Slashdot Mirror
Smart Cars to Save Stupid Drivers?
bl8n8r writes "Ford spokesman Mike Vaughn said they tested computerized optical scanning and a variety of warnings: a vibrating steering wheel, the sound of a car driving over rumble strips and a visual warning projected on the windshield. Researchers also tested a so-called "active" system in which the vehicle would actually adjust the steering automatically if it veered too far one way or the other."
Spinella said automakers have studied systems that use cameras to scan drivers' eyes or sense when they're loosening their grip on the steering wheel beyond normal.
What's normal? I routinely drive w/o my hands on the wheel. I also tend to take "half-naps" by closing one eye. If it doesn't learn my behavior how is it going to work for me?
It will be offered this fall on 2005 models of Infiniti's FX sport utility vehicle, then again next spring on the 2006 M45 luxury sedan.
Apparently only those wealthy enough can afford to be saved while the rest of the 1500 people a year that croak because of drowsy driving have to suffer.
Bah!
Coming from the Onstar speaker: "You are approaching 88 mph. Your flux capacitor is set to Europe at the time of the Black Plague. Are you REALLY SURE you want to take the DeLorean there?"
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
How do they expect evolution to produce a better human species?
So when you swerve to miss the idiot ahead of you who's wrecking due to his smart car BSODing, your car will automatically adjust the steering so you plow head on into him. Where do I sign up?
But in Texas, all of the major highways have a specific kind of etching on each side of the road in the pavement. When you go over this with your tire, it creates a really loud noise that vibrates the entire car. It would wake up just about anybody, and I think it's been around for a good number of years.
So if this is what they're talking about, it's pretty effective I think.
If these smart cars electrocute stupid drivers before they can start the car.
See for yourself:
http://dune.moldova.net/qt/KA2.mpeg
Mod +5 Drunk
What if you're driving down a perfectly straight road and suddenly your car starts weaving back and forth because it's trying to correct its path because some dirt's gotten into its sensors and screwed them up? What if you're trying to turn and the car won't let you? What if you're trying to drive and the computer intervenes doing dangerous things? There'd better be a manual override...
Personally, I'd rather see smart drivers in stupid cars.
Really - the solution to drowsy drivers shouldn't be of a technical nature, but of educational nature. If you're drowsy don't drive the fsckin car .
It has to be literally 100 percent fool proof before an automaker will use it.
Well, looks like no matter how you build these systems, quantum uncertainty is going to prevent your product from comming to market.
-Colin
shouldn't this post be titled "Walking, Buses, and Trains to Save Stupid Drivers"...?
Imagine having this pop up and block your view:
http://www.visi.com/~tdo/bsod.jpg
All well and good, but if you really want to sell the system, you need warnings for more common dangers. For instance, you could add radar and lidar detectors, and enhance the optical scanning to detect police cars. The system could then indicate the location of these dangers on the screen, using the optical scanning to help filter out store security systems and such from real threats, as well as detecting cops using passive techniques. Oh, and you'd not put this in Volvos but rather Mustangs.
Researchers also tested a so-called "active" system in which the vehicle would actually adjust the steering automatically if it veered too far one way or the other."
/. without worrying about being a hazard anymore!
Finally!
Now when I'm talking on my phone, reading the newspaper, and eating breakfast on the way to work, I can look down to pick a DVD or refresh
"Smart Cars" programmed by "Stupid" programmers, killing smart drivers...
I think we can all enjoy the versitility of things like vinyl, analog devices and hacker friendly consumer electronics (see: all the support for the dreamcast in the Poll). I just fear that after a while cars might be restricting smart/clever driving with "safeguards" and eventually get some smart driver killed...
As long as you can shut off things here and there, this system sounds kind of nice...
I worked on the B-2 Bomber's Flight Control System. We had a "stick shaker" wired to the pilot's controls that would vbrate when a stall condition was detected. This was activated after a warning light and tone were already used to alert the pilot. I have no experience with any other flight control system, but I would suspect that this is not unique to the B-2.
Perhaps another slashdotter can post and let us know.
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
And even cheaper than getting a smart car for every stupid person. Get ready for it. Get ready for it.
...but that's crazy talk.
The bus, the subway, the train, the bike, and walking.
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
To me, the most interesting part of the whole Smart Car debate, is the human facets of it, whereby humanity has to decide if they are going to relinquish control of their driving to a more automated system. The benefits are there, indeed, but some people just hate giving up power (which will cause the big problems, if you ask me). Eventually this will lead to a total-control model, whereby drunk driving would become a thing of the past, tickets would be a thing of the past, driving lessons would be a thing of the past, and speed limits would be a thing of the past. Accidents will likely still occur until the system had all the kinks worked out of it.
I'm trying to steer sharply away from the deer that just ran in front of the vehicle...
but the steering wheel gives me a giggle and turns me back into the poor creature now smeared all over my hood.
I'll pass.
Also having an autopilot would be nice for those among us who like to nap on the roads.
;-)
A rapidly diminishing group
You can't take the sky from me...
I'm surprised the car companies are going for this. This seems to be a huge liablity problem for them. Right now if you plow into a crowd of school children it's your fault. But if this thing malfunctions, or if someone can argue that the auto-steer system has *anything* to do with the accident, wouldn't there be a ton of lawsuits? Car companies have deep pockets.
This post cannot be rebroadcast without the express written constent of Major League Baseball.
Let's say it all works just exactly as advertised and is adopted.
It will make things safer for a short time. Then everyone will get less alert, because they'll expect the car to take care of warning them.
People will make their own decisions about whether they are too drowsy or intoxicated to drive, and if driving is a little easier they'll let themselves get a little drowsier or intoxicated than they would have before, and things will be just about as safe as they were before.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
"It has to be literally 100 percent fool proof before an automaker will use it."
"Make something fool proof and someone will build a better fool."
Your complaint appears to be a subset of a larger complaint, and of a larger debate. "Safe for wealthy drivers." Why should somebody (and his family) be safer on the road than you just because he can afford a Volvo, Saab, etc. while all you can afford is a used Ford Pinto?
Then again, why should somebody who makes more money be afforded superior health care just because he can afford to pay more for it?
Are you suggesting that if someone places less value on short term leisure and recreational activities, invests more in his education, works harder and longer, and as a result earns more money, that he (and his family) should be relegated to the same relatively unsafe car (and relatively unsafe medical care) as the person who invested and worked less?
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
Especially the 'auto correct' bit.
That means no erratic driving, and no way for a police officer to potentially head off an accident from a drowsy or drunk driver.
And I admit, I have been one of those people who have fallen asleep at the wheel, and have realized that I was in a different lane than I remembered having been in. I have probably been saved by the little rumble strips along the edge of the highway at least half a dozen times.
But I'm not comfortable with this if it means that drowsy people are more likely to drive, because their car will warn them if something might go wrong. And there's no way in hell that I want rich alcoholics having an extra excuse for throwing back a few extra before they hit the road.
In some ways, I'd almost prefer that they just took the driving completely away from humans. [well, all animals... I don't want there to be some monkey driving, even though I know in Cannonball Run [2, I think], he wasn't really driving]
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
I found out the hard way that a C172 has a stall condition warning - it would go into a dive and my pants get really wet!
Teach people how to drive.
15 hours of how to move in traffic isn't driving instruction. People need to know what to do when they understeer and oversteer. They need to have done it before, over and over, so they learn how to react.
Controlling a car isn't hard, and the majority of times people think their car is out of control, its not so far gone a knowledgable driver couldn't recover safely.
We just don't teach anyone how to drive in this country. Fifty bucks and fifteen hours behind the wheel of a minimum wage driving teacher shouldn't cut it.
You racist. How dare you go and imply that African Americans are aggresive thugs without a sense of humor.
Smile.
Paul Lenhart writes words!
Here's the right way to make driving safer:
1. No driving below the age of 18; if you can't be charged as an adult for a crime, you can't be given the responsibility of driving a vehicle that can kill if you're careless.
2. No driving until you've completed a TRUE driving school, one that teaches you accident avoidance and skid control, like motorcycle schools and high-performance driving schools currently offer.
3. No driving until you've learned to change a tire, check your oil and diagnose a broken fan belt...and until you know what every gauge in your car means.
4. If you want to drive a truck, SUV, or performance car, you have to take an additional course focusing on the specific dangers and control issues that these vehicles have before you can get license plates and/or permission to drive that class of vehicle.
5. Your license is a lifetime document, and after a certain number of points, you lose your license for good.
6. MUCH stiffer penalties for speeding and reckless driving*.
This will never, ever, ever happen, because people in the US for the most part believe driving is a right, not a privelege.
*in Chicago, speeding tickets were cheap, and you could get probation (to avoid the ticket showing on your record) even more cheaply. I sped more often than not. In Los Angeles, speeding tickets are a few hundred dollars, and getting traffic school to avoid the ticket showing on your record costs EVEN MORE. After my first speeding ticket in Los Angeles, I stopped speeding. Period.
Researchers also tested a so-called "active" system in which the vehicle would actually adjust the steering automatically if it veered too far one way or the other."
Driver: Holy Crap! Theres a large boulder in the middle of the road!
Driver swerves to avoid boulder.
Car corrects back into original path, head on to the boulder.
Driver: What the hell!
Car: I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I cant let you do that.
"Our funds have never taken part in toxic or death spiral convertible financings of any sort" -BayStar's managing partne
Despite what Bernie Eccelstone says, F1 cars are practically driving themselves. This year, he threw out launch control and three years ago he banned 2-way telemetry, since cars were dynamically adjusting things like brake bias on every turn.
F1 should embrace this stuff, and eventually go to a driverless format. You think I'm joking, but I'm not. Ferrari, BMW, Mercedes and jaguar, along with Honda and Toyota and Ford, should all be duking it out to create the ultimate race car, minus a pilot.
At this point, F1 is only really about the tech anyhow, and Montoya has been saying for a couple years now that F1 cars could break the one minute threshold at Indy, except that the human body can't stand that much force, esp. in braking. Baaaaah, toss em! Let's see cars that absolutely FLY. It needs 4 wheels, and it has a weight and dimension minimum, and then, it's all on from there! THe advances those guys would make would be gigantic in just a few years.
For a Boeing aircraft, the pilot is ultimately in control. As the plane nears stall the control mechanisms (even when fly-by-wire) generate stick shake in the column to make the pilot aware of the performance limit. The interface is very tactile (the large central control column.
For an Airbus, the machine has the final say. There is a less tactile sidestick controller and if the pilot pulls back too far, the control system will nose the plane down.
There are two schools of thought and I am sure different users would have a different preference.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
I think it is a good idea and it would be interesting to see it widely implemented. I'll be 21 not too long from now and still won't have a driver's license. I've failed the driving portion of the test twice in the past 4 months because my turns are too sharp. :-P
I think the Urban Legend was: At a recent COMDEX, Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated: "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving twenty-five dollar cars that got 1,000 miles per gallon." Recently General Motors addressed this comment by releasing the statement: "Yes, but would you want your car to crash twice a day?"
> your current auto is no less safe tomorrow as it is today because of this technology
EXACTLY. There is one thing they could do, albeit the front-end investment is high. Stop using asphalt. Seriously how old is this material? When was the last time we saw a serious innovation in road surfacing? What about that hard rubbery stuff they make indoor tennis courts out of? Make a smoother version and lay the stuff down! Think of the added traction, flexibility of the road, lack of potholes, better heat retention so a little less ice-prone, etc etc etc.
I'm sure materials science folks could come up with something. Something far superior to asphalt and the tennis court stuff.
Here in PA they spend millions a year fixing the roads. We have one of the worst combinations of terrain and weather for asphalt integrity. Look at the weather radar sometime and see how often multiple contrasting weather systems swirl together right over PA. It's not just the weather but the wildly fluctuating temperature changes, -10 to +45 and then back again with rain-freezing rain-snow, then rain again all in 8-12 hours is NORMAL here much of year.
Sure it would cost the same as a dozen years of asphalt repair. But COME ON, how many times are we going to keep perpetuating the same problem?
Another thought, we have power cables and copper wires running _next to_ most roads. How about running 2 fat copper wires under the road near the common tire-contact areas. hook them up to those nifty solar panels and traffic signal power. In the winter that could heat the asphalt to just 33.x degrees. Whoala, no ice.
Somebody's going to tell me spreading and cleaning up mega-tons of salt and cinders, plus all the accidents is somehow cheaper?
100 years of driving and our roads are still only one step above dirt.
Operator, give me the number for 911!