Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Smart Cars Tell You About Road Signs

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the everybody-loves-roland dept.

Roland Piquepaille writes "There are many systems designed to help car drivers and to improve safety. In this article, New Scientist focuses on a system developed by the National ICT Australia lab (NICTA). This new driver assistance system uses three cameras, one to look at road signs ahead and two to check what the driver is looking at. The images are transmitted to a computer which decodes the road signs and the driver's reactions to them. If you're driving above speed limits, you will be alerted. Same thing if you're about to pass a stop sign without reducing speed. You still can choose to ignore the warnings, but if you're caught speeding, you'll have to tell the police officer why you refused to slow down. This system is currently being tested and appears to perform well especially in poor lighting conditions. Read more for other references about similar helping systems and to see how the road signs are analyzed."

26 of 348 comments (clear)

  1. Ummm... by midifarm · · Score: 4, Insightful
    New cars are already way too expensive. I don't want to pay an extra $5k for junk I don't need. Ack!

    Peace

    1. Re:Ummm... by FooAtWFU · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's only $5,000 right now. Things will get better in a decade or so.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    2. Re:Ummm... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Stop me if you've heard this one, but maybe you'd be better off with in-car navigation? Sony sold a unit several years ago (by which I mean, more than 5) that read its data off a cd-rom and had its own LCD panel, and still cost less than $3,000. I haven't checked but I suspect you could do the same thing today for about $1,500. This is indeed cool technology (or at least, detecting signs is something I think a car should do eventually) but is it cost-effective?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Ummm... by ozbird · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you know you have to exit in the next few kilometres, what the hell are you doing out in the right hand lane?! It's called "being prepared".

    4. Re:Ummm... by severoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No they won't. In 1989 my dad bought a Dodge Omni, stripped...the only option was a rear window defroster, it didn't have A/C, automatic tranny, power steering, brakes, doors, windows, nuttin'. He paid $5800.

      Now look at the cheapest car money can buy, discounting the Hyundais and the Kias (we're going to keep the quality/power level approximately the same...that Omni was a car, not a lawn mower). The equivalent car now is probably the Ford Focus. Stripped, it's like $11k. Did inflation nearly halve the value of a dollar in the last 15 years? No, on the contrary, inflation has been rather low. What happened, then? Air bags and computer chips.

      I'm not necessarily complaining here, though I do think that when you require all cars be made with airbags, that's not very compassionate to the lowest-earning 15% or so of society that now finds even the cheapest car to be way beyond their means. This limits their potential job opportunities to jobs that happen to be on public transportation routes, meaning that they must choose from a much more limited pool of possible employment situations than normal. Thus, the cycle perpetuates. (And besides, public tranny ain't cheap either--I live in the San Fran bay area, and I moved to a new apartment that has commuter access to SF. I was overjoyed at first...but it turns out, I never use it--it's way cheaper to drive my car and pay exhorbitant parking rates in the city. If that's true for me, and I'm fairly middle class, how do low-income families swing it?)

      For most people, the cars we buy are way beyond transportation and we identify ourselves with them. We must have air or the leather seats or the sport suspension. For these people, a car is nothing short of independence, though, and we rob them of that independence when we raise the floor on cars.

      Cars aren't the only place this happens either--another good example would be if the anti-cruelty people were successful in passing laws requiring that all chickens be free range, or all veggies be organice. Then there'd be a significant chunk of the population that would find they have to cut back on their grocery bills every month and buy less, or further compromise already poor eating habits. Are we willing to trade human lives for animal comfort? Certainly, there's a balance we have to strike here, but if everyone were vegan/vegetarian/organic-only/"humane"-only, food would cost a heck of a lot more.

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    5. Re:Ummm... by general_re · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I'm not necessarily complaining here, though I do think that when you require all cars be made with airbags, that's not very compassionate to the lowest-earning 15% or so of society that now finds even the cheapest car to be way beyond their means.

      The major problem with your theory is that it's empirically false* - cars may indeed be getting slightly more expensive in real terms, but more people have them than before, which puts to the lie the idea that cars are being priced out of reach for more and more people. And you're cherry-picking the data by excluding the lowest end of the current new car market. Other than that, it's a wonderful idea ;)

      Aside from the Hyundais and Kias that you ignored, don't forget that there's a vibrant secondary market for used cars. The first car I bought, a few years after your dad's purchase, cost me a whopping $800, or about 10% of what he spent. Was it as nice as his? Probably not. Did it last as long as his? Probably not, but it got me back and forth to my job and enabled me to earn the money to buy something better. Which is just the sort of thing the working poor can do also.

      * You can get the big picture from the entire paper here.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    6. Re:Ummm... by severoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OH NO YOU DI'INT! <rolls up sleeves> :-)

      You're right to be suspicious of those numbers from westegg. I checked an authoritative source before I even posted (I should've included it, I guess I forgot the /. crowd is inherently skeptical :-) ): Consumer Price Index from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (search for the "inflation calculator" link).

      According to the BLS, $5800 [1989] is $8414.68 [2002] (when I priced Focuses at $11K). This year, the 2005 Foci (sorry, had to) go for a stone-stripped base price of $13,090, which is $8565.44 [1989]. That's a difference of $2765.44 [1989] or $4226.22 [2004].

      So the Focus is about $4200 more (today's dollars) than the equivalent car in 1989. I know for a fact that this isn't far off the mark, because if you look at home much it costs per car to computer chip the engine, meet more stringent bumper protection guidelines, add airbags, and do other things more or less mandated now by law or practically mandated by insurance companies (costs more in premiums to not have the feature than pay for it up front), it adds up to about $3800 for parts and labor. That leaves about $400 in profit for the car companies (which is a much higher margin than they make on the rest of the car because it doesn't account for R&D for incorporating these new features into their products and factory upgrades, etc).

      The upshot is, what I'm saying is true. All this stuff costs money, and all this stuff limits low-income families from owning cars. It's true that the used car market is still there, but airbags and other mandated features don't make these cars last any longer or continue at any higher quality. (That's not to say they're not higher quality, just that they would have been higher quality anyway, and the used cars would have been that much cheaper.) But the used car market is a fickle market to try and gauge to understand the effects on low-income families--this is because used cars are not under warranty, and therefore they can't be counted as reliable transportation...necessary to, say, keep from losing a job.

      Besides, if you look at the actual numbers, you'll find that in actuality, used cars aren't drastically cheaper than new cars on a consistent basis. "Consistent" is the watchword in that last sentence--we all know someone or other who's gotten a million miles out of a car with all original parts and only standard maintenance, but that's not the usual experience. If you amortize all of the cost of up-trended maintenance costs and sudden, large purchases (like when a tranny gets smoked--and these are the hardest on low-income families because they can't make a sudden investment in anything, regardless of what the upside is), you'll see that new, warrantied cars are indeed more expensive, but not *nearly* as much as you probably thought. (Considering a brand new $25k 2005 model against a 2002 model and a 1997 model, both of which were equivalently priced when new, you'll find the difference in total cost of ownership about $45/month and $60/month respectively if the "average" amount of stuff goes wrong with the used, non-warrantied cars. And if you think the extended warranty is a good deal...well, let's just say I have a bridge you might be interested in. So you can have a brand new 2005 Chrysler minivan for $360/month, or a used 8-year old for about $300/month--and this monthly fee will be unpredictably collected at that.)

      Also, you'll see that many of the benefits of all this new-fangled technology we're paying for actually makes used cars more expensive to maintain in the long run. Used to be you could go to the auto parts store and throw a new distributor on your car. Used to be you could change your own engine coolant. Now with cars being closed systems, you have to pay a mechanic to do much of this long-term work, pumping up the cost of keeping these older cars.

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    7. Re:Ummm... by ReidMaynard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Again is this such a large problem that new laws are needed requiring yet more technology being forced on the general (driving) public, in every passanger car?

      I think the answer is no.

      Sounds like another solution looking for a problem.

      --
      -- www.globaltics.net

      Political discussion for a new world

  2. Gee.. by bigattichouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And in the name of the children, your car will report you and automagically deduct the fines from your bank account.. or report if you have doubled the speedlimit and need "assistance" from local law enforcement... ahh the brave new world

    --
    meh
    1. Re:Gee.. by bconway · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And yet, strangely, the fact remains that you were (hypothetically) breaking the law. When did it become acceptable to only follow the rules if you're in danger of getting caught? *groan* Personal responsibility is dead.

      --
      Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
  3. RFID by FlipmodePlaya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wouldn't it be easier to use some sort of RFID to tell the cars of changes in speed limits/etc. than relying on feeble image recognition technology? Without knowing much about the subject, it seems like that would be more resistant to weather conditions as well. In either case, it seems like a much better addition to cars than black boxes and OnStar GPS tracking...

    1. Re:RFID by bcattwoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But with the RFID technology you would have to add RFID tags to all of the street signs which would probably add up quickly. With the proposed system the cost would only be shouldered by the owners of the cars using the new technology. That said your system probably would actually work better.

  4. Can it be adjusted for de facto speed limits? by Stinking+Pig · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Drive the speed limit on an American highway and you'll be given a ticket for obstructing traffic :) Seriously, the right-hand slow lane is usually a few mph above the posted limit, and the great mass of traffic is going 10-15 mph above. It's the cowboys blasting along at 20 mph above and greater who tend to get busted, particularly if they're weaving through the lanes, as it is not very practical to give everyone on the highway a ticket.

    --
    "Nothing was broken, and it's been fixed." -- Jon Carroll
  5. Re:roland by sploo22 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Did you notice the "department line"?

    --
    Karma: Segmentation fault (tried to dereference a null post)
  6. dangerous by vijayiyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What happens when we all have road range when we hear "Warning. Warning. You are traveling at 63mph in a 60mph zone" over and over again? I know I don't drive as safely in a fit of rage.

  7. This is just the beginning... by bursch-X · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The next step will be to get rid of those drivers. They're the ones always screwing up anyway, what better solution than to eliminate the biggest cause of error in driving?

    Let's just build cars that drive themselves and everybody start walking to work again. Problem solved.

    --
    There are two rules for success:
    1. Never tell everything you know.
  8. at first, i thought this was a good idea... by knowles420 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    but there's the whole matter of giving people yet another reason to not pay attention to the road.

    --
    -knowles
  9. In related headlines by antimatt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Smart drivers drive for the conditions anyway.

    Smarter cars will help, sure. The problem is: the 'bad drivers' will start to rely on the car to do the thinking for them. I don't exactly want to share the road with these people.

  10. in the future... by Lifix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the car knows when you are going over the speed limit... how long will it be until your car gives you a ticket for speeding? I predict that in the future, cars that give tickets to their drivers will be available to low income families (at special rates) and to regular folk that come packaged with a nice tax break somewhere.

    Your car just gave you a three hundred dollar ticket... /discuss


    --
    In nature, there are neither rewards or punishments, there are only consequences.
    1. Re:in the future... by korbin_dallas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well seeing as how the monetary awards to the local police ball are 'revenue' enhancers...as a 'invitee', I would prefer the car NOT allow me to speed.

      No speed == no ticket.

      Bets on the number of days before the local govs file to have this technology junked?

      --
      They Live, We Sleep
  11. Re:What if by bcattwoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This sounds more like a dumb cop then a problem with the road signs. If the green arrow is lit and you turn, then you are not making a right on red because you have a green light, correct? If you turned right while that arrow was red (or rather not green or yellow) then you would be making a right on red and thus disobeying the sign. I have seen plenty of intersections like that and it makes sense to me.

  12. Re:AGAIN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Here's some info about Roland and his blogging business. It's nice to see he's managed to manipulate the slashdot effect to his advantage.

    Seriously, I think the Slashdot editors should really stop allowing him to submit things that link to his blog instead of the real source.

  13. Wow by celeritas_2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dumbest application of technology....ever. I have to say I think this technology would do nothing except make cars more expensive and roads less safe. A good driver can see a damn sign with their own two eyes so they don't need this. A bad driver who pays little attention to the road will be made worse because he will depend on the system instead of (gasp) looking at signs. When the system fails as it most certainly will, the good driver will only notice a wallet deficit, the bad driver won't see a sign he wasn't looking for and will run a stop sign and kill someone, then blame the system. Not a good idea. When it works it's useless, when it doesn't it's deadly. How about car mfg. pay 5000 to pay for driver education instead of stupid technology eh?

    --
    -- Checking emails and kicking cheats `till the day I die.
  14. Re:maybe the cop can do some explaining too by Dhalka226 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And maybe he/she will have to explain why they use speed "enforcement" as a means of generating revenue and a means of generating an excuse to search people's cars.

    Mmm... not quite. Being pulled over is not an excuse to have your car searched. Suspicious activity while you're being ticketed, however, may be, and of course anything in plain sight is fair game. Any scent of alcohol or indication of drug use may be grounds for a sobriety test as well. Then again, if we're complaining that cops are taking drunks and druggies off the roads, I simply don't have a lot of sympathy about it.

    As far as generating revenue, sure, they do. And that (especially combined with "quotas") might well be an excuse to pull you over. But you know, you're also breaking the law and they're enforcing it and I find it somewhat ironic trying to take the high road about it. But you know, on the other hand, those tickets DO get a message across. Illinois just made not having your seatbelt on a ticketable offense. (For clarity, it has been illegal for quite some time, but they never used to be able to pull you over FOR it, only write you an additional ticket when they had you anyway; now that is enough cause.) On the way back from college for the weekend, my dad and I both got nailed for no seatbelts. My dad has never worn a seatbelt in his life, but damned if he doesn't have it on every time he gets on that highway now. Am I happy about paying the fine? Hell no. But I'm wearing my seatbelt. No, it's not perfect; no, it hasn't changed his behavior on every road, but it helped.

    Likewise, I have friends who have gotten speeding tickets and it's amazing what good, curteous drivers they become for a few weeks. Again, not permenant, but it's something.

    Speed enforcement is just an excuse for getting into your wallet, and your car. It's extremely selectively enforced; the cops don't pull over everyone(next time you're on the road, look down at your speedo. Notice the car in front of you and behind you and all around you- they're all doing the same speed)

    I'll have you know I don't wear a speedo on the road!

    But seriously, enforcement is an "excuse" to get into your wallet? Buddy, it's the law, and while there are plenty of bad laws around (*cough*Patriot Act!*cough*), I'm not going to fault the police for enforcing them. If you have a problem with the law, take it up with your legislaters, not the cops.

    As far as "they're all doing the same speed," that's a poor excuse/example for a number of reasons. For starters, if you're just going as fast as the traffic around you your chances of getting pulled over for it are lessened, for a number of reasons. It's the guys blowing by the people taking liberty with their "freebie" 10 miles over who get nailed the most. And the second reason I can explain with an old cop joke:

    A man was speeding down the highway, feeling secure in a gaggle of cars all traveling at the same speed. However, as they passed a speed trap, he got nailed with an infrared speed detector and was pulled over.

    The officer handed him the citation, received his signature and was about to walk away when the man asked, "Officer, I know I was speeding, but I don't think it's fair - there were plenty of other cars around me who were going just as fast, so why did *I* get the ticket?"

    "Ever go fishing?" the policeman suddenly asked the man.

    "Ummm, yeah..." the startled man replied.

    The officer grinned and added, "Ever catch *all* the fish?"

    No conflict of interest there, no sir, not an insurance company giving police officers a device that, every time it is used, causes someone's insurance rate to go through the roof, despite no evidence speeding causes accidents.

    NO evidence? If nothing else it cuts down your available time to react without causing an accident and I think that would be a fair example. But even if you're right that

  15. Er, why look at the person's eyes? by realdpk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What I've always thought would be cool would be a system that reads the signs, and then lights up something behind the speedometer at the speed you're supposed to be going (only when you pass the sign, tho, so it doesn't keep showing you 55 when you turn off the highway 3 miles later. ;)

  16. Bad, Bad, Bad Idea by lcsjk · · Score: 3, Insightful
    What if a sign is down or missing or obscured by some tree limb? What if the cameras fail to decode properly? Drivers will start to depend on the system and tend to miss things like the dog or child entering the roadway. If a driver is depending on some external device to "see" anything for himself, he or she will become dangerous.

    We have much better technology than depending on cameras. For instance, a vehicle sensor embedded in the roadway could turn on a strobe visible to the driver and at the same time send both RF and light (IR-data) to the auto's onboard sensors to tell whether the upcoming event is stop sign, speed limit sign or traffic light.