New Car Sensor System Simulates Birds-Eye View

narramissic writes "Remember when you had to turn around in your seat to parallel park? Ok, maybe you still do, but if you drive a Nissan, those days may soon be behind you. The company's 'Around View Monitor system' displays a virtual bird's-eye view of the car and what's around it. Video from four small video cameras with wide-angle lenses — two mounted on the underside of the wing mirrors, one at the front under the grill and one at the rear under the license plate — is displayed on the navigation system monitor so that it appears to be a view from above the car and sonar sensors at each corner of the vehicle provide an audible warning when it is coming close to an object or person. And as if that weren't enough... the system also projects the car's future course based on the current direction of the wheels."

Comments

AVM in action

[heneon]

See the link:
https://www.nissan-global.com/EN/TECHNOLOGY/INTRODUCTION/DETAILS/AVM/index.html

Re:AVM in action

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you giving people an https? Here it is without the 'wrong certificate warning' dialogs,

http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/TECHNOLOGY/INTRODUCTION/DETAILS/AVM/index.html

While it's an interesting concept, especially in Tokyo where you regularly see microvans in spaces with an inch to spare (it's a tax thing, not land cost), do we have anything but PR here?

This could be just another flavour of concept-car, in which case it's no more now than it was in 60s Mechanic's Illustrated. (Yes, I was promised flying cars when I grew up, and I'm kinda bitter.)

The crucial bug to be defeated is it must see everything yet not generate false positives, and that's a very difficult "last mile" to accomplish. Where we are right now is your ubercar backup sensor causes very expensive damage because it was confused the antique metal bar fence.

Re:AVM in action

[solitas]

It IS an interesting copncept, but I'd rather see images with cars and pedestrians arount the vehicle - you SURE aren't gonna see images as nice and clean and 'correct' as the flat-plane parking lot surface shown in the demo.

I'd bet the imagery would look pretty wild and subject to a hell of a lot of interpretation by the driver.

Re:AVM in action

[Dun Malg]

While it's an interesting concept, especially in Tokyo where you regularly see microvans in spaces with an inch to spare (it's a tax thing, not land cost), do we have anything but PR here?

This could be just another flavour of concept-car, in which case it's no more now than it was in 60s Mechanic's Illustrated. (Yes, I was promised flying cars when I grew up, and I'm kinda bitter.) This isn't the same class as the "flying car". We already have cameras and monitors in cars. This is simply an evolutionary improvement. We will be seeing this, and probably quite soon.

The crucial bug to be defeated is it must see everything yet not generate false positives, and that's a very difficult "last mile" to accomplish. Where we are right now is your ubercar backup sensor causes very expensive damage because it was confused the antique metal bar fence. This system is basically four video cameras. Video cameras are not confused by wrought iron fences. You're confusing this with purely non-visual ultrasonic proximity detection systems. This system is supplemented with sonar prox units for collision warning, but it is primarily a visible light based system.

Is it really too much to read and understand the /. blurb in its entirety?

Re:AVM in action

[luder]

I fail to see how this is better than the already existing self-parking systems...

Re:AVM in action

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it really too much to read and understand the /. blurb in its entirety?

Is it really too much to read and understand my comment in its entirety?

Mocking aside, you misunderstand me, so I'll elaborate.

This isn't the same class as the "flying car". We already have cameras and monitors in cars. This is simply an evolutionary improvement. We will be seeing this, and probably quite soon.

It's in the same class as the "flying car" insomuch that it appears to be just some PR to get eyeball time.

And in the 60's we also already had the components to create flying cars. There was a large private-aircraft industry, and the Taylor Aerocar was well know. But the true "last mile" of turning the interesting idea into a practical daily item has eluded us.

Which was my point, which is right there in the immediately following paragraph, but you chose to change context for the sake of your response. Try, as you say, reading and understanding in entirety.

And yes, this system uses video cameras. I read the little article and watched the little video. What I did not see was anything about actual daily use. Video cameras, or sonar, or ouija board -- I don't care; it's all backup-sensors, and my example is that what we actually have in backup sensors hasn't gotten any further in completing the last mile to practical utility.

So after hearing about these for as long as flying cars (yes, cars-that-park-themselves and tv-rear-view were regulars in the pulp rags), any announcement today has to have something about real daily use to prove it's not just more look-at-me PR, like plastic shapes & booth babes at concept car shows.

And I didn't see that anywhere. Did you?

Re:AVM in action

[lgarner]

"(Yes, I was promised flying cars when I grew up, and I'm kinda bitter.)"

Not me. There are too many morons who can't drive in two-dimensions, let alone three.

Re:AVM in action

[Anonymous Coward]

Neat for parking, so I see it being useful in not scraping someone's bumper or braking it (bumpers used to work as bumpers, but have been relegated to uselessness since the late '80s.)

But when will someone start making that aftermarket video car periscope I've been wanting? I want to be able to see if it's safe to pass that SUV or truck meandering 15 under the limit. Or if it's ok to make that left turn because the SUV across the intersection is blocking visibility of the other oncoming lanes. With such a device, nimble cars would be freed from the opression the land barges place upon them in traffic.

Re:AVM in action

[mgcarley]

Uhhhhhhhhh... sorry, but Mercedes Benz (definately S-Class, not sure about other classes, definitely in Japan and Europe, and almost certainly in models from 2001 and later) have had this sort of stuff for a few years now.

Normally in the center of the dash there is a DVD Player/TV/Navigation/Control System, which flicks to the reverse cameras when you shift in to reverse.

In addition, you can see a fairly wide angle view, including a couple of meters out either side, both above and below the bumper. Additionally it has moving guide lines to show where you will be going based on which way the steering wheel is turned.

This is nothing new, but it's cool that this is being introduced in to "normal" cars.

sounds great

[User 956]

New Car Sensor System Simulates Birds-Eye View

I see, so they've perfected a computerized bird-feces targeting system?

Re:sounds great

[gooman]

Yes, but it only works right after you wash the car.

Re:sounds great

[arivanov]

1. It is a Nissan for the USA market (Infinity EX35). A target so big that it is hard to miss even for a very clueless bird. That is beside the fact that crap on top of crap is really hard to notice.

2. Nissan has been trying to compensate for the abissmal visibility by cameras for a while now. The Primera in EU was released this way. It was a majestic flop. While the old Primera was one of the most popular family saloons, the new one did not achieve even 10% of the old model sales (more likely 5).

3. In order to park in tight spaces in a city you actually over-steer all the time. To parallel park in reverse you actually go backwards the kerb and turn at the last moment. Similarly to park when going forward your best bet is to "french-park" - climb the kerb with the front wheel and use part of the pavement to complete the turn (not something you are supposed to do, but works a treat). In order to do both maneuvers you need to know where you car will end up if you turn your steering wheel all the way to the side "right now", not where it will end if you continue on the same trajectory. So, the Nissan gimmick showing you where you car will continue to go if continuing on its trajectory is of little help. If you guide yourself by that you are never going to squeeze it in a EU parking space.

camera to low

[azery]

a shame the cameras are placed so low. With more/other cameras, you might see a bike next to your car, a pedestrian behind your parked car... Especially useful for larger cars, vans, trucks,...

Re:camera to low

[wlad]

With more cameras you could get an even better picture of the environment, perhaps even give a 3D view of the happenings around you car. Sure, that would be even better, but this is an start :)

Re:camera to low

[aix tom]

That is called "Windows"

Unfortunately one big evil software Company has dibs on the concept.

Re:camera to low

[wlad]

The problem with "windows" is that they suffer from blind spots, especially when you take the mirrors into account. With trucks and other vehicles that don't even have rear windows it's even worse. Such a system would allow for complete awareness of what happens around the vehicle.

Re:camera to low

[Glonoinha]

So what you are saying is - if you rely solely on Windows, you are probably going to crash on a regular basis, and more frequently on some hardware than others?

Re:camera to low

[garompeta]

Windows Car Sensor (WCS): Ping!, you-are excee-ding speed-limit. Please slow down. WCPS: Ping!, you-are driving dangerously. Please slow down. WCPS: Ping!, you are exceed83@&7@&3###-Runtime error 2x2232232

Re:camera to low

[White Yeti]

Two common types of video (around here anyway) will be: view of fog lights disappearing just before video goes black; and view of underwater debris during or after a heavy urban rainstorm.

Third person driving!

[Tremegorn]

The safety benefits of such a system are immense, but; Does this mean driving down the highway is going to be like playing some strange version of Grand Turismo?

Re:Third person driving!

[aichpvee]

Top down, so it's going to be more like the old Grand Theft Autos. Does the navigation system keep track of your points for running over joggers?

Re:Third person driving!

[Cuppa 'Joe' Black]

No. Frogger.

Re:Third person driving!

[boris111]

Spy Hunter!

Re:Third person driving!

[Zantetsuken]

So then the faster you go, the more the camera zooms out?

Not so hot

[InternationalCow]

I mean, Toyota has this system where the car parks itself (http://www.hiptechblog.com/2006/02/25/toyotas-parallel-parking-assist/). So tell me, how does this Nissan toy improve over that?

Re:Not so hot

[junglee_iitk]

Actually, Nissan's system is much better than Toyota's automatic-parallel-parking, because all of these technologies will come in handy all the time, and not only while parallel parking. Imagine playing Grand Theft Auto with future trajectory projected :)

Re:Not so hot

[iRegister]

1. If there's a bug in the code, the problem will manifest itself on screen as opposed to as a car collision and a huge gasoline-fuelled explosion hellfire over the blood splattered bodies of innocent babies that the automated parallel parking system accidentally runs over.
2. You can practice your parallel parking.

Re:Not so hot

[edelholz]

I like the imagery, but I believe Toyota's system only turns your steering wheel and tells you to accelerate/brake. And maybe, just maybe, after it parked your car twenty times, you'll notice how parallel parking works and might even be able to do it yourself some day.
But seriously, when parking spaces are tight (not talking America here), it'd much prefer a system that tells me "Yes, you can park there" and then basically does the parking for me instead of just some video cameras that leave the judging up to me.

I wonder how well Nissan's system works in the dark.

Re:Not so hot

[Anonymous Coward]

There's also the convienent, much cheaper and simpler feature of just turning down the side-view mirrors when the car is in reverse...

But what really gets me is why it's called parallel parking, when it's the complete opposite!

Re:Not so hot

[Anonymous Coward]

But what really gets me is why it's called parallel parking, when it's the complete opposite!

What? It's parallel and it's parking. Which part of that is confusing you?

Re:Not so hot

[Dun Malg]

I mean, Toyota has this system where the car parks itself (http://www.hiptechblog.com/2006/02/25/toyotas-parallel-parking-assist/). So tell me, how does this Nissan toy improve over that? Please. Toyota's auto-park system is a joke. It's for jackasses who never learned to parallel park and can't do it without five feet of clearance and a dozen back-and-forth motions. The Toyota system requires too much clearance front and back to be useful. The minimum space requirement is large enough that I could park in the space myself with my eyes closed. The kind of tight spaces I'd need help with, it can't figure out.

Re:Not so hot

[Anonymous Coward]

But seriously, when parking spaces are tight (not talking America here),

Hahahahahahahaha...Jersey City...hahahahaha...(gasp)...Manhattan...hahahahaha...haha...that was funny.

You should get out more. There's more to America than bumfuck, Wyoming.

Re:Not so hot

[CastrTroy]

I agree with you. It's not that hard to learn how to parallel park. With a good teacher, and proper instruction, you can learn it in about 10 minutes. I find it quite scary that there are people on the road who don't have enough control over the car to parallel park. If you can't control where the car is going at a low speed, what happens when something unexpected happens on the highway.

Re:Not so hot

[Dun Malg]

There's also the convienent, much cheaper and simpler feature of just turning down the side-view mirrors when the car is in reverse... Tilted side mirrors don't show you how far your front and rear bumpers are from any obstructions.

But what really gets me is why it's called parallel parking, when it's the complete opposite!
The reference point is the line of the road edge, not other parked cars. You are parking parallel to the curb.

Re:Not so hot

[NormalVisual]

And don't forget having the judgement to know where you can and can't park. My wife and I had a blast while in a restaurant in Dinard, France last year as we watched this lady trying to parallel park in a space that was clearly too small for her car. She bumped the cars in front and behind at least four times each before the light bulb came on and she left in search of parking elsewhere.

Needs reactive logging

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks great. But it should track the surrounding while parked as well.
If someone would hit the car while I'm away, I'd want a photo of the bastard and their license plate.

And...

[Cyno01]

How long does it take to flip through the views of all these cameras, look at your projected course, adjust, look at your new projected course... They're called bumpers for a reason. Well, they used to be anyway, some years ago manufacturers decided to take all utility out of them...

Re:And...

[imsabbel]

You did not read the article. Not even the _summary_.
There is no flipping through views.

Re:And...

[Opportunist]

Well, RTFA, but one thing's so damn true: Bumpers ain't what they used to be.

I once owned an old car. A Mercedes from 1960something. Back then they were quite cheap here (standard joke: My computer costs more than my car, and my car's a Mercedes. Gets you quite funny looks).

This thing had bumpers. It was my first car, thus prone to accidents. Now, if there's one thing it had, it was good breaks. Usually better than the breaks of the guy behind me. I've heard more than one of those plastic fake bumpers shatter against my steel one. A hammer was all I needed, the other guy usually needed a new bumper.

Yes, they were not as pretty and streamlined into the rest of the car like those pseudo bumpers today. They were ugly, they stood out against the rest and anything but matching the color of the car. But they meant that I could park my car on the side of the street and when I come back, my car would still look the same. Maybe with a little paint on the bumpers in case the person in front or behind me couldn't park without touching.

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

Another story about bumpers.

Middle of last year, I did some late night shopping, and was parked on the end parking spot of a dozen - and went inside, finished my shopping, then came out to find my driver's side door with a Subaru WRX nosed in an inch away. Now, as big as my car is (with its real steel bumpers from 1969) it's still not the most fun thing to climb in the passenger door of, and over the t-bar.

I did that anyway, and reversed out, turning a blind eye to the WRX's 'bumper' getting shredded by mine. By the time I'd extracted myself from the parking spot, my bumped had folded the WRX's number plate over in half, and made a goot 2-3ft crumple across its bumper... and I drove home.

Curiously, light fibreglass/plastic bumpers are claimed to save weight, but my 1969 V8 Futura is 20kg lighter than the WRX - 1325KG vs 1345KG.

Felt good, it did, and all I had was a few inches of blue WRX paint on my bumper - and that scratched off with a fingernail.

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

You should be glad that the collision wasn't at a higher speed. The other guy's bumper was protecting him from injury by using some of the energy from the collision to break itself. Your bumper was selfishly protecting itself, and passing the impact on to you.

Re:And...

[CastrTroy]

You could still have a big steal bumper that absorbs energy from a collision. It just depends on how you attach it to the car. If there was a solid bumper, mounted with big thick springs, it could probably absorb quite a bit of a crash, while at the same time not completely shattering when you bumped into something at 5 mph.

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this insightful? Not only did the parent obviously not RTFA, or the summary, but it seems he didn't even read the damned title!

New Car Sensor System Simulates Birds-Eye View

means its not just flipping through camera feeds - it has a computer generated view point of being outside the car using visual data gathered from on the surface of the car, predicting what it should look like from another point of view.

Re:And...

[NormalVisual]

This is one thing I like about my pickup truck - it has real bumpers. Last July I got rear-ended at a traffic light by an idiot that was paying more attention to his phone call than driving. The impact was hard enough to set off both of his airbags and crunch his bumper, hood, grille, headlights, etc., but did no damage to my truck except for bending the back bumper down a bit, and that was easily fixed with a puller at the body shop for about $60. Had I not had a solid, non girly-looking, real metal bumper, it'd have cost a *lot* more to fix than it did. Like you, I've been hit from behind a few times at much lower speeds, and it's always impossible to tell that anything's happened to my truck, while the other guy's front fascia is in little shattered pieces all over the pavement.

It's frigging *ludicrous* that if someone bumps you from behind and you're driving a relatively new car, you're likely looking at a $1K repair just to replace and paint the broken fascia, even if there's no structural damage and the underlying bumper is okay. I sure am glad they put all that plastic on there just so everyone can save $5.00 in fuel costs over the life of the damn car. It's a *bumper*, people - it's supposed to protect the car from major damage, not be a source of it. This video pretty clearly illustrates what a steaming pile of crap most car bumpers/frames are like nowadays.

Re:And...

[RpiMatty]

That video is quite amusing, because those guys look like they have no clue what they were doing.
With that many people they could have tried pushing the car forward. Instead they tried towing it right over a snowbank, instead of sideways off the snowbank.
It looks like they hooked up to the bumper mounts instead of the rear axle.

I have a mid 80s Buick. It has nice real bumpers attached to a nice steel frame. The only problem I have is my car is so low compared to some of these new suvs. Someone rear ended me and their bumper was above mine. They ended up destroying the tail lights and the trunk.

Re:And...

[ThePromenader]

Oh, the bumpers will still have use in European countries. French parking! I can imagine this technology in action there already:

Beep-beep-beep-beeeeep-beeeeeep-beeeeeeeeeep-beeeeeeeeeee(THUNK!)
Beep-beep-beep-beeep-beeeeep-beeeeeep-beeeeeeeeeep-beeeeeeeeeee(THUNK!)
Bip-beep-beeep-beeeep-beeeeeep-beeeeeeeeeep-beeeeeeeeeeeeee(THUNK!)

Let me just say one thing...

[w3c.org]

Riding shotgun !

Saving lives

[PietjeJantje]

I'm sorry to disturb the parallel parking conveniences day dreaming of some, but the real advantage is the elimination of blind spots. For starters, if every SUV (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/22/earlyshow/living/parenting/main526462.shtml), truck (http://www.oregonlive.com/metro/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1192245943100770.xml&coll=7), tractor (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1440-1754.1998.00177.x?cookieSet=1) or van had such a device, thousands of lives around the globe would be saved each year.

Re:Saving lives

[Osty]

I'm sorry to disturb the parallel parking conveniences day dreaming of some, but the real advantage is the elimination of blind spots. For starters, if every SUV, truck, tractor or van had such a device, thousands of lives around the globe would be saved each year.

Or you could teach people how to actually drive those behemoths, assuming they have a real reason for doing so (no, hauling the crotch-spawn around in an SUV doesn't count). Or you could teach people not to drive in another vehicle's blind spot (a huge pet peeve of mine, since I drive a convertible with a significant blind spot when the top is up). Common sense and driver training is a cheaper, better long-term solution than cameras, especially when the people with the cameras probably won't use them just as they don't use their mirrors or check their blind spots with a shoulder look today.

Re:Saving lives

[Anonymous Coward]

Cars already have devices to do this function - they are called Mirrors.

People dont use those enough, adding cameras is not the answer, drivers being more aware of their surroundings and not picking vehicles on how protected they will be when (not if) they crash is ACTUALLY the answer.

Re:Saving lives

[PietjeJantje]

There are problems with increased perceived security, it is directly correlated to the attention and concentration of the driver. Likewise, only 1/5th of accidents happen while it's raining, because people drive more safely. In the Netherlands a death spot system (mirrors or cameras) is mandatory on trucks to protect the bikers and kids since 2003, the first results show the system is often ill aligned or maintained, while the drivers rely on it and lazily skip the part where they really watch, and this ironically leads to accidents. On a whole it still saves a lot of lives.

Re:Saving lives

[zippthorne]

Only lazy and inattentive people rely on mirrors for parking. You're supposed to physically turn around and look out the damn window. Mirrors are for seeing around the car during regular travel when you can't take your eyes off the road in front of you.

Re:Saving lives

[Skater]

So, wait. You drive a convertible with a huge blind spot when the top is up, and I'm supposed to know where that is?

Trucks, RVs, busses, no problem, I know where their blind spots are, because they're all essentially the same. But if you think I'm taking the time to learn the blind spot of every car on the road, think again. If your safety relies on everyone else knowing where your blind spots are, then you'd better drive something else or keep the top down.

Re:Saving lives

[edelholz]

I wouldn't overestimate the advantages of such a system. It only seems to cover one or two meters around your vehicle, so for it to be advantageous, you and whatever you're trying to avoid would need to be moving quite slowly. Firstly, because you'd need time to pay attention to the screen. And secondly, because you're not going to see that cyclist on your screen before he's right in your windshield, too. So I think that system might help you to not hit grandma walking behind you on Walmarts parking lot, or not hit that low bumper at the end of the parking spot, but it's definitely not going to help the cyclist who's right-of-way you just cut.

Re:Saving lives

[JonathanR]

Bullshit. You can see just as much, if not more, through correctly aligned mirrors as looking directly out the windows. More so if you have convex mirrors. Looking out of the side and rear windows (or opening the doors, as some old farts do), is for pansies with no spatial awareness.

Re:Saving lives

[tjstork]

Or you could teach people how to actually drive those behemoths, assuming they have a real reason for doing so (no, hauling the crotch-spawn around in an SUV doesn't count).

You just wait until you have kids. Then I will laugh at you, as you try and contort a couple of car seats into some tiny japmobile. And, if you never have kids, then I'll still laugh at you, because you have eliminated your genetic destiny.

Re:Saving lives

[Paco103]

What's there to learn? Ever car has pretty much the same blind spot, some are just larger than others. If the vehicle has no rear view mirror (trucks, cargo vans, etc) , than close behind is a blind spot (you should never be that close anyway). The dangerous blind spots are always about about 4 and 8 o'clock. Too far up for [regular] mirrors to see you, too far back for the drivers peripheral. Convertibles don't have steel beams in the roof, so there's a large canvas patch that would interfere with the view here. True, the driver should be aware of their vehicles blind spots. I personally use convex mirrors on both sides, so even without having to turn I have no blind spots.

Yes, the driver SHOULD still be checking their blind spots. But as a vigilant driver, shouldn't you still be aware when you're driving in one, and know that it's in your best interest to get out of it. Either pass or fall back.

Re:Saving lives

[Hognoxious]

If you can't see my mirrors, I can't see you.

Re:Saving lives

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could stop being a fat american and drive a medium sized car ( eg: ford mondeo, renault megane, etc )

Re:Saving lives

[Anonymous Coward]

I drive a convertible, too, and I'd like to point out that using the side mirrors as *side-view* mirrors really helps with the blind spots.

That is, adjust them so that they give you a more of a view off to the side, rather than focusing on the rear view along the side of the car. With a little patience, it should be possible to set them up so that the overlap of the rear-view between the interior rear-view mirror and the two side mirrors is minimised, giving a much reduced blind spot on both sides.

Oh wait - I see you drive a Boxster, which pretty much just has a port-hole for a rear window, so never mind, this advice probably isn't going to help you.

Just drive it like you stole it, then, and everything else on the road will remain behind you.

Re:Saving lives

[stuntpope]

2 kids. Both a rear-facing infant carseat and the older one's carseat fit with no problems in both a Jetta and a "japmobile". No contortions required. Same story now that we have one in a child's car seat and a full-size booster seat for the older one. If you have 3 or more kids that require child car seats, then you've got a point. Otherwise, this is a bogus argument.

Re:Saving lives

[shakuni]

I think we in the United States ( I am in immigrant from India) are so used to big cars as a way of life ( and I drive an SUV too) that we refuse to make changes that might inconvenience us just a wee bit but, may be better for our future. I am not debating climate change impact due to pollution caused by gas guzzlers. I am just commenting on our inability to make minor changes to our lives if there is potential benefit for our collective future.

I am a true and true capitalist and believe in personal freedom and liberty more than most. So I will not recommend government enforcing any such measure but we often make these choices willingly when we believe that it is "civic" and "common sense" to do it.

I still think US continues to set high standards of personal responsibility but there is nothing that stops us from improving. I drive my Honda much much more than my BMW even when I have to take my kid out. It makes personal economic sense and it makes civic sense.

Re:Saving lives

[CastrTroy]

I'm not sure where you live, but to me, it doesn't seem like it rains more than 1/5 of the time. So it could be completely unrelated. There actually could be a higher rate of accidents while it's raining, because it doesn't rain every day, at least not unless you live in the tropics. And even there, it only rains a couple hours, not all day long.

Re:Saving lives

[tjstork]

I think we in the United States ( I am in immigrant from India) are so used to big cars as a way of life ( and I drive an SUV too) that we refuse to make changes that might inconvenience us just a wee bit but, may be better for our future.

Better for our future? The thing that frosts me is that environmentalists bitch so much about SUVs and V8 engines, as if, that's the problem. It's not the real problem. The real problem is insufficient electricity. Nuclear power is the answer for that. If enviros wouldn't have ruined nuclear power with all of their blocking activities, we would have been onto electric cars along time ago, because we'd have a grid with enough power to run them.

Re:Saving lives

[CastrTroy]

In Canada, children require car seats until they are 8 (booster seat), so it's quite common that if you have 3 kids, that they will all be in some form of child seat at the same time.

Re:Saving lives

[CastrTroy]

Wait.... I'm confused... are you telling me to buy a Honda Civic?

Re:Saving lives

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what mini-vans are for. They are far superior to SUVs when it comes to hauling stuff around. SUVs are for assholes, period.

Re:Saving lives

[tjstork]

Or you could stop being a fat american and drive a medium sized car

I'm not fat. I am built like Jet Li. I have less than 10% b.f., weight lift 3-4 times a week, and you can kiss my ass, when my giant tankmobile runs over your sissy Ford Mexideo.

Re:Saving lives

[Dun Malg]

Or you could stop being a fat american and drive a medium sized car ( eg: ford mondeo, renault megane, etc ) Dumbass. As if any American would know any of your European medium sized cars by name. Your examples are meaningless outside of Europe. Renault doesn't even sell cars in the US.

Re:Saving lives

[GiMP]

Except in the US, those are micro-sized. The smallest cars available in the US are the Mini Cooper, Toyota Yaris (3 door), Scion Hatchback (5 door), and the Honda Fit. The Smart ForTwo is expected to arrive in 08'.

My Yaris feels like a boat compared to most EU cars, and like the Titantic compared to the Maluch (Fiat 126p).

Re:Saving lives

[NormalVisual]

Only lazy and inattentive people rely on mirrors for parking.

Really? The way my (admittedly large) mirrors are set up, there's nothing I can see by turning my head and looking around me that I can't see in them, and plenty that I *can* see in the mirror that I can't otherwise.

Re:Saving lives

[Anonymous Coward]

he is telling you to drive the most fuel efficient car you own, fuckwit. not necessarily the most luxurious.

Re:Saving lives

[Skater]

Your comment implied that the blind spots are far worse on your convertible. Frankly, I don't care whether I'm in it - it's your responsibility to watch out for me if I'm in them, not mine, and if you were to hit me, you would be at fault, not me. Yes, I'm probably trying to pass you (or you're passing me), but what seems to happen a lot on the highways around here is that I get in the left lane, only to come upon someone that's cruising in the left lane at the same speed as the right lane (expand as necessary for wider roads - DC area roads really suck for driving).

What I do is adjust the side mirrors outward so that there's only a little overlap with the rearview mirror. This makes my blind spots shrink such that the largest vehicle I can lose in them is a motorcycle, not a car. Try it sometime - it takes some getting used to, but it helps a lot. I don't know why everyone is trained to adjust the side mirrors so that they overlap with the rearview - it gives you redundant information.

Re:Saving lives

[Osty]

Your comment implied that the blind spots are far worse on your convertible. Frankly, I don't care whether I'm in it - it's your responsibility to watch out for me if I'm in them, not mine, and if you were to hit me, you would be at fault, not me. Yes, I'm probably trying to pass you (or you're passing me), but what seems to happen a lot on the highways around here is that I get in the left lane, only to come upon someone that's cruising in the left lane at the same speed as the right lane (expand as necessary for wider roads - DC area roads really suck for driving).

I was the original poster talking about my convertible's blind spot. And yes, I agree that it's my responsibility to check my blind spot and be aware of it. I do that, and I know where traffic is around me at all times. The pet peeve I was referring to was people who will pull up on my left or right up around my rear fender and then just sit there (especially on my left, because if you camp a blind spot from the left then you're misusing the lane). They don't pass, they don't fall back, and I can't really do either because I'm stuck behind slower traffic. My point was either shit or get off the pot -- if you're going to pull up to my blind spot, keep on going. Obviously if we're in stop-and-go traffic that doesn't matter, but if we're in relatively free-flowing traffic and you decide to camp in my blind spot then you're an idiot. I'll take care not to hit you, and do everything in my power to move myself, but there's no reason why you should be there at all. Pull through or fall back.

What I do is adjust the side mirrors outward so that there's only a little overlap with the rearview mirror. This makes my blind spots shrink such that the largest vehicle I can lose in them is a motorcycle, not a car. Try it sometime - it takes some getting used to, but it helps a lot. I don't know why everyone is trained to adjust the side mirrors so that they overlap with the rearview - it gives you redundant information.

I know how to adjust my mirrors, thankyouverymuch. Sadly, many people out there don't know how to do that at all. How many times have you gotten in a rental car only to find that the side mirrors give an excellent view of your car's body? Even basic adjustments will help, though if you have the time you really should fine tune:

1. Get your seating position set. You want your back straight, your knees slightly bent at full pedal extension, and you should be able to rest your wrists on the top of the steering wheel with your shoulders flat against the seatback and still have a slight bend in your elbows.
2. Once you're in the proper seating position, adjust your rear-view so you have a full view of what's behind. Take note of landmarks like signs or trees or bushes on either side.
3. Placing your left cheek against the driver's window (right cheek, if you're in a RHD country), adjust your left mirror until you can just barely see your own car.
4. Using an imaginary line down the center of the vehicle, lean so your right cheek is just touching that line. Adjust your right mirror until you can just barely see your own car.
5. Return to a normal seating position. Using the landmarks you noted earlier from your rear-view adjustment, you should just barely be able to see them in your left and right mirrors.
6. If you have someone to help you, have them walk around the car from a reasonable distance out (a couple of feet away from the car). You should be able to track them all the way around the car, from side window, side mirror, rear mirror, other side mirror, other side window, front. If you lose track of them at any point, you have a blind spot and need to fine-tune your mirrors.

Re:Saving lives

[Osty]

You just wait until you have kids. Then I will laugh at you, as you try and contort a couple of car seats into some tiny japmobile. And, if you never have kids, then I'll still laugh at you, because you have eliminated your genetic destiny.

Ah, the old, "You can't know what you're talking about until you have kids of your own," argument. I'm sorry, but all of us were kids at one point or another. My parents did just fine using American sedans for three kids (yes, I know a mid-80s Oldsmobile is larger than a Civic -- I never said buy a Civic, just don't use an SUV). But then I guess I can't know what I'm talking about until I spawn some ankle-biters of my own. Great argument, you win!

If you're really concerned about access and mobility, get a damn minivan. They have better visibility than an SUV, better access, and are much less cramped. They also have better fuel economy and are safer in case of an accident (safer for both the passengers and the people you hit). You're only buying an SUV because you think a minivan is an affront to your manhood. I have news for you: minivans are invisible. Nobody thinks you're less of a man when driving one, because nobody sees them (for purposes of noticing who's inside, that is -- of course we see you there on the road). Don't think minivans are invisible? When was the last time you saw one pulled over by a cop? Do a little test. Find a hot sports car cruising along at 20mph over the limit. Now pace him (yes, a minivan can do that). If you run across a cop, guess who's getting pulled over? Hint: It's not going to be the minivan.

Re:Saving lives

[Osty]

Oh wait - I see you drive a Boxster, which pretty much just has a port-hole for a rear window, so never mind, this advice probably isn't going to help you.

Actually, I have my mirrors well-adjusted to minimize my blind spot. It's still there, but it's much smaller than you'd expect. Then again, as long as it's not raining too hard I have the top down. A glass rear window (I recently traded up to a newer car than the plastic windowed one on my web page), heated seats, and sufficient speed keep me warm and dry in all but the nastiest of weather.

Just drive it like you stole it, then, and everything else on the road will remain behind you.

I do drive it like I stole it, but there's only so much you can do with left-lane hogging idiots. I prefer to stay right and pass on the left, but with the idiot drivers here in the Seattle area that's often impossible. I find myself passing on the right at least as often as I pass on the left. If you camp my blind spot, I'm not going to hit you but you're going to crap your pants when I merge in front of you with inches to spare (no accident -- I'll do that if there's plenty of room ahead of you, and I'll accelerate away before you even have a chance to register what I just did).

Re:Saving lives

[Anonymous Coward]

I forgot to mention - stop driving automatics. the rest of the world thinks its retarded.

It's got a lot of coolness factor to it but...

[mark-t]

I'd be concerned about the possibility that people could become dependant on these features after driving with them for a while, causing otherwise normal almost used defensive driving skills to atrophy, and setting up for an accident if (when) the system malfunctions.

Re:It's got a lot of coolness factor to it but...

[mark-t]

my bad for hitting "submit" before hitting preview... I mean to say otherwise normal almost-_constantly_ used defensive driving skills.

Re:It's got a lot of coolness factor to it but...

[WK2]

As badly as computers screw up, they are more consistent and reliable than people.

Re:It's got a lot of coolness factor to it but...

[Opportunist]

That danger is there. You can already see it in people who're used to non-blocking breaks. Should they ever have to drive a car without ABS, you see a lot of interesting skid marks on the road.

Then again, I think ABS avoided more accidents than it caused, and so will this system. Yes, should it fail the person used to it will be more accident prone, but still, we'll see fewer accidents where the driver failed to see someone in the dead corner.

Re:It's got a lot of coolness factor to it but...

[Skater]

Then again, I think ABS avoided more accidents than it caused...

Actually, it hasn't (question #4).

Re:It's got a lot of coolness factor to it but...

[JonathanR]

Sure, computers may be more reliable than people, but people reliant on computers (or calculators) are incapacitated when they don't have their mental prosthetics.

Re:It's got a lot of coolness factor to it but...

[Gordonjcp]

The main problem with ABS is that while it can reduce your braking distance in wet conditions by keeping each tyre right at the limit of adhesion, it's just no substitute for having enough distance from the car in front. It doesn't "make your brakes better", it just gets as much grip as possible - which is often not a lot.

It's bloody useless on ice.

Re:It's got a lot of coolness factor to it but...

[Skater]

Yeah, but nothing is very useful on ice. :)

In some situations, you actually WANT the tires to lock up - loose gravel is a good one. But those types of situations are rare - ABS really should be helping overall, but like almost everything else, its value is offset by the fact that few people bother to really understand what they're doing when they're behind the wheel.

Re:It's got a lot of coolness factor to it but...

[Opportunist]

Well, how many times do you hear of accidents that didn't happen?

ABS is no safety belt or airbag where you have an accident but the belt or bag keeps you from getting hurt. Do you report it when you have to hit the pedal to the metal and barely make it before you hit the car in front of you?

Re:It's got a lot of coolness factor to it but...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's bloody useless on ice. More generally, brakes are useless on ice. Ease up on them and find a good direction to turn. You're not stopping, that's for sure. So you can either try to improve your situation or slam on your brakes like a dummy.

Re:It's got a lot of coolness factor to it but...

[flappinbooger]

From my experience when on ice the ABS effectively turns off the brakes. Which might actually be a good thing, because if you're going straight and hit the brakes on ice, there are two options -

without ABS you will lock up the tires and lose control, likely entering a spin and/or sliding off the road, into a ditch, tree or light pole.

With ABS, they will be pulsed so much the brakes will basically not engage at all or very little, and you will continue on straight. If you were going straight, that is. The ice is probably just a patch and if control is maintained past the patch once traction returns the brakes will operate normally and the car can come to a safe stop.

Which is better? Well, with ABS you get the satisfaction and comfort of mashing the brake with all you got yet not spinning out of control. Without ABS you get the satisfaction of mashing the brake with all you got and then sliding all over the place. There is of course some argument that locking up the tires on very slick surfaces will "gouge" into the ice or snow and possibly "dig down" to something grippy or create a pile of debris in front of the tires which may facilitate stopping. Either way, a panic stop on ice is going to be tricky regardless of the type or level of technology on-board the vehicle. On my truck the ABS is currently inop (for 2.5 years!) and I'm not in a hurry to get it fixed, and I live in an area where it does snow and does get ice.

Re:It's got a lot of coolness factor to it but...

[chefmonkey]

I agree! It's the exact same set of problems caused by brakes. People become dependent on them, causing otherwise normal downshift-and-dodge skills to atrophy, and setting up for an accident if (when) the system malfunctions.

Re:It's got a lot of coolness factor to it but...

[tomz16]

You are out of your mind... I live in the land of snow and ice and over the years there have been a few situations where an additional layer of paint or lack of ABS on my car would have surely resulted in an accident. In fact, in my opinion, good snow/ice tires along with ABS are at least an order of magnitude more important than four wheel drive in accident avoidance.

In addition to allowing you the ability to retain steering control during braking, ABS DECREASES the stopping distance. Don't believe me? Look up the difference between static and kinetic friction. The laws of physics ALSO apply to ice!

As long as you are not racing (and/or an experienced race driver), and aware that your car is equipped with ABS (i.e. you don't try to pump the brake on an ABS car), it is ALWAYS a good thing to have it enabled! Furthermore, in some of the more modern cars it is also coupled to the traction, brake force distribution, and dynamic stability control systems (also nice to have).

Re:It's got a lot of coolness factor to it but...

[CastrTroy]

I agree with you here. Real snow tires are the most important thing. All season radials are just a joke. Anybody who has tried real winter tires knows just how much better they are. If anything should be mandated to increase driver safety, having proper snow tires should be one of them.

Re:It's got a lot of coolness factor to it but...

[NormalVisual]

ABS also makes you a more careful driver - it's frigging embarrassing when you punch the brake pedal and *everyone* in the car hears/feels that characteristic chattering, confirming that you're a screw-up who didn't leave enough following distance. :-D

Re:It's got a lot of coolness factor to it but...

[jhol13]

With the recent increase of drunk drivers and speeding I am waiting for this to happen.

Microsoft already did this

[The_mad_linguist]

IIRC, Microsoft already made this a while ago.

Re:Microsoft already did this

[Aleksej]

That means someone else has made this before them.
Thus we had it around a long time ago. When?

I want to see around corners

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Forget "birds eye" view - I want a "car's nose view." A pair of cameras mounted at the very front of the car - one camera facing right and the other facing left. That way I can see "around" hedges, tress, fences and other visual obstructions when crossing or turning onto a road.

Re:I want to see around corners

[_Spirit]

I can't find it on the BMW website, but BMW actually have a system which does exactly that. I think they do it with one camera with a lens system that splits the image 90 degrees both ways (so the camera faces forward and sees both left and right at the same time). It displays onto the satnav screen.

Re:I want to see around corners

[_Spirit]

Update: I managed to find it, go into the accessories section and look for something called "Side View".

Re:I want to see around corners

[elborrachogato]

I want something like that on the van I drive at work..

Re:I want to see around corners

[josecanuc]

Which brings up a pet peeve of mine -- cities/municipalities that do not trim overgrown vegetation from around corners of road intersections. There are a few intersections where I live that have so much un-pruned hedges or overgrown trees that it causes the hurried folks who want to turn right-on-red so badly that they pull INTO the intersection so they can see if it's clear to turn. It's a danger to those other hurried people on the main road who are driving so fast and not paying attention to cars in their lane at intersections. It's death waiting to happen.

Re:I want to see around corners

[internewt]

A mate's Toyota has got that, but its more for pulling the car out of really blind entrances onto a road. You can see sideways from the very from of the car so that you can see if anything is coming, even when it may be impossible to tell from the cabin. It is not a system to let you see round corners!

Re:I want to see around corners

[dasdrewid]

This article was on digg a few days ago. I never thought it would have any sort of use, but it's the perfect answer to what you want: http://www.autoblog.com/2007/10/01/in-the-autoblog-garage-2007-rolls-royce-phantom/#comments

Of course, it's in a car that costs more than my house...several times over.

Re:I want to see around corners

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention it is ugly as sin.

Does the system record the video?

[ReallyEvilCanine]

Mark me as a troll as much as you want but anyone who's been through a Terry stop (or, for that matter, any sort of police stop) in the US will want this recorded along with a few well-placed mics for audio. At least 45 minutes' recording. Just in case you missed it, here's a good example of the reason why. I've been through such stops in Tennessee, Georgia, Texas, Pennsylvania and Maryland and I've never been guilty of Driving While Black.

Re:Does the system record the video?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a magnificent example!

If only there were more people like that guy.

Re:Does the system record the video?

[kklein]

I've had stops like that. Really, there's no good reason why it should be illegal to gun cops like this down. They are parasites, and extremely dangerous. They erode the credibility of our legal system and violate the nigh-sacred trust we put in them. They are, in all seriousness, the worst people in the world. Worse than the more archetypical criminals, because they masquerade as the "good guys."

Never trust a cop.

Re:Does the system record the video?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the scariest thing about that video is the fact that the police chief found no problems with the officer's behavior.

Re:Does the system record the video?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I think the scariest thing about that video is the fact that the police chief found no problems with the officer's behavior. At least enough other people did that they fired the guy:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/D46A8EE4AB8299A68625735D000200C0?OpenDocument

if you live in the USA...

[Anonymous Coward]

...soon you won't need your own cameras on the car, Homeland Security can just let you know where you are and what's around you (where you're going... who you are with... what you ate for lunch... what you last read... etc)

This would be funny if it wasn't true - federal police are now being given access to military satellites.

Re:if you live in the USA...

[PhxBlue]

This would be funny if it wasn't true - federal police are now being given access to military satellites.

I just want to point out, you are also being given access to military satellites. So when you're talking about federal police having access to military satellites, you might want to be more specific.

In fact, my dad just IM'd...

[Animaether]

...he has a trucking company (long haul, 18-wheeler, whatever you want to call them) and he wrote "I want that on our trucks right now - do you know how many ripped skirts, tyre wear, bicycle accidents, problems with poles etc. that would save us?" And he has some of the best drivers in the nation - accidents like that just happen -because- it's damn near impossible to see anything.. A top-down view of the truck outline and everything around it would be a very worthy investment indeed.

Re:In fact, my dad just IM'd...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's great for 18-wheelers, because they have to be big.

But how about car companies just ... build us small cars again? And maybe with reasonable-sized windows so we can see out. KTHX.

Re:In fact, my dad just IM'd...

[itlurksbeneath]

Very true, but very expensive, too. You'd have to have cameras on the trailer as well as the truck. Most trucking companies don't work that way. Usually, they are called up to carry a trailer from point A to point B and most of the time, they don't own the trailer they are pulling. Possibly in 5 years when the systems are cheap and can be separated by a wireless connection then it'd be more widespread for the trucking industry.

Re:In fact, my dad just IM'd...

[Anonymous Coward]

do you know how many ripped skirts, tyre wear, bicycle accidents, problems with poles etc.

If you're seeing a lot of ripped skirts, how could you possibly then be having problems with your pole?

Re:In fact, my dad just IM'd...

[Animaether]

just for the record - he laughed at that :D

Yes but

[Plutonite]

can it see magnetic fields? Do not insult the birds.

I'm waiting for the first lawsuit ...

[IchBinEinPenguin]

... after the cameras fail to spot something (or someone).

Re:I'm waiting for the first lawsuit ...

[Dun Malg]

... after the cameras fail to spot something (or someone). What idiot mod modded this insightful? The cameras don't "spot" anything. They passively transmit an image to the center console screen where the driver does all the spotting.

Is it really too much to ask that people read even the /. blurb?

Re:I'm waiting for the first lawsuit ...

[Zantetsuken]

Thats what legal disclaimers stating something to the effect of "This device is in no way, shape, or form a replacement for actually looking out your window. If you still hit something, it's not our fault because of this paragraph." As long as they have that at least *somewhere* buried within the contract/manual/warranty/etc, any case against it with your hypothetical reason would get thrown out pretty quick...

Re:I'm waiting for the first lawsuit ...

[IchBinEinPenguin]

Fair comment.... I could have been a bit clearer in my original post:

I'm waiting for the first lawsuit when someone hits something (or someone) and then blames the system for not being perfect (blind spot, distortion, latency, colours wrong .....).

In the land where you can sue for burning yourself on a "HOT apple pie" at the same time that you can sue if the contents aren't sufficiently hot, I'm guessing this is only a matter of time.

Re:I'm waiting for the first lawsuit ...

[IchBinEinPenguin]

You must be thinking of one of those weird lawsuits that actually goes to trial, where evidence is heard dispassionately and the plaintiff is laughed out of court (but not before doing squillions of dollars worth of PR damage to the defendant).

I'm thinking of a _real_ lawsuit, the kind that's quietly settled with a big fat NDA before ever going anywhere near court.

Re:I'm waiting for the first lawsuit ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The car won't start until you've touched a button on the display agreeing that you won't drive unsafely and won't sue the manufacturer for any reason.

why bother with the simulation?

[pjeremyh]

Surely it would be easier to attach one of those new dragonfly-drones to the roof of the Nissan and launch it when parking, saving immensely in the computer processing power required.

Email option?

[wkk2]

This package is nice but does it email the picture to your spouse/parents if it detects a bump?

The 350z needs this first.

[Brit_in_the_USA]

As an owner I can suggest that the Nissan 350Z needs this feature first as it has arguably the worst rear visibility of any of the current cars in the Nissan line up.

Think of the children!

[lohphat]

Another device to assist the abdication of personal responsibility and proficiency.

If you didn't buy an unmanageable hulk of a car, you wouldn't need this.

I want a real "eye in the sky"

[mi]

I want small drone airplanes continuously flying above the major highways and streets and broadcasting the observed view over a TV-band. Anybody with a compatible set within range will then be able to observe traffic incidents, police traps, and road repairs in real time.

Supposedly, our military's use of such things is rapidly growing. Police use is growing too. Hopefully, the technology will allow peaceful civilian use soon.

It can be advertising-sponsored — the images may display an advertising logo in a corner of the screen, or something...

Isn't it better to learn how to park your car?

[Cannelloni]

What a pointless invention. My car already has rear view mirrors, and my head, in fact the whole skull, rather amazingly, can actually be swivelled backwards, which is a nice feature as it makes it a lot easier to aim a set of optical sensors for visual inspection - the technical term is "eyes" - and detect and identify, and thereby avoid, obstacles that may appear behind the car as it is put into reverse. This, combined with a so-called brain, makes it possible to steer and park the car.

Re:Isn't it better to learn how to park your car?

[GoulDuck]

And yet, somehow parking accidents still happens. You are saying that looking out of the windows in your car, using the mirrors og moving your head around gives you a PERFECT view around your car? You can see ojbects that are 40 cm in hight, one or two meter behind your car, though your rear window?

Then I have two questions:
Are you Superman? (can see though your trunk)
What car are you driving? (rear window that gives you the ability to see the ground withing one meter behind your car)

Because you are good at parking (your) car, doesn't mean that everybody is / can be as good. If everybody where so perfect, we could all just skip the seatbelt, because we wouldn't crash into things.

I have a parking sensor in my car and I like it allot. I could park my car without it, but it just makes it easier, because I dare to get closer to the car behind me, while doing a parallel parking. The Nissan system would make it even easier.

What do real obstacles look like?

[CTho9305]

The demo video somebody else linked to looks interesting, but it's easy to synthesize a good "top-down" view from side views when you're on an empty parking lot (i.e. flat surface). It would have to look strange to see a side view of the car next to you munged to appear as top-down though...

Re:What do real obstacles look like?

[Neodymion]

I think the 'shadow' of the car on the road would be correct and the actual car appear inside this (on the near side) if you imagine a line-of-sight from the camera to the a part of the car and then on through to the road surface.

Re:What do real obstacles look like?

[Neodymion]

Here's a video showing real cars, about 1:35 in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-TdWyk57CI

Re:What do real obstacles look like?

[CTho9305]

Cool, that didn't look bad at all.

Too true

[Flying pig]

I have a car with truck size mirrors, front and rear parking sensors. Then it had to have a problem fixed under warranty and for a week I was driving a hire car. No fun at all. Since I got it, I had become used to being able to park in spaces only a couple of feet longer than the car. Now I needed at least 4 feet and found myself driving round looking for easier places to park. I imagine with this system you would rapidly become almost helpless when parking without it.

In fact, that's at the root of the reason why I refuse to fit a bow thruster on my boat. Helming skills are used sufficiently infrequently by most people (including me) that they need frequent reinforcement. If you get used to not having to compensate for wind and water while mooring, what is the betting that just when you run into problems you flatten the batteries that power the thrusters?

Camera under the grill [sic]

[6Yankee]

George Foreman must be ecstatic.

Not really needed

[michaelpb]

Obviously, they haven't realized that the principles of Shaolin kung fu can be applied to parallel parking...

circumfrential engineering

[binarybum]

sure it's neat, but I still think it's sad that we're building such darn fragile cars in the first place. Impacts at less than 5mph should be tolerable - the fender-bender, key scratch, dent repair industry must consume billions each year, not to mention insurance headaches, time lost from work etc. I'd rather see a car with some big honkin' soft, non-marking rubber pads surrounding it than a car with a really expensive imaging system that essentially serves the purpose of protecting itself.

Also, this system doesn't stop the jellopies on either side of you from using the traditional vestibulocochlear method of parallel parking, leaving your insurance company laughing at you. Now if the cameras could be set to be triggered in a record mode whenever motion sensors were triggered so that you could go back and see the license plate numbers of the folks that rammed you, and video evidence of it - that would be useful.

Just the thing for RVs

[Mike Van Pelt]

I've been thinking for a while about something like this on my RV. There are serious blind spots there, and something like this would be a huge help.

I hope they will sell (or license, if they've patented it) the system for other vehicles.

Yeah, I know, if it dies, you're back to the old fashioned way. But if it dies, there's going to be no picture, so you'll know. It's not going to silently edit out that idiot in the Mini Cooper hanging close to your right rear tire.

Recording good for more than Terry stops

[IvyKing]

One of my co-workers is working on putting a couple of webcams in his car to record what happened in case he was involved in an accident (I won't get into his being a former demolition derby driver). What's ironic about this article is that we were talking about mounting small cameras in the wing mirrors for aiding in parking - he drives a Prius and it is darn hard to judge where the corners of the car are.

All the Preachers Can Go to Hell

[tjstork]

Otherwise, this is a bogus argument

There's no "argument" involved at all in this. I don't like it when a bunch of money grubbing idiots call me a sinner for what kind of movie I watch, and I don't like when a bunch of money grubbing idiots call me a sinner for the kind of car I drive. Jerry Falwell, Rex Humbard, Al Gore, Al Sharpton, Rachel Carson, the head of NOW, the boss of the Sierra Club, are all doing the exact same thing, and are cut from the same damn cloth - pointing at other people, dividing society, and begging for more money so they can do it more. If you took the head of every not-for-profit organization, and shot them, this world would be a better place, and of you fools that go and read the latest MoveOn.org action alert with baited breaths, or read on about some great liberal conspiracy, you are all just a bunch of stupid suckers.

Honestly, I don't like SUVs - as I prefer the mix of a genuine pickup truck for hauling stuff, and a family sedan for moving people. If I had more money, I'd get back my Pontiac GTO for commuting to the train station, or short family trips. But, if all these assholes keep bitching about my lifestyle, I'd just as soon buy an SUV loaded with a bunch of warmovies, guns, liquor and porn, and tell all of these faux-righteous jackasses to go fuck themselves...

Damn, in Canada I'd need 6 car seats!

[r00t]

Ages: 0, 2, 2, 4, 6, 7

Putting even a pair of car seats next to each other is hard, because there is no room between them to fiddle with the seat belt fasteners. Three in a row is horrible.

If I can't use the front seat, then I think the only choice smaller than a full-size van is the Chevy Suburban.

I don't want to slide all over the road in a full-size van or Chevy Suburban. I don't like rollovers. I hear that Canada even gets ice on the road. WTF? Canada sucks.

Re:Damn, in Canada I'd need 6 car seats!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that's your fault for having so many damn kids, isn't it?

old news

[Riquez]

This system has been in Nissan cars for several years, at least 3 to my knowledge.
Perhaps it's new in the USA, but in Japan it's commonplace.

Parallel Parking is a learnable skill

[Anonymous Coward]

Do people really hate parallel parking that much?

Cameras get dirty

[Carson Napier]

I have a camera on the back of my Isuzu Vehicross SUV. It has a terrible blind spot behind the car. Being the techno savvy geek that I am, I was very excited to do the high tech thing and install a backup camera. However, there is a glitch I did not think of. It only takes a light film of road grime to render the camera nearly useless. I have to clean it every day. That's maintenance I didn't think of when I installed it! Funny how we overlook the obvious when the eye candy of high tech distracts us from reality.

"Than" vs. "Then"

[advs89]

Then has a component of time... ex: First I went to the store, and then I checked slashdot. Than does not... ex: ThanWhyDoesntItJustDriveItself Then != Than

Re:"Than" vs. "Then"

[MirthScout]

Your distinction between "then" and "than" is too simplistic and incomplete. Your first example is correct, your second one (wrongly "correcting" the tagging) is not. It is good to see you taking an interest in the difference between "then" and "than" but you obviously haven't completed your study. You can become better educated on these two words at the following links:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/then
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/than

I can see no good coming from this.

[bytesex]

It'll make drivers think that it's not happening to themselves. Sometimes, video-game interfaces are no good in real life.

Night parking?

[illegalcortex]

I wonder how this handles low- and no-light situations. Big floodlights on each side of the vehicle?

How to reverse-park

[PigleT]

Tssssch. One of the few useful things Dad has ever told me about driving is how to reverse-park. You can do the whole thing in your mirrors if you know (a) aim your rear nearside corner mid-way between the two vehicles, and (b) aim your rear offside corner at the middle of the car behind's numberplate.

Other than that, if you don't know the length of your own car, what the hell are you doing sitting behind the wheel?

Oh... vauxhall drivers don't have to know their own length nor look around nor use mirrors nor use cameras. They just wait for the crunch :)