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?"

9 of 484 comments (clear)

  1. Just look over your shoulder! by n1ywb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Just look over your shoulder! by NineNine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You could have less stress by simply not tailgating, thus making looking over your shoulder a non life threatening maneuver.

    2. Re:Just look over your shoulder! by w3svc_animal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Another idea is to mentally keep track of those cars which may be around you... sounds difficult, I know, but in practice it keeps you alert.

      --

      Error encountered in IAWebSig.clsSig.Create: Last Procedure: sPrc_Ins_tblSig

  2. Convex Mirror by sabrex15 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Safer? by Davak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  4. No thanks by Quasar1999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  5. Constant safety level by gidds · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Didn't I read somewhere of an experiment performed at an accident blackspot, where a remote rural road crossed a railway line? They cut down several trees near the junction to improve visibility, but this had an unexpected effect: instead of reducing accidents, people just didn't slow down as much. They concluded that drivers have an acceptable safety level, and drive to maintain that -- neither more dangerous, nor safer.

    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.

  6. Re:Better system for $0.89 by Poligraf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't mix speed with the problem.

    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.h tml

    --
    Tigers respect lions, elephants and hippos. Maggots respect no one. (C) S. Dovlatov
  7. Re:Article Text/Psuedo-Mirror by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.