a guy to do?
From the article:
"It would be like trying to get a suntan from a light-emitting diode," Mr. Remboski said. "It's just not going to happen."
Now they tell me! Well at least now I know that adding those few hundred more LED's to my tanning panel wont help at all.
Or you could use the Corbomite Maneuver to encourage other drivers to give you space, but eventually they catch on.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
This is another way the government packs more expensive, non-optional features into products to demonstrate that there is no inflation.
I used to be an 'expert' at radar (Elint, DSD many years ago) - The only way this would be successful is if the radar system presents its small picture of the world to all other cars nearby. (I glossed over the article - maybe it does) Like aircraft transponder based collision avoidance.
What good is a radar when you have a car screaming up your rear end at 200 kilometres per hour anyway...
Radar Secret Service springs into action!
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Wait for the first person you see use a turn signal.
Even odds the vehicle doesn't have Kentucky plates.
[I'm originally from the DC area -- I lived in Lexington, KY for a couple of years. When I first got there, I was driving with some co-workers in my car, and I looked over my shoulder before changing lanes -- they asked me why I did that. I told them I was checking my blind spot. One of them asked me why I would have to do that.]
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Test have shown that people with mounted CIWS guns on their cars have less accidents than other people. with the new threat of HUMMERS and SUVS on the road the DOT is considering it mandatory to mount radar guided CIWS guns on fuel efficient and ecologically friendly cars.
the automatically track and destroy SUV package is optional though
Maybe if we taught people how to drive instead of handing out licenses like candy, we wouldn't need all these idiot sensors which drive up the cost of a car. In my dads day, a kid could work all summer, save up, and buy a good car, pink slip and all. Nowadays an econobox car is 8 to 12 months salary at a full time job, in spite of cheaper manufacturing techniques.
Back in the 70's (IIRC) there was a big stink about whether or not the US could deploy phased-array radar (PAR) to track incoming ICBMs from the USSR. There were all kinds of radar then, but the phased-array kind was considered destabilizing at a time when MAD was still the dominant military paradym. That is because PAR could accurately track thousands of targets, giving the targeted country an advantage that might cause them to actually strike first in the assumption that they could track and take out the retaliatory counter-strike.
My oh my, but things were spooky back then. A good defense was considered a military advantage and harbinger of doom.
I guess the Cold War really is over. Now you can have PAR in the back on your Beemer to track incoming Hondas. OK, so maybe this is still about first-strike initiatives and counter-attack defense. I won't be worried until the Beemers and H2s start to carry surface-to-surface missles.
On a side note, "radar" used to be "RADAR" and was an acronym for something like "Radio Detection and Ranging". Funny how we co-opt technical terms and acronyms into the vernacular.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
I am completely withing my 2nd amendment rights to have bumper-mounted particle emitting arrays which exploit PHASed Energy Rectification. Driving safely means driving defensively, and a good offense is surely the best defense.
Stop asking if we can, Start asking if we should.
--Mike--
Yeah, but they won't.
As a motorcycle rider, I'd welcome anything that clues lazy drivers in to my whereabouts (if the raging engine and the bright light isn't enough of a hint).
Some stupid fucks refuse to acknowledge my existence when I'm right beside the driver's window.. they need all the help they can get.
Opportunity knocks. Karma hunts you down.
I always thought this technology would be great. But forget about displaying a warning on the rear-view mirror. It would be cool if it was hooked up to a HUD on the front windshield. So if someone is next to you, that side of your front windshield (only an inch or two) would be tinted/glowing red (transparent of course).
Sure, it helps when changing lanes, but also when a ladder falls off of the truck in front of you and you have to make a spit second decision (no time to look up at your review) you can just turn away from the 'red'.
And if both sides are read, just hit the brakes and hope for the best...
any auto parts store, hell even walmart or target, will sell little convex mirrors with adhesive on the back to stick on your mirrors. I have one and it works great, no blind spot... Once you get used to it you don't even have to turn your head to change lanes. Radar my ass....
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
"American drivers, as a rule, suck. One more reason I want to live in germany."
:/
Yes and no. As an American I'm VERY concerned with how many people drive around me. I've been in two accidents in the last 15 years because someone didn't bother to turn their head and realize I was in the next lane beside them. I on the other hand did notice a number of rather nasty accidents driving down the autobahn in Germany. Problem with this is the guy who lost was part of the pavement for about 2 miles
I nearly lost my lunch after witnessing that! As a result I'm a much more careful and courteous driver. I always tell people to slow down. It's your life and mine.
I for one would be highly receptive to a HUD as some have mentioned here. Include that with this radar solution. If it reduces the accident rate by any amount then I would say it was worth it!
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
Will this replace the cell jammer under my spare and the HERF gun in my trunk? I meant it didn't really say whether it would disable SUVs and Minivans that block the passing lane?
MN, home of the worst drivers in the union.
when i get in my car tonight i'm just gonna shove it in gear and let it go. when i caused a major accident i'm just gonna say i read an article online that my car would drive itself to where i wanted to go so i told it i wanted to go "home"
you forgot all the Indians' Corollas too......
Before Allstate lowers Wil Wheaton's insurance rates, let me remind them that proximity detectors didn't help him avoid a catastrophe before and there's no reason to suspect he would be any safer now.
I wonder if you can pull off a Kolvoord Starburst Maneuver with a small fleet of Buick Centuries?
The other 50% of the time, it's the driver in another car who should be looking over his shoulder, and you have no way of compelling him to drive responsibly.
And in fact, if this is designed correctly (which I'm skeptical about: for one thing the little light should be on when it's safe to merge rather than off, so you aren't lured into a false sense of security if it burns out) it could be helpful for responsible drivers, too. I know I certainly hate turning my head to look backwards while I'm driving forwards at 65mph. A system that tracked relative speeds could be better than my eyes in other ways, too; more than once I've had to swerve to avoid an accident because someone two lanes over decided they wanted to change lanes in my direction at the same time I tried to change lanes in theirs, and a quick glance to the side wasn't enough to tell that they had started moving towards me.
With their radar emissions I'll finally be able to take out obnoxious drivers using my handy-dandy roof rack mounted HARM missiles.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
RTFA:
will this low-power radar system from the 1970's really help make driving safer?
Phased arrays are still state of the art for military radar targeting systems. They are unbelievably complicated systems when designed for highspeed target tracking and I'm sure whatever was used in the 70's doesn't even compare to what is used today. While modern naval warfare systems are not going to be employed in a car, I really doubt the tech implemented will totally lack the advances made since in the last >3 decades. This will be a damn cool gadget from a pure geek perspective.
Like most tools, the effectiveness will depend on the user. Side view mirrors are highly effective, but in my experience most drivers have no idea how to use them correctly (using them to view the side of their vehicle rather than expanding the rear view provided by the center mirror).
will be one with a full "autopilot" with a big machette to chop your hands off if you try to touch anything.
What?
Inside mirror? oh, that thing pointing at back window. Too bad I drive a work truck with a solid topper. There is no way to adjust the inside mirror so I can see anything, sheet metal is good for keeping tools in, but not very good for letting me see.
Overall I agree, when you have 3 mirrors in a standard car. Don't assume that a standard car is everyone. A lot of drivers cannot use that inside center mirror.
That works out to about $35,000,000 for each life
saved, if you figure about 25 million cars sold
per year. Seems kind of steep.
To put it another way, you could take the
500 * 25000000 = 12 billion dollars per year
that this would cost and save a whole bunch more
than 300 people.
There wouldn't be a need for side scanning radar if the automakers would stop building bigger and bigger vehicles!!
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
Noise? No...
Lights? No...
Electric shock?
Now we're talking...
Passenger: "Dude you need to be in the left lane"
Driver: "Ok, let me just..."
*BZZZNYRRRGHT*
Driver (panting after extreme electrical shock): "Ok, maybe it isn't clear over there just yet..."
Ok, and one more question... if you have this system, is that damn light going to be constantly on if you are in the right lane of a street where they allow curbside parking? That would be enough to get me to remove the bulb from the indicator.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
veQDuj'oH Dujllj'e' pujwI' HIvlu'chugh quvbe'lu'
Between all the cell phones, wireless networks, remote controls, microwaves, Ghz phones, wireless mice and keyboards and now rader on cars, my sperm doesn't even stand a chance. Poor guys =(
To make a pun demonstrates the highest understanding of a language
See, I used the mentality that if I go fast enough, I'll always be passing someone, and never have to worry about someone passing me, thus no need to worry about a blind spot...Hell, no need to worry about the rear-view mirror either...
One day, I glanced in my rear-view mirror, and there were some flashing lights... I now no longer have a license, or a car... but hey, at least I was a safe driver (although the judge disagreed, hence the lack of driving privelages)... What's wrong with going 215 in a 100 zone? I don't get it...
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Currently the rules of evidence that work with radar deal with the scarcity of other radar signals and reflections. If we start putting radars on a large number of vehicles thereby reducing scarcity, how will this effect the rules of evidence that allows radar speed detection to be used?
Two months ago I was driving hom in sticky snow, and needed to merge. Looked over my shoulder, and discovered that the snow was sticky enough that I couldn't see anything to the right side of my car! Ended up signaling for a short time, and moving, only to have a horn honk (guess he didn't belive my signal, but that is another story). Luckely I got over safely, but I dont' know how, I couldn't see anything. (Though I was going slow enough that an accident wouldn't have been deadly, it wasn't safe to drive fast)
Sure in an ideal world I would have clean windows, but we dont' have wipers for side windows in cars yet, even rear wipers are rare. Anything that helps me not get into trouble when I can't see is good. So long as it doesn't get people over confident in their ability to stay on the road when things are bad.
Can I tie this into something to get those darn tail-gaters of my ass?
If you watch motorcyclists, they perform a shoulder check, a quick glance over their shoulder to check their blind spot before they make a maneuver. It's called a lifesaver because that's exactly what it does. It's saved my life several times.
Most car drivers on the other hand are lazy, blind, incompetent morons who are safe in the knowledge that they have 2 tonnes of steel safety cage surrounding them, being completely safe they don't need to check their blind spots, too much like hard work. Radar will only increase the *impression* of safety and will otherwise be utterly irrelevant.
What's needed are 5 year re-testable licenses like those the HGV drivers have to pass every few years.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
The article is talking about the side rear view mirrors, not the center rear view mirror. To quote the article: " the system alerts the driver by lighting a warning icon on the outside rearview mirror for that side of the vehicle."
Why side rear view mirrors? Because where are you going to look if you think a car might be to the left or to the right? Side mirrors.
// harborpirate
// Slashbots off the starboard bow!
what i see as the problem is that there are so many people out there that shouldnt be driving.
/rant
I was recently helping out a foreign friend of mine took a sample drivers test, in the sample test he answered that if there is a emergency vehicle stopped on the side of the road, that you should speed up and pass the stopped emergency vehicle. i told him simply that he needed to study more, but instead he took the driving test and passed. low and behold a few months later, he got into a terrible accident with an SUV and his honda was turned into a crumpled pop can. why do we let people like this drive?!?!
another thing is that there are alot of old people out there. this doesnt mean that they shouldnt drive, but i dont when someone cant safely operate a pair of scizzors, they shouldnt be driving. but for some reason they still do. lots of people complain that old people drive slow, but im really glad that they do. the last thing i want to happen is to have my grandfather in 2 tons of spinning, twirling, moving metal which is moving faster than a baseball at the world series.
there is also a matter of SUV syndrome. honestly people, i mean you, yes you, you know who you are. your the person who buys the expensive hummer 2. maybe you bought this just in case someday when "the big one" comes you might need to pop your SUV into 4 wheel drive, and monster truck your way past the rest of us. SUV's are probably the second most cause for deaths on the road these days(second to drunk drivers). the problem is that lots of people get too agressive with these things, thinking that they are tough, rugged, and hella cool. but in reality they are over modified vans, that will roll over faster than a politician on tax day. and when a SUV crashed head on, there is damage to be done. when an SUV crashed into a passenger car, what tends to happen is that the suv will ride over the front, and the bumoer will find itself in the windshield. i myself have actually SEEN someone crippled from an accident like this, as i was walking on the sidewalk. fortunatly, there was an registered nurse around, and she kept the lady alive, but she was by no means fortunate. and for what?? 15 mpg, some mudflaps, and being able to be called king of the road.
ahh nothing like a good rant to vent all the nasty anger away. now im going to get into my volvo cross country, put on my helmet, knee pads, elbow pads, pillows. because frankly you people scare me.
Stop making things so simple
how about people just stop being so incredibly, painfully stupid? it isn't that bloody difficult to keep an eye on your mirrors, that way you KNOW when there is someone on your blind spot. And if you can't handle that - turn your head to check, just to make sure.
And failing all that, why not STOP BUYING SUCH HUGE SUVs? Buy a regular-sized car, such as a Fiesta or something.
god.
The Mini Repository - more links
Greyhound buses have used forward-looking X-band radar on long-haul routes for many years. If an object in front of the moving bus changes its acceleration too rapidly and begins closing the distance, the system automatically triggers the brakes, reacting faster than a human driver could and potentially avoiding a collision.
If we're going to use the system to check for blind spots, add another transceiver assembly up front, use the same cpu, tie in the brakes, and give the driver a few extra milliseconds to avoid hitting something -- milliseconds will translate to feet in stopping distance.
Anything that can reduce the number of crashes and injuries would be worthwhile; the extra hardware costs could be subsidized over the vehicle's lifetime by lower insurance premiums and fewer repairs / medical bills.
-mj
The problem is the defensive drivers out there. You can't have a good defense without a good offense. That's where I come in.
Stay tuned for new sig...
"Wink Mirrors"
:-)
l et /ProductDisplay?storeId=10101&AID=10273849&product Id=4653&TID=101&catalogId=10101&langId=-1&PID=1412 752
Car I drove growing up came w/ one from the privious owner.. Drivers exam guy hated it, said it may be illegal (WTF?), but damn did it work nice.. Now I can't stand driving cars w/o one
http://www.jcwhitney.com/webapp/wcs/stores/serv
However, I don't think that simply adjusting our side mirrors or installing a warning signal light is going to lessen accidents that much. After all, the driver has to be paying attention to the mirror or light before it becomes effective. A brief study of today's drivers show that many of them pay almost no attention to their total driving environment. At best, they seem to simply stare out the windshield and ignore everything else (dashboard, mirrors, etc.).
There was a study not very long ago that tracked driver's eye movements -- what they looked at and when. They compared the movements of sober and drunk drivers and came to an interesting conclusion: Drunks stared at the road and never looked around. They couldn't afford to pay attention to their total driving environment due to their lack of focus. Bad sober drivers often suffer from the same mistake. And neither of those will particularly benefit from just One More Thing To Pay Attention To.
Anyway, I don't see how this device will help much, I don't think that it is people not being able to see the blind spot, instead I think it is people being lazy and not looking and using a turn signal in the first place.
My solution is to hire more cops to just patrol the roads. There only job is to look for speeders and for people driving recklessly; like not using a turn signal and cutting people off and switching lanes like an idiot. Slapping these fools with a few tickets in one year with each ticket around $500 or so should smarten most of them up. If you get three moving violations in a one year period, you loose your license for 3 months. The second time you loose your license for 6 months, etc.
The worst offenders I see everyday during my 30 mile commute to work are women in their big SUVs taking their brats to school. Maybe we could build two highways, one for women and one for men : ) Or we could have two highways, one has no cops and no speed limit. The other has cops patrolling up and down the road and aggressively giving out tickets to any offender. This way the idiot drivers can choose the road with no rules and kill themselves while fathers like me can drive their wife and kids in safety.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
For being a sexist tool? Maybe if you were making the case for better driver education requirements for everyone, but you didn't. Or license class requirements for excessive vehicle weight or engine power for everyone, but apparently in your world only women need those restrictions.
In New York state they're considering a bill to reclass large SUVs so that you'd have to stick to marked truck routes whenever possible or be fined, which is a more reasonable idea IMHO.
I am still trying to figure out how this will help my blind dog named Spot drive safer. Dammed pooch keeps causing my insurance premiums to increase!
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
For example, my family's new Saab convertible has a radar system off the rear bumper to help with parallel parking. You still have to look over your shoulder when backing in to a spot, but the audio cues are quite helpful.
I think this system could work the same way. There's no substitute for safe driving habits - but new tools to complement them are always welcome. And if it stops someone from changing lanes without signalling and crashing right into the sedan in their blind spot, then its worth it, even if it doesn't improve peoples' driving.
--------------------- -me, Crusher of those who are Foolish (don't be foolish)
Will the insurance companies give you a break in your premiums if you have it on your car? That's one of the easiest ways to see if things are really as good as they seem. Take your agent on a tour of your house for an estimate. The good ones will tell you what things you need to change and how much that could benefit your policy when you call them to return on a followup.
Making something legal|illegal is the silly approach. People are going to do what they are going to do. Look at helmets on motorcycles and seatbelts in cars: The way to fix those problems is to encourage the insurance companies to add a little clause to everyone's insurance: "No coverage for accidents involving missing helmets, seatbelts, etc." That keeps the cops doing things more important than watching for seatbelts and provides people with the freedom (of choice) they always squawk about. (it also introduces natural selection)
How about... Putting the radar in the FRONT of the car, have a really annoying siren that goes off when the car is going over 50 MPH, and within 3 feet of someone else's rear bumper. The siren would be accompanied by a cell phone jamming signal, and the TV and radio would automatically go off as well. Additionally for the larger cars, a bulkhead would go up between the driver and the rear seats.
This contraption would be mandatory for all trucks, SUVs, souped-up Japanese compacts, and Volvos.
That would cause accidents to drop by about 90% in my estimation.
And if both sides are read, just hit the brakes and hope for the best...
And obviously, 'read' should be 'red'. 'read' is what I should have done to this post before submitting. Ugh.
Rearview mirror - standard.
Radar doohickey and HUD - thousand dollar option (or mandatory $1000 price hike on the car)
For crying out loud, it is cool technology, but we don't need it in our passenger cars. Now you want to equip semis and big trucks with it, that might be cool. But those guys don't seem to care who is in their way anyway.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
This will not make one dang bit of difference.
Frankly the arrogance of "cagers" I encounter day-to-day while riding my motorcycle around town leads me to believe that even IF their spiffy little radar system sees me that they will just lumber their 60,000 dollar 6 ton vehicle right on over anyway.
It is the law of gross tonnage and it's how many motorists seem to play the game. There is more than one 4 wheeled vehicle wearing a nice dent in the sidepanels around here from when they thought they could just bully me around and I don't see this system changing that attitude.
Generally, it has been shown that even while a person is visiually occupied (looking and focusing at the road ahead), their sense of direction a sound came from is left unobstructed.
If this radar system could be projected as 3d sound (think Aureal's 3D sound system), then it may be a workable solution so that drivers can sense where obstructions are around them.
Safer?
What you and different "safety proponent" are saying is essentially "We can compensate better for the population's lack of skill and attention".
Tigers respect lions, elephants and hippos. Maggots respect no one. (C) S. Dovlatov
In the short term, this radar thing could reduce accidents. In the long term, making human-driven cars more expensive will decrease the cost difference of the fully robotic cars of the future.
Great progress has been made in car safety over the past 50 years, maintaining a pretty constant death rate of 50,000/year in the US despite a huge increase in number of miles driven. But this death tool is still way too high. My hope is for fully robotic cars. No tempers, no egos, just punch in your destination and talk on your cell phone until you get there.
If every vehicle is emitting a radar signal, police would no longer need to use an active system like radar. They could use a passive system that calculates your speed from your radar transmissions. Rather than you being able to detect their radar transmissions, they could just track yours.
So, what if some bonehead parks a stealth bomber in the middle of the road?
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Ah, correct you are. I just saw 'rear view' and instantly thought of the one in the middle of the windshield...
Either way, my point still applies. You may not have that one second to look at your side mirror before deciding which way to swerve. But if that information was already in your field of vision (almost subliminally), you could just react.
It wasn't that long ago that most vehicles had NO active help from the car for the actual act of driving. No anti-lock brakes, no stability control, no airbags, no heads-up-display, no backup sensors, no third brake lights, nothing. Now that we have this symphony of helpful features (a) is it really helping reduce accidents, injuries, and deaths on the road and (b) will more active driving aids help more.
I pose answers to my own questions.
In the first case, accident rates slowly declined in the 70's and early eighties, but have held steady since then. Most of the active safety features were only widely available starting in the mid-nineties and have had no measurable effect on accident rates or safety since then. In fact, other safety related measures were introduced in the US during that time, e.g. the 55mph speed limit, a reduction in the DUI blood alcohol threshold, and mandatory seatbelt laws. These seemed to have little effect also.
What's going on here? A fluffy magazine article explained it to me. People have a certain comfort level when it comes to perceived risk and danger. While individuals are somewhat poor at making mathematical judgements of accident risks and the personal danger to themselves, in the aggregate, people somewhat accurately adjust their driving behavior to be more aggressive and risky to "compensate" for the uncompfortably low level of risk when new safety features are implemented.
The second question is whether additional driving assistance from a new technology like 360 degree radar would actually improve safety. The answer is we'll never know because this feature will be introduced for profit reasons and its effect on safety will never be measured independently from other variables, especially the human risk evaluation variable.
About 10 years ago I remember a news story about how they were talking about sticking radar of some sort on the front of cars to force them to auto-brake. The idea was that the breaking would depend on your speed (relative to the object(s) in front of you) and the distance to the object(s). It would prevent tailgating and hopefully accidental re-endings. 10 years later....
I know they teach this in the BMW driving schools. At my first event, I remember seeing one guy adjusting his by having a buddy stand behind his car, and move from right to left. The guy in the driver's seat would adjust his mirrors so that when the guy behind appeared on the left edge of the rearview mirror, he also appeared on the right edge of the left side mirror. (and the opposite for the right side mirror)
When you are on the track, you don't have time to look over your shoulder. Some guys also have long, stair-step like mirrors as a rearview mirror, so they can see to the entire rear and side of the car at a glance.
BTW, performance driving schools are a friggin blast! And don't believe all the ancient "yuppie" talk you hear about BMW drivers, the guys who take them to driving schools, SCCA, and races are hardcore serious about it. And it isn't just crazy fun, they teach you how to properly handle the car, be safe about it. I took my 88 M3 to a driving school with a Porsche club, and there was little instruction and seemed much more dangerous. But there is nothing like passing a $90,000 911. :-)
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Well, what is wrong with being from the 70's? A lot of good technologies are from the 70's!
Heck, I'm from the 70's :))
- no sig.
I was recently at a Truck and bus confrence and the big thing touted by Volvo (I think) was their new driver assisting systems. The truck is outfitted with a whole array of sensers that keep track of vehicle location around the semi. I believe it would automatically check blind spots when the blinker was used (of course it assumed a responsible driver)
The system was also used to keep the driver in check by sounding a warning buzzer when the driver was following too close or taking a corner too fast. A system was developed that would take control of the throttle and force the truck to slow down in the above situations but it was totally rejected by test drivers (go fig).
None of the links provided have worked so far!
Screw you guys, I'm going home. (after Googleing "Wink Mirrors" that is)
I agree. My main concern when driving is not changing lanes at leisure, but being forced to by a deer, car accident, or certain debris on the road. In those conditions, you really can't look in mirrors, and you're likely to cause an accident that may be easily avoidable (if your instinct is to go left when right is what's clear...).
G
Agree on 1) and 3);
2) requires reworking alongside the German laws.
This is what nationally syndicated columnist Eric Peters thinks: Link
This is what I think: Link
Tigers respect lions, elephants and hippos. Maggots respect no one. (C) S. Dovlatov
In that light, I expect that in many cases, a system like this will simply cause drivers to pay less attention to the road around them, supposedly safe in the knowledge that the new-fangled system will keep them out of trouble. Which it might do in many cases; but all? And meanwhile, people are learning the lesson that safety is the car's responsibility, and not theirs...
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
http://www.motorists.org/ericpeters/skillvsspeed.h tml
Tigers respect lions, elephants and hippos. Maggots respect no one. (C) S. Dovlatov
I've always felt that when it comes to technology, it's how we use it that really counts.
This new (kinda-sorta - at least when it comes to automobiles for common domestic use) technology is the same way.
Bad drivers will remain bad drivers and will use this system as an excuse for futher poor driving (this assumes that they use it all all, or know that it is there - if they paid for it).
Good drivers (esp the tech savvy) will use this technology judiciously in situations where it may prove useful (i.e. along the lines that the manufacturers have) to make driving safer.
.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
You stupid SUV-driving braindead soccer mom!
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
Might not be perfect, but what harm can come from it? Seems inexpensive enough...
As "safer driving."
Only faster, more insane driving.
That's the way it always works. Make the lanes wider, and drivers speed up. Smooth out the hairpin curves, and drivers speed up. Install anti-lock brakes on most of the fleet, and drivers don't slow down for the rain any more. Put in better headlights, and drivers drive full-speed at night. People in general don't perceive driving as a dangerous activity (even though it's easily the most dangerous activity the average USian does on a regular basis) so they always go as fast as their comfort level - as opposed to their true safety level - allows.
And a traffic-following radar will just mean that the cell-phone using right-lane passer doing 85 in his Escalade won't feel obliged to lift his right foot ever again.
4 out of 5 of the motorcycles I see on the road are insane. Weaving in and out of traffic. 1 in 5 will drive down the dashed line if needed. It's not really a fair sample, since I drive in Austin and only a total idiot would ride a motorcycle in Austin. All my friends but one quit when they moved here. The one who didn't quit after his wreck. He now has a pin in his leg. I've ridden in his car with him (before). He was nuts.
1. Limit engine size on all road legal cars. No car needs more than a reasonable amount of power-to-weight for, at most, passing a slower moving vehicle at highway speeds.
2. Unifomly increase speed limits across the board where it can be done safely.
3. Tie all infractions to the income level of the offender. If Joe Shithead can afford that $5,000 turbo for his Honda Civic, he can afford a $5,000 fine for racing on public roads.
4. Make refresher driving courses mandatory for license renewal. Every 5 years each and every driver should be made to retake a driving test that tests the skills they will be expected to have in their particular environment (eg: winter driving skills in cold states, etc).
5. Increase gas taxes and provide tax incentives for people who take mass transit.
The most bestest solution seems to be remove the weakest link from the equation. Don't let people drive. Push the pentium a little harder, and at about 10x it's current strength you should have a beast that can drive better than I can. Maybe not better than a Nascar driver, but better than me. I'll happily let the car drive. Note that I'm not referring to a "Minority Report" style of driving. However, I do believe that 90%+ of my driving could be done better by a computer.
The preceding comment has been documented to contain no EPHI and is therefore certifiable as HIPPA compliant.
That seems low. Shouldn't it be a tad higher?
fine for cars .. but what about small cars and motorcycles???
..and provides a false sense of security.
sorry this is too dangerous
I've been doing this for 5 or so years and have never had a blind spot that would hide a car. Thats a lot cheaper solution than a $500 radar system.
However, I also agree with this posters point : I'm used to parking with my new mirror position, but my wife is not. How about adding $50 to the cost of the car to make mirrors automatically move inwards a little when the car is in reverse? Thats still a lot cheaper than $500. I believe some high end luxury cars already do this.
I have to laugh when I see the Expeditions with the enormous side mirrors sticking way out, with two mirrors to get different zones. If the mirror was properly adjusted, you wouldn't need all that extra stuff.
Will this thing help me detect a strange metal object ahead of me -- like a trooper's car in the bushes? I'll be prepared to "overclock" it a little to gain this functionality...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
In cities like Dallas, where average traffic speed on the freeway can be 75mph, looking over your shoulder can cost you dearly.
It's almost a given that when you turn your head to look over your shoulder, the car in front of you will brake. By the time you look back, you probably don't have time to stop. Turning your head, refocusing, etc., takes way too much time at speed on a busy freeway.
You're safer speeding up a bit and moving into an open spot (or creating one) in the next lane.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
I lived in DC in the early 90's. I don't care if they use turn signals or not. I avoided driving at all costs in that rude, crowded city. Only Philadelphia is worse.
better yet, angle the ones you already have. how many people keep duplicate and triplicate images in their mirrors? you can easily move your mirrors to that you don't see the same thing in the rear-view as you do on the sides. go here google cache of cartalk and use your brain befor you use your car
This isn't a dumb speed gun radar. It's a beam-steered phased array Doppler radar, reporting range, azimuth, and range rate on all the vehicles going by. Multiple vehicles show as multiple targets. There's a Visual Basic app that comes with the unit, if purchased in the R&D configuration with the serial port adapter. We run it under QNX, and have our own interface programs.
The Eaton VORAD (stock version) is on tens of thousands of heavy trucks. It's intended to keep trucks from rear-ending other vehicles, which it is reported to do quite well. In some configurations, it will initiate braking on its own.
The vehicle version also stores data for accident reconstruction. Unlike simple airbag recorders, this unit shows what the other vehicles were doing. ("And here's where the other car ran the stop sign.")
The VORAD technology is priced around $2000, which seems to be limiting adoption. But it's a reliable box with millions of miles on truck bumpers.
Not sure, but I think that this also refers to the blindspot beneath the rear trunk deck (or bottom door panel on station wagons etc...) where the driver can't see little Jimmy or little Jimmy's bicycle regardless of mirror positioning.
first off, please no anti-nascar rants. there is a LOT of technical engineering in racing, really.
The rear-view mirrors in nascar cars are special
extra-wide with angled segments that let you look
out the side windows and see much more of the rear
area than you can see with a smaller flat standard
mirror.
In the race cars, this is done to eliminate the need
for external mirrors which would cause more drag at speed.
there are web sites that sell similar mirrors for passenger cars like this one:
link
Having worked in this field for a while, I've seen this sort of thing before. Radar is a nice option, but ultrasound is also adequate for presence detection.
You can get a radar side sensor with an Eaton VORAD (snazzy video on this page) as a factory option on many trucks. Clever Devices' Seymor is ultrasound based and pretty much available for transit buses. Both of these systems have warning LEDs on the A-pillars. I've also seen variations on the Muth mirrors where a chevron that is only visible to the driver pops up when a side system triggers.
If you leave a reasonable gap between you and the car in front of you, someone will slip in and fill that space.
If you fall back to leave a gap between you and the new lead car, someone else will come fill that space.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
Look, this does not happen. The only time people cut in is when you're in a line waiting to use an exit, and believe me, letting someone in is far less stressful than keeping someone out, never mind far less dangerous. Also, you may not have known this, but at least here in California it's illegal to speed up to prevent someone from merging. Half the time this is what tailgaters are doing, so you're breaking the law in addition to decreasing your lifespan.
Besides, who cares if someone cuts in? You'll get to your destination in the same amount of time.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
ultrasound is also adequate for presence detection
"I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you change lanes, there's a lady in a Buick there...she'll also be having a baby boy"
All these issues would be eliminated if we all drove around in tanks. For one thing, having two tanks colliding with each other would result in little consequential damage and it would be just plain fun. For another, it would make everybody a lot more polite. At the very least, it'll bring new meaning to the terms offensive and defensive driving.
"Radar my ass...."
That's alright, I'll pass this time...
That's your view. As I stated elsewhere, looking over your shoulder can easily result in you rear-ending the guy in front of you.
Some people are brake-happy. If it takes the average person 2 seconds to look back, focus, identify vehicles, look back forward, and finally refocus, that person just drove blind for 160 or more feet. You would have to have 12 car-length gap between you and the car in front of you to give you enough time to do that turnaround-look and still brake to avoid him.
You're better off identifying the cars beside you and ahead of you, then speeding up to fill a forward slot if possible.
Radar would be wonderful, especially if it could quickly display the vehicles around my car in relation to my car (at the center of the display). That kind of information would be completely useful, and not at all a krutch.
But you're right, we should have retests of driving skill periodically, especially as people age.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
Or you could just use BGE or Blind Spot & Glare Elimination Setting.
Put your head on the glass of the driver's side window and adjust the side mirror so you can see the side of your car. Then lean so your head is in the right hand side of the car and adjust your side mirror so you can see the side of the car.
Strange at first but in Highway driving this setting has no blind spots and no late night glare from the side mirrors. If you do it correctly cars will move up through the rearview mirror and then has they move out they will appear on the side mirrors, as they leave the side mirrors they will appear in your peripheral vision. With this setting you do not look over your shoulder for a lane change. (looking over your shoulder is a BAD idea because it takes a hell of a long time and takes your eyes off the road. Using BGE you are always facing forward and all rear view activities are in your foveae or peripheral vision at all times.)
And for high tech wouldn't celldar have a better resolution at these distances?
"The system assumes that if you've come up from behind a vehicle, the driver has seen it and is aware," Mr. Schwyn said.
I disagree completely. The car which you've just come up from behind and are now passing is exactly the same car you are about to side-swipe as you aggressively cut them off.
Plus, the real issue here is attention span. If everyone paid great attention while driving, we wouldn't need fancy radar systems to protect us. But everyone is not paying attention, therefore it is unsafe to assume that a driver remembers the car behind which they drove up mere moments before.
With an expected cost of around $500.00 (depending on the configuration), will this low-power radar system from the 1970's really help make driving safer?"
It'd be nice it could be sensitive enough to see me on my motorcycle, unlike the red light changing sensors that can't.
C8H10N4O2 | Developer > Code
This should never be a problem either. When you are driving you should be completely aware of the cars around you at all times. When I'm out I make a note of the color of cars around me or how many there are just in case I need to make an emergency swerve. Also not putting yourself into a situation at high speeds where you don't have a quick out is pretty stupid. Always have an out, whether it be a shoulder or a grass median or a sidewalk.
Nobody in Calgary knows how to merge onto or into anything. They drive like shit and don't know the rules of the road.
Furthermore, people on cell phones, females, old people and immigrants shouldn't be allowed to drive.
hopefully i've offended these people personally.
While you are not getting a phasor array in your car
the USS Enterprise has a phased array antenna.
The first paragraph mentiones it:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/
The pictures show one large rectangular device on one of the towers bristling with antennae, I think this is it.
- and it's called "Il Tempo Gigante"
Some photosof its making and introduction.
there is no spoon
Little scenario for you:
You've been on the highway for 3 hours. You've entered a city, and there's heavy traffic (but roads are moving fast). You're looking for your exit. Perhaps you're lost. There are people getting on in the right lane, you're in the center. A sign with multiple exits is on the right. You're keeping track of those getting on, reading the sign, maintaining constant speed, etc.. A barrel rolls off of a truck in front of you. What's your move? Don't tell me you know about someone in the left lane.
G
"will this low-power radar system from the 1970's really help make driving safer?
Only one way to tell. Implement it and see if insurance companies lower their rates for who own them.
I like gadgets, i think they help. But they are no replacement for common sense. Use a mirror, pay attention, don't eat, hang up that cell phone, put down your book, Close your DVD player, turn down your radio, tell your girlfriend to wait till you get home. I bought some $1 fish eye mirrors to put on my mirror...works pretty good... and will continue to work until I get my spider sense.
"This is you left and that's your left. This is your right and that's your right. You're gonna die!
Cars are obselete pieces of shit. Forget the radar. Start from scratch and build a new form of private transportation that *everyone* can operate safely. Old people who got their license and mobility stripped from them, people with crappy ass vision who can't get a drivers license and have never had any goddamn mobility and freedom ever (like my sorry ass), even the idiots who try to shave, write a novel, and cook breakfast all at the same time while driving the 1 block from their bland suburban home to the 7-11 in their big ugly bubble shaped gas guzzling SUVs. When are people going to see? Cars are so 20th century. Cars, trucks, El Caminos, it doesn't matter. They're all obselete and just plain stupid. The DMV is obselete too. Funny how all you seem to need to do to get a license (in the USA at least) is pass some damn vision test. They'll give a class C to any idiot. Sorry but some new fangled radar isn't going to help these idiots. So please, if any really really smart people are reading this, scrap the automobile altogether and let's move on to the 21st century for crying out loud.
It says people do that. But its hard for old people, and what if you are backing out of a parking spot.
Yes the article said what you said and had my reply. Try RTFA>
Of course, there's no ground traffic control, so it's not as easy to pick up people without a licence, but then the vast majority of accidents are caused by people who are licensed, so that's not the issue.
The issue, AFAICT, is that once people have passed their test, they don't care how they drive. People don't realise just how dangerous a weapon a car is (let along a Jeep or van). People don't care enough to pay proper attention to their driving, don't care enough to leave sufficient space around their vehicle, don't care enough to slow down in adverse road conditions (whether caused by weather or obstructions).
And they don't care enough to avoid driving when they're too tired, otherwise distracted, too angry, or otherwise in an unfit state. Anger, especially -- so many people take traffic situations personally. Even members of my family who are normally fairly mild-tempered swear and curse when they get behind the wheel. (Myself, I've learned not to take anything personally, which helps both blood pressure and driving style.)
Until people realise just how dangerous cars can be, how important it is to drive carefully, how much attention it takes, then no amount of technology will help.
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
The OEM cost is actually $100 for two units (both sides of the car), and will go down to $50 in volume.
Sounds painful.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
You still have a blind spot. It is just slightly less than the size of a car. That probably works pretty well in most cases, but I think it just gives a false sense of security. The first motorcyclist you crunch under your back tire because he doesn't fit your forumula would probably prefer you not fool yourself into thinking you don't have a blind spot.
Is that what "Radar love" is? (Golden Earring)
If you set 'em up right, there ARE NO blindspots.
That depends on the vehicle you're driving and the vehicle that is next to you.
My particular has a 1-2' gap on both sides of the mirror that a mid sized car can hide in. If the car is something near the size of a geo metro, that gap is considerably larger.
I imagine if this goes mainstream (unlikely, but let say if) it's the end of 'fuzzbusters' and police radar detectors.
I demand we level the playing field, and make certain it screews up rader guns used by state troopers.
But really, do we need to be bathed in even more radio and/or microwave radiation? Isn't cancer a bit harsh penalty for tailgating?
Several interesting bits of text jump out in that article: "improperly adjusted rearview mirrors" - these can be adjusted properly at no cost. At $500/car estimated cost to outfit these sytems compared to the alleged $360 Billion these accidents have cost in the last 10 years - how much would we be spending vs. how much would we be saving (I'm way too lazy to go look up annual US auto sales and do the math)? One given is that there is no way to quantify the cost of human life (unless you are an actuary and I don't want to hear those numbers anyway) so I'm not trying to include that in the mix. "cars and trucks" - every single mention of exactly what the system detects only ever references cars & trucks/SUV's. In my experience as both a driver of cars/trucks and as a motorcyclist by far it seems the larger risk is the biker that gets zapped by Oscar Grope in a Buick with an improper lane change. It's very telling that motorcyclists aren't on 'the radar' for this, so to speak. As long as the US hands out licenses to anyone with pocket change and enough patience to wait in line at a DMV facility any discussion of driver safety is laughable.
"The bigger the lie, the more they believe." - Det. Bunk
I remeber being told that why car makers just didn't factory install those cheap blind spot mirrors you can get everywhere, was because blind spot related accidents cause a lot of damage with relativly few fatalities. Which means $ for dealer bodyshops. Sounds pretty resonable and not so conspiracy'y to me.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
With keeping track of someone coming up behind you in Stuttgart Skateboard (Porsche) with a *closing* velocity of 100mph, it gets a little harder.
Tmors more probable.
No, I didn't RTFA
and even if they said it is safe I probably wouldn't trust them.
Depleated Uranium is also bad, but claimed to be healthy.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Radar my ass....
Better get a bigger screen.
Driving a motor vehicle, you are much more likely to encounter another and the level of concentration is higher. This is why a commercial driver is forced to take a break after 4 hours in most countries. A commercial pilot isn't so forced. Finding an autopilot for a car is rather more difficult than for a plane.
Back to cars, a private driver is unregulated as regards hours. They can drive after a long day at work and essentially it is very difficult to maintain concentration.
In the UK, you are taught always to keep your eyes on the road, and to check the blind spot with the wing mirrors. This is due to the inherent safety risk (outlined in the article) of looking over your shoulder. Most people, when they look over their shoulder instinctively brake - knowing they can't see what's in front of them - which causes even more accidents.
But then, the average traffic speed in the UK is 35mph (57 kph).
Exercise your right not to vote. thinkoutside.org
If you ask any particular person, they'll always tell you they're a much-better-than-average driver.
I am pretty positive that Mercedes and Cadallac already have this technology. It's just not filtered down to the masses yet.
i.e. Collision warning when backing up in a parking lot so you don't hit a pole or shopping cart, etc. Collision avoidance when changing lanes. Also a neat feature on the Mercedes that will maintain the distance from the car in front of you to avoid an accident. Either in cruise control or not, it will automatically break and lower engine power when you get too close to the car in front. It will also automatically speed up.
It's out there already, it's just too damn expensive to have it in anything but an ultra luxury car. Granted, rich little old ladies really need this stuff!
Get rid of the engine and make everything foot-powered. That would solve the obesity problem and reduce lung cancer rates! ;)
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
Looking over your shoulder can be dangerous, because it takes so long to turn around far enough to check your blind spot.
What people don't realize is that if you adjust your side mirrors properly, you can virtually eliminate your blind spot. If you swing your mirrors out wide enough, you can get it so that when a car is just leaving your rear-view mirror, it is entering your side mirror. If you are lucky, when the car leaves the side mirror, it will be in your peripheral vision. If not, at least you have reduced the amount you need to turn your head, which saves precious time.
Convex mirrors can eliminate blind spots too, but when using them, it may be harder to determine a car's position.
Anyway, play with your mirrors, and check them by looking over your shoulder. Be aware of your blind spots and check them!
Yup, I did this, adjusted the side mirrors so that some portion of cars coming up either side are always visible in at least two mirrors. And I even found an angle that still lets me see the right side curb when I parallel park.
But maybe it's just something that's possible with my own car. What boggles me is how many cars out there have huge rear pillar blind spots.
NHTSA data also say that drunk driving accidents kill 17,000 people per year, cause 513,000 injuries per year, and cost $114 billion per year. NHTSA
A $500 gadget that prevents a drunk driver from starting the car would have far better bang for the buck.
With the ban on radar-detectors around here, the market is open to a new gadget that protects drivers from traps, and saves a few cyclists and pedestrians in the process :)
Missile detection radars were never an issue under the ABM treaty, it was the interception control radars and associated missle systems which were restricted (until the shrub came along).
Tips from an old rider :
:
:
Don't ride next to cars.
Don't ride in a car's blind spot.
Don't tailgate.
For damn sure don't ride next or or in the blind spot of a bus or big rig.
If somebody wants past you, let them.
83 quadrillion miles of roads on the planet, most of which don't have a car in either direction for half a mile. In a pack of cars? Speed up or slow down until you are pretty much by yourself. Most of the time cars travel in herds, with lots of space between them. Get in that open space, and enjoy the ride.
Other tips
Helmets suck. Wear it anyways.
Leather jacket and leather boots.
Denim pants.
No shorts or short sleeves or tank tops.
There is nothing out there that you can safely hit on a motorcycle and win. In Darwin's terms, you lose 100% of the accidents you participate in on a motorcycle.
If you tailgate someone, you deserve whatever you get. If you tailgate me (when I am in my car) you will soon participate in the challenge of your reflexes and ability to keep your bike upright in a panic stop vs. my ABS and back bumper. And you will probably lose.
More tips
Girls care less what kind of car a guy drives, but somehow can't resist a guy on a bike. Keep riding, it gets you laid.
You can probably outrun most city cops on your bike, but I don't suggest it. I double don't suggest it unless you have a full tank of gas. If they catch you after you run, they will beat you.
Don't drink and drive until you have at least 2 years and 25,000 miles of motorcycle riding. If you have ridden 25,000 miles on the same bike over the course of 2-3 years, feel free (riding the bike has become instinctual and muscle memory makes the bike an extension of your body and is about as safe as walking. If you can't walk, don't ride.)
If you know a dog is going to chase you in traffic, try and time it so he gets hit by a nearby car.
If you are an hour from home and it got surprisingly cold, buy a newspaper and stuff crumpled sheets into your jacket and pants. If it is really, really cold, luckily you are wearing the leather jacket and jeans I recommended.
Final tip : Going on an hour long ride? Get a steak, season it, put it in two layers of that really really good aluminum foil. Crimp the edges all the way around to insure nothing leaks out. Put it on your engine, secure so it doesnt flop around. Most bike engines run about 180-200 degrees on the outside of the block, test it with a meat thermometer. Plug in the temperature into a cookbook to see how long you should go before stopping to eat it. If you time it just right you will find a rest stop and while everybody else is eating vending machine food you are wolfing down a killer steak.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
Wanna get rid of the blind spot? Make driving whilst using a cell phone illegal. I swear to god, the number of times I've been almost run-down by some bozo driver spacing out and not looking at the blind spot right in front of their car whilst talking on a cell phone. Well. I can't tell you, but it's a lot. And hands-free phones don't cut it either. It's not the hands that need to pay attention. It's the driver.
For the inside mirror, a convex surface would cause more confusion than the extra viewing area is worth. Espcially given that most of the extra area will be blocked by the door frames/pillars and people's heads.
:-)
"That turns out not to be the case". I have been driving for 20 years now. One of the first things I did when I got my first car was buy one HUGE convex inside mirror. I keep moving it from each car to the new one. Combined with the largest convex side mirrors I can make fit.
The system works like a charm. There are absolutely no blind spots. The scale in all the mirrors is almost the same. Most importantly, there's huge overlap between the field of view of the inside and each of the side mirrors. This means that when you shift your gaze from one mirror to another, you immediately know how the views fit together.
It is non-convex mirrors, outside or inside, are a crime. Whenever I drive a car that's not my own I feel like I'm seeing the world through three separate sets of blinders. I'm painfully aware of my blind spots. You need to literally "invent" what's in them to get a complete surround image of the car in your head. The frustration is similar to the feeling I get if I'm forced to script something in DOS instead of bash
For the life of me I can't see why equipting cars with such inferior mirrors doesn't result in lawsuits. It is just like equipting a car with underpowered brakes IMVHO. People are dying because of it. The only down side to using convex mirrors is you have to get use to the scale. Of course, if all cars had large, convex mirrors everywhere, this wouldn't be a problem; you'd get used to the scale when you learn to drive. And anyway, adjusting to convex mirrors only takes several days.
Besides, if you are dead-set on adding a radar to each car, PLEASE put it in the front, connect it to the speedometer, and have a nice large red light flash on the driver's dashboard when he is too close to the car AHEAD of him. Inappropriate distance from the car ahead is a leading cause of accidents (if not the leading cause). Placing a radar on the back of the car is, literaly, an ass-backwards notion.
...are certainly taught here (in Manitoba, Canada). The easiest way to remember it is the "three-second rule" - you should leave three seconds between your vehicle and the vehicle in front of you. And that's in GOOD weather! Our weather is shite, so in winter, I'll often go to 5 seconds or more. Cheers!
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
It just doesn't make sense, at 500$ per car, if 720k cars are made with this device per year then it will cost MORE to implement then the accidents cost to fix, and thats assuming this device stops 100% of those accidents (which it won't). This is a stupid idea.
"will this low-power radar system from the 1970's really help make driving safer?"
The reason this is being investigated now is that 24GHz and 77GHz systems are now feasible at a reasonable costs. Therefore, a phased-array antenna is small enough to put in a car bumper.
Vote for Pedro
After an extended session of Xwing VS Tie Fighter I went out for a driving lession, halfway through the lession I realised that instead of using mirrors I was looking for my "HUD" to tell me where the other cars were. I was more careful from then on
I couldn't agree more. I use two and they work beautifully. No more need to dangerously look over my shoulder when changing lanes. Make sure you buy the ones made of *glass*. Some plastic ones will just lose the reflective tint over time.
... he'll be able to detect the jerk who's trying to pass him, and really floor it.
Just seems like all these improvements just make people overly confident and hence reckless. Want safety? Hard wire vehicles to limit max speeds to 50.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Ford Expeditions have turn signals??
Holy crap! Better let all their owners know -- that's a real handy safety feature I'm sure none of them were aware existed!
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
You make it idiot-proof and they'll make a more idiotic idiot.
I got one of these and I like it; you don't give up all of your regular mirror for convex, like the replacement mirrors.
You need to have a decent amount of room above the factory mirror, though, my wife's Subaru has the rear-view too close to the ceiling for it to fit.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Looks almost exactly how I envisioned it (and wanted to 'invent') 13 years ago. Except, I had an actual buzzer go off when it detected someting in the blind spot WHEN you turned on your turn signal (this one uses a display in the side mirror, it looks like). Also, mine would only work when the car was moving, not stationary.
"Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity."
it flashes you the goatse guy on a HUD.
"A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? You take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."
So you're the safe cell-phone driver? Riiight. As AC posted, everyone thinks they're safe - until they fuck up and crash. And even then they'll tell you it's somebody elses fault.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
I mostly ride in the city/inner 'burbs where there's plenty of traffic, so I don't have much choice a lot of the time.
And we in Oz have speed cameras everywhere - simply riding even slightly faster than everyone else (moving through their field of vision) can get costly.
And: yes, I always wear full riding gear, even when it's 40 degress (C). I'd have to be a lot further than an hour away from home to get "cold". Drinking and driving is retarded.
Opportunity knocks. Karma hunts you down.
Safer streets ? Less drivers.
I'd rather forego these ridiculous gadgets that are just milking the problem rather than fixing it. Years ago if you drove like an ass you either killed yourself, or killed others and landed in jail for the rest of your life. Nowadays with airbags, frame-sacrificing designs and all these fancy gadgets, people can have their accident and walk away (or at least be rolled away on a stretcher). Weeks or months later they can reiterate and cause more damage and stress.
It's excessively mean and probably close to a 'terrorist state of mind', but I think there are simply too many idiots on this planet. More deaths is a GOOD thing, it's called population control and it occurs naturally in every species except humans. The less bad drivers we have on the road, the less GOOD drivers such as myself will go postal in the middle of a busy intersection.
Evolution: it's not just a good idea, it's the law!
-Billco, Fnarg.com
I'm not paying more for a car that has yet more crap I don't need! Extra weight, extra complexity, extra cost... You (not /. I love /.) can keep it!
-Rich
Yes, you should know about someone in the left lane. Its not that hard.
My old college beater was a 2-door coupe and had the little "flip-out" rear side windows that I always kept open for ventilation. A nice side effect was that I could always hear traffic in my blind spot.
I always head check, but it was pretty invaluable having that kind of information always present. Hopefully the engineers can design it so it works passively using your car's audio speakers. Research with fighter pilots has shown that humans can place an audio signal projected somewhere around them to within 5-10 degrees, so it would make sense to use audio for extra proximity alerts. Sure it might be annoying at times, but that would only encourage people not to linger next to other cars, maintain safe following distance, get out of the way of cars tailgating behind them, etc.
The speed cameras - do they take the picture from the front, or from the back? If from the front, you are home free on a motorcycle.
And yes, drinking and driving is the second stupidest thing I have ever done.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
It depends; most cameras can deal with traffic going in either direction (ie. front or back). For fixed single cameras, that means I'm golden going in at least one direction. If it's a multi-camera setup (uncommon) I'm screwed.
:eek:
Mobile cameras are usually positioned to take photos of the rear of the main traffic flow. ie. they'll move from one side of the road to the other in the afternoon when the bulk of the traffic starts heading back the other way. It's much easier to hide on the opposite side of a bush or brick wall and shoot someone in the arse than sit in plain view and wait for them to come into range for a head-on shot.
They're sneaky bastards... though not common, they've been known to hide cameras in garbage bins and other innocent looking objects as well.
.
What was the stupidest? Did you run from the cops?
Opportunity knocks. Karma hunts you down.
the use of some radar like device might come in handy when your looking the other way and the area you thought was clear is now filled with a person going faster than yourself.
but consider another radar application, collision avoidence. those air bags hurt when they "deploy", ask me how i know...
"it happens" -- forest gump
.-.--