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?"
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
...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.
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
Don't mix speed with the problem.
h tml
There would not be a need to "change lanes like crazy" if it wouldn't be for the selfish idiots who block faster lanes.
The reason for safety and ORDUNG on German Autobahns is the lane discipline and cortesy that is drilled into their drivers. The road for them is the way of transportation and not the way of demonstrating their ego.
Further reading: http://www.motorists.org/ericpeters/skillvsspeed.
Tigers respect lions, elephants and hippos. Maggots respect no one. (C) S. Dovlatov
Two points to this knee-jerk comment:
1) Smoking and obesity are choices that people make for themselves, which generally only affect themselves. If someone wants to smoke and give themselves lung cancer, that's not my problem and I really don't care unless they try to smoke near me (which is why anti-public-smoking laws are good), or they try to get the government to use my tax money to pay for their health care. (The issue of how it affects the children they live with is something different altogether I won't get into.) Car accidents are something that certainly can affect me, since I have to share the road with all the other moron drivers out there. Anything that can help these morons to avoid hitting me is probably a good thing. Of course, I make mistakes sometimes too, so I wouldn't mind having such a system to keep me from hitting someone as well.
2) What's with this "We spend all this money... when smoking and obesity kills a lot more people?" Who's "we"??? I'm not paying for these radar systems, unless I decide to purchase a vehicle with one installed. The technology was developed by the government for missiles, which is part of the government's job of providing a military and defense. So the basic technology is already developed and paid for, for a purpose that had nothing to do with cars. Now, some private companies are spending their own money to further develop this technology for use in cars. Obviously, they're spending this money (of their own) because they anticipate making profits by selling this technology to the automotive industry suppliers. Eventually, the people paying for this will be the people who buy cars that include it. If you don't like it, you're free to not buy such a car.
Just because someone somewhere is spending money on something that doesn't save the maximum number of lives in your eyes doesn't mean it's wasted, and is really none of your business when it's their own private money, not yours. How the hell do you think these companies would even be able to do anything about smoking and obesity? One's a defense contractor and one's an automotive supplier.
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.
Nothing beats shoulder checks, unless you're in a crap car with poor visibility. In which case, I hope you pay more insurance.
The fact of the matter is, many places instruct the driver to set up their mirrors with the edge of the car visible. I personally think having the mirrors set for the blind spot is much more dangerous. I also like having the edge of the car visible as a frame of reference.
There are many situations where you need an alternative to the rear-view mirror. This is especially important on city streets where you need to check for cyclists going faster than the traffic (or even cars in other lanes) as there is no way you're going to have time to see them, especially if moving in to the lane on the passenger side. As far as I'm concerned, if you cause an accident in this situation because of having your mirrors adjusted for the blind spot then you're guilty of gross negligence and driving without due care and attention.
"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.
Or you could just distrust your mirrors and look over your shoulder like you were taught to back when you were learning to drive.
I wish they would teach stopping distances this side of the Atlantic. Doing 140km/h with only a car legnth between you and the one in front is just asking for trouble. In fact, not just stopping distance, but thinking distance too - if there's something in the road and you're tailgating, you don't even have time to react from the point it appears behind the vehicle in front and you running in to it.
Examples being a friend who hit a 2x4 at 140kph and had it shred one of his performance tyres and crack an expensive three spoke rim - if he'd been half a second or further back from the vehicle in front he might have been able to avoid it. The same guy also had his expensive custom bottom-grill and imported fog lights smashed by a road works bollard laying in the middle of the highway - he didn't have time to react from the point when the car in front swerved around it to the point where he hit it. Stupid. He'd be better off both financially and stressfully if he just backed off a bit. I've been known to speed myself, but I do not follow closely. On a certain 220 km journey in medium to heavy traffic (speeds from 40 to 150 kph), he would typically only get there 5 mins (10 if he's lucky) before me - was really worth it?
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!
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 :)
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