Slashdot Mirror


Ford's New Radar Technology Based On Open Source

zakkie writes "Ford is releasing new safety-enhancing radar equipment for its 2010 Taurus sedan. The radar itself is based on F22 fighter radar, but interestingly, it's claimed that the software is built from open source. What that may mean, in the vague, waffling context of the article, is unclear, but it's interesting simply because they've gone to the effort of stating it in those words. Clearly, 'open source' is being thought of outside the IT world as a good thing, and that surely is itself a good thing. The purpose of the radar device is to help 'avoid crashes by sounding an alarm and flashing red lights when the driver gets too close to another car.'"

259 comments

  1. Detection by Tokerat · · Score: 4, Funny

    The purpose of the radar device is to help 'avoid crashes by sounding an alarm and flashing red lights when the driver gets too close to another car.

    ...as well as annoying the crap out of any driver with a radar detector you happen to be driving behind ;-)

    --
    CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    1. Re:Detection by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...as well as annoying the crap out of any driver with a radar detector you happen to be driving behind ;-)

      Is there any point in the modern world to having a radar detector? I've always been under the impression that a lot of law enforcement agencies are now using LIDAR, which is virtually impossible to detect until your car is being painted with it (i.e: it's too late to slow down). Even the ones that use radar generally turn it on and off with a trigger instead of leaving it running all the time -- which further reduces your odds of detecting it before it hits your vehicle.

      I've always wondered if the things are actually worth the cost but most of the online literature about them seems to be put out by the manufacturers -- hardly a neutral unbiased source.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Detection by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Could be worse... I can see some people treating this like a video game.

    3. Re:Detection by David+Gerard · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sounds good to me - nicely Darwinian for dealing with speeding idiots before they could hurt someone else!

      "Hyurk, I'll drive at 100mph, no radar in sight ... oh shit, blue lights."

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    4. Re:Detection by joaommp · · Score: 1

      Actually, that was funny :P

    5. Re:Detection by lgbr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Is there any point in the modern world to having a radar detector? I've always been under the impression that a lot of law enforcement agencies are now using LIDAR, which is virtually impossible to detect until your car is being painted with it (i.e: it's too late to slow down). Even the ones that use radar generally turn it on and off with a trigger instead of leaving it running all the time -- which further reduces your odds of detecting it before it hits your vehicle.

      While there have been a huge number of advances in radar technology, the radar detector technology keeps up with it well. The two are made by the same company, after all. LIDAR is definitely not ideal for so many situations. To use LIDAR, a police officer must be stationary and actually outside of his cruiser. LIDAR is also defeatable because laser jammers are legal in most states. Finally, there are entire states that do not use LIDAR. This is why radar is still much more common. I do know that radar detectors are still very useful because I have and use one myself and it has saved me from a ticket in a number of situations. It would be my guess that the radar in use by the Ford Taurus is very different and distinguishable from that in use by the police.

    6. Re:Detection by macwhiz · · Score: 3, Informative

      LIDAR requires that the officer be stationary, have their window rolled down, be parked such that they are shooting LIDAR as close to parallel with the flow of traffic as possible, and not have any weather conditions that would obstruct the laser (or make life really miserable for the officer, as the window is down). The officer has to actively aim the device at each car he wishes to clock.

      On the New York State Thruway, most of the traffic enforcement still uses Ka-band radar. The radar units are permanently installed on the cars and don't require exposure to the elements. They can provide accurate readings while the car is in motion, allowing the officer to patrol while still checking speed. Many cars have dual fore-and-aft antennas so they can clock cars ahead of and behind them. They can park the car and leave the radar on, not only slowing down traffic that has radar detectors, but letting them work on other things while waiting for the radar's "too fast" alarm to go off.

      I'm not surprised NYS Troopers don't use LIDAR as often -- it's much more of a hassle for them to use.

      As for detecting LIDAR: If you have a dark-colored car without a lot of reflective chrome or a front license plate, and you leave your headlights on, it is possible to detect LIDAR before it locks on to you, at least some of the time. Car and Driver tested this several years ago and found that, while it's difficult to beat LIDAR, it's not impossible.

      As for "instant-on" radar: Yes, it exists, but there's that convenience issue again. Rarely do I ever see officers using it on the highway. Should one wish to speed while using their radar detector, the safe thing is to only do so when there's at least a few cars visible ahead of you. That way, your detector will be set off when the officer uses their "instant-on" to clock the cars ahead of you.

    7. Re:Detection by causality · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The purpose of the radar device is to help 'avoid crashes by sounding an alarm and flashing red lights when the driver gets too close to another car.

      Hell with that. Can they invent a car that pulls over, stops, kills the engine, and locks the wheels/transmission and ignition for 15 minutes when the driver gets too close to another car? Preferably with an alarm that cannot easily be shut off. That'd make me feel safer on the roads. No, really, the whole problem with driving is that the nuisances which endanger others often happen with impunity. If by "too close to another car" they mean "tailgaters" then this would be better than they deserve. If by that phrase they mean people who don't know how to safely perform a lane change, those are worse than tailgaters.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    8. Re:Detection by couchslug · · Score: 1

      The interesting question is "can it be reprogrammed as a radar jammer/spoofer"?

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    9. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up already, a single mod will be outmodded quickly and his mod point is wasted, which is pretty much what you want. No need to fix, the system is working. So quit your bitching already.

      Those who oppose the use of force are forever at the mercy of those who don't.
      Those who don't oppose the excessive use of force will eventually be at the mercy of those who get fed up with them.
      Not as pithy, but far more valuable.

    10. Re:Detection by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I'm not surprised NYS Troopers don't use LIDAR as often -- it's much more of a hassle for them to use.

      In my area (Binghamton) that seems to be what they use the majority of time. They will either get out of the car and aim it at individual cars or you'll see them position the car in such a way that they can roll down the window and use it that way. I've never known them to use radar in this area, every speeding ticket I've ever seen was obtained either with LIDAR or by pacing.

      Guess it depends on which part of the state you are in.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    11. Re:Detection by pongo000 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Should one wish to speed while using their radar detector, the safe thing is to only do so when there's at least a few cars visible ahead of you. That way, your detector will be set off when the officer uses their "instant-on" to clock the cars ahead of you.

      Better yet: Save your money, and start your trip at the speed limit. Eventually, someone will pass you (whom I will euphemistically refer to as the "decoy"). Speed up, keep pace and a mile behind your decoy, you're set to go. (Why a mile? Some morons get indignant when they know others are filching off their radar detector coverage.) Oh, and check your rearview mirror once in a while for the cops that like to troll the roadways while exceeding the speed limit and not on an emergency call.

      (You all that are snickering at the use of my term "filching" really need to get a life.)

    12. Re:Detection by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 1

      ...and that braking maneuver out of the blue is actually more dangerous than merely going 100 mph with road conditions that allow it.

    13. Re:Detection by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't recommend making that bet. States that allow detectors do for a reason, it's usually because they use the same band as other common motion sensors and the duration is typically very short. Additionally, in parts of the state, they monitor for speeding via helicopters, which renders that sort of technology moot.

      More often than not you'll be doing what the police really want, which is slowing down, they don't really care whether they issue tickets or not, if people drive the posted speed limit and obey the traffic laws without it.

    14. Re:Detection by ThrowAwaySociety · · Score: 1

      ...as well as annoying the crap out of any driver with a radar detector you happen to be driving behind ;-)

      Reason enough right there. Everyone I know with a radar detector is a prick behind the wheel.

    15. Re:Detection by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I do know that radar detectors are still very useful because I have and use one myself and it has saved me from a ticket in a number of situations.

      Why were you driving in a manner that you needed a radar detector to not get a ticket?

    16. Re:Detection by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > Can they invent a car that pulls over, stops, kills the
      > engine, and locks the wheels/transmission and ignition for
      > 15 minutes when the driver gets too close to another car?

      Heh. But the people with the greatest need for the technology would never willingly adopt it.

      > Preferably with an alarm that cannot easily be shut off.

      Oooh, can it play car dealership commercials for the whole fifteen minutes?

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    17. Re:Detection by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some people can drive safely at over the speed limit, others can't. I'm fine with speed limits and the risk of overrunning them, but don't get all preachy and pretend speeding is some great wrong.

    18. Re:Detection by Ihmhi · · Score: 2, Funny

      Scene: a future episode of Cops

      Suspect: 142 mph? Fuck yeah, HIGH SCORE! Take THAT, CT Route 67!

    19. Re:Detection by coxymla · · Score: 1

      Firstly, you are pretty much correct. LIDAR is very hard to detect without already being the target and a lot of radars are instant-on, which means basically the same thing.
      In practise though, there are still a lot of reasons why having a detector is a good idea. LIDAR can only be used while stationary, so it can't fully replace radar. It is also possible to get backscatter off another car being targetted in front of you, and it is also possible to be hit with a misaimed beam that does not return a usable measurement to the cop.
      Radar of course is a lot easier to get a warning signal from a car ahead of you, and instant-on radar doesn't affect that. Additionally, cops over here don't seem to use their instant-on feature properly and most HWP cars leave it on all the time so they can instantly get readings from speeders ahead of them. Thus, the net effect is that they constantly emit a strong warning signal for almost a kiliometer ahead of them.
      Finally we hit that old bugbear, the stationary (possible fixed) speed camera. A lot of departments have a HUGE investment in radar-based models which a radar detector is still very useful against.

    20. Re:Detection by beav007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you can't brake safely for an emergency situation from 100mph, then it wasn't safe to be doing 100mph.

    21. Re:Detection by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      I've always called those "pace cars", personally. I had a red Ferrari turn a 4 hr drive into a 2:45 one once. I gave him about a half-mile head lead, and just set my cruse to "$500 fine if I get caught". Bizarrely enough, there were no cops out that day.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    22. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for the tailgaters issue and the way-too-effing-close-lane-changers, I throw out a hearty AMEN!, and raise you a HALLELUJAH! Any car designed to sound an alarm to the driver who drives like this is more than welcome in my book. (But I don't think that's the intent of this invention.... sadly.)

    23. Re:Detection by Jarnin · · Score: 1

      I'd wager this device won't alert drivers when they're tailgating. Tailgating is way too common these days for a car manufacturer to implement something like that unless it was a federal mandate for safety (which isn't a bad idea). Ford would piss off way too many of their customers with a car that tries to tell the driver how to drive.

    24. Re:Detection by FreakyGreenLeaky · · Score: 1

      I bought a detector about a year ago, and have reduced my fine rate to 0 in that period. These devices rely not only on direct detection, but also reflections and being in the general area (or general direction) where a radar device is being used. I've seen this many times when approaching an intersection where a known device is pointed at the centre, but the detector starts yelling half a k down the road.

      Detractors can say what they want, but I've found my wife and I tend to be more speed conscious now, and consequently safer drivers.

    25. Re:Detection by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some people can drive safely at over the speed limit, others can't. I'm fine with speed limits and the risk of overrunning them, but don't get all preachy and pretend speeding is some great wrong.

      Yup, and some people can judge when it's safe to run a red light and some can't, but the fact that *some* people do run the red light means I have to watch every last fucking one of them to make sure I don't end up crushed in their windshield.

      As a society we agree on certain rules, but in the case of something as dangerous as participating in traffic, all it takes is a really small percentage of jackasses who feel they're somehow superior drivers and break those rules for the rest of us that don't happen to have steel bars all around us to have to watch over our shoulders all the time. By breaking those rules, no matter how justified you may feel about doing so, you're also demonstrating to people observing you "that there's really nothing wrong with doing so". Next thing you know, that 18 year old kid in his ricer who *can't* judge distances and velocities properly has a new hood ornament.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    26. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is sort of ironic (to me, at least) is that other people have been posting comments the gist of which are like, "I can drive safely at 55 in a 35 zone because I'm better than average [at driving / concerning reaction time / concerning my mad skillz of observation / et al]," while neglecting two facts:
      1) On a divided highway with more than one lane traveling in the same direction, unless all turns are able to be performed from the right lane, sometimes drivers will have to speed up to get over to the left if the "fast lane" traffic is driving much faster than the adjacent lane [a reckless practice in itself, for that matter]: pulling into 55mph traffic, knowingly going 35mph and not intending to accelerate, is dangerous, because you're assuming any vehicles you pull in front of are watching carefully and ready to slow down if they're going too fast, so you have no choice but to speed; even if it's a 35 zone, if you have to make a left turn (and, where I live there are definitely some turns that cannot be made by turning right and pulling a U unless you really want to go miles out of your way into bad parts of downtown or you want to risk being ticketed for being "illegal thru traffic in a restricted construction area" or many other fun possibilities) and you don't have any options other than getting over to the left.... You know, maybe the 35 limit is because there's under 50 yards (yep, I've measured it..heh) from when most traffic enters the roadway by merging from the right and then makes a left turn, NOT just because "the government wants me to drive slower so cops can make money for the city handing out tickets / to give a few less dollars to OPEC / &c [insert some crazy conspiracy theories here, ignoring the fact that, yes, aunt molly, traffic engineering is a real profession and not just the punchline to a few scattered jokes]"
      2) Merging traffic often has severely restricted visibility. If you want to drive 55 in a 35, be my guest, but every time you pass by any area where merging, turns, lane changes, or turnaround points for emergency vehicles occur [psst, btw, I-can-do-55-in-a-35-safely fellas, if that's really true, there's decent money to be made in emergency vehicle driving... but, you have to undergo some careful testing, so you have to live up to your claims, or face a... *gasp* shattered ego!! -- or, shattered skull and brain pudding, on the chance you get the job but then drive after pulling an all-nighter], you better be going 35. If I pull into your lane, in front of you, and I have given you PLENTY of distance to slow so that you're actually doing the speed limit, and I gave appropriate warning with my blinker, I don't want to see you slam on your brakes at the last possible second just to come within 18 inches of my bumper while we're on a major road with no shoulders so you can "give a good scare". (Why in god's name do so many people DO THAT?! When your neck is broken because you rear-ended me, and the only problem I have is that the back of my vehicle is damaged and I have to get a ride home, I hope you will reconsider the strategy of "teaching them ball-less speed-limit-followers a lesson in how to drive fer real", assuming you are still alive. If you're not alive, you just might get your very own Darwin award, though... your children/wife/parents can put it on the mantle above the fire, I guess *sigh*)

      Sorry if I sound bitter (parent poster, this was NOT aimed at you, I was largely agreeing with you).

      Also, I apologize to the moderators for the run-on sentences, but if you mod me down, please do it because I'm being bitter and irrational, not just because this post is full of run-ons .;)

    27. Re:Detection by lena_10326 · · Score: 1

      FYI: that post was not flamebait. Unfortunatly, I have no mod points at the moment.

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
    28. Re:Detection by lena_10326 · · Score: 1

      The law applies equally to all--regardless of your capabilities.

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
    29. Re:Detection by b0bby · · Score: 1

      As a Devil's Advocate - around here, if you're not exceeding the posted speed limit on many roads, you're actually impeding the flow of traffic. Stopping "speeders" on the DC beltway is like shooting fish in a barrel; the police can pick & choose. I myself have been picked out of the flow of traffic; I was on a motorcycle, but doing the same speed as all the cars around me. You can be driving safely, and still get a ticket.

    30. Re:Detection by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Some people can drive safely at over the speed limit

      Yeah, those who can safely afford the speeding ticket.

      I notice that they're driving new expensive "safe" SUVs when they whiz past my sedan like I'm standing still. God help the poor bastards if I decide to change lanes, as SUVs brake poorly due to their weight, handle like drunken cows due to being too heavy and top heavy and due to their non-unibody construction.

      More people die in SUVs per passenger mile than any other vehicle, so if you need to look "cool" in your ugly thing, or compensate for your small penis by threatening other drivers with your monster, buy an SUV. If you want to be safe, buy a minivan. Fewer people die in those than any other type of vehicle.

    31. Re:Detection by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 1

      A radar gun pointed at you is hardly "an emergency situation".

    32. Re:Detection by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      That was my point. It should certainly be illegal to speed. If you want to take the risk, that's up to you but I'm not going to moralize to someone because they choose to speed and ask them if their parent's abuse caused them to become the dreaded "speeder" they are.

    33. Re:Detection by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Are you poo-pooing the idea of a crash indicator light?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    34. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Acura RL has a built in radar for collision avoidance ( http://bit.ly/RlbdW ). It's also tied into the adaptive cruise control, keeping my car a safe distance from the one in front and changing the speed as that car speeds up or slows down. It's saved me from lane-weaving idiots a number of times, applying the brakes abruptly when somebody decided that my lane was actually their's.
      I talked to a local police officer about it. He doesn't detect it when I drive by. Acura says that it's in a different frequency range than police radars and doesn't get picked up by radar detectors.
      Although it's a little off topic, I probably used the cruise control on my previous cars about twice in five years. With the Acura system I use it just about all the time. It's fantastic in fog. I've had it slow down for coyotes and even an owl that swooped down at my car one night. The only time I take it off is when I'm in the mountains and driving on the paddle shifters. On congested roads and freeways it takes a lot of stress out of a long drive. One day, all cars will have a similar system. I can see the insurance companies insisting on it.

      Leon (just can't bother registering right now, Sorry!)

    35. Re:Detection by holmstar · · Score: 1

      Other drivers shouldn't have to slow down when you pull onto a road. If they do, then you should have waited for a larger opening. If you can't bear to wait for that larger opening, then you need to make better use of the right pedal. If that doesn't work, then either get a car with more horsepower or learn to be more patient.

    36. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call them "bait". Given the choice between a red Ferrari and my green Civic, guess which one gets pulled over?

    37. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I should've explained better. Other drivers don't have to slow down. I don't care if I have to wait 20 minutes for a gap, even if I get a ticket in the process; it's much cheaper than getting hit. What I was trying to say was that there are places (like where I live) where the only way to get from one road to another involves a very rapid merge with poor visibility, and it's technically illegal (construction restrictions, local traffic only, evading traffic stops, evading red lights, blah blah) to take another route. It's not that I don't wait for the biggest opening I can find; it's that the biggest openings still require you to match speed to cross three lanes of traffic where everybody drives 55 in a 35. There are also plenty of signs saying "Do not block intersection," "Emergency stopping only; fines doubled in construction zone," "Do not stop during merge, strictly enforced," and there's no shoulders at all. If I come to a complete stop at a "Yield" next to "Do not stop; emergency stopping only" to avoid getting hit, I don't want someone rear-ending me, either: not only is there poor visibility for merging traffic, but there's poor visibility coming around the small circular ramp, so not only can you not see in front of you, but cars behind you can't tell if you stop because there's not a big enough gap. I have people of all driving skills refuse to go this route during rush hour, even if they have to spend several dollars on gas to drive all the way around the town; sucks, because I happen to live here, and I don't have the financial and legal freedom to break my rental contract because my boss changed my hours so I have to come/go during rush hour. Yes, perhaps I could have gotten my boss to commit in writing that he wouldn't change my hours while I lived here without 12 months warning so I could choose not to renew my lease; however, I don't think I would have a job if I made that sort of request of my boss.

      Admittedly, the whole area could have been designed a LOT better, but that's what my point is: the ramp is "25mph, EXTREME CAUTION", all lanes of traffic are supposed to be going 35 and signs say "WATCH FOR MERGING TRAFFIC, LIMITED VISIBILITY" but people fly along at 55 for no good reason. (This section of road is between two downtown areas where it's not even possible for your average speed to exceed about 20mph due to stoplights, so the accelerating to 55 is just frustration upon leaving a downtown area, and people get to "fly along" for all of 1.4 miles before having to slow drastically again). Signs warn you about the area, because it's sucky to drive through it. You can't avoid it right now due to construction (arguably, you can, because cops refuse to ticket people for being illegal thru-traffic to make U-turns to avoid getting rear-ended; at least the cops are smart, but, (a) it should be designed better, (b) the construction restrictions should have been done differently, or (c) people should heed signs that say "CAUTION, LIMITED VISIBILITY" when they're driving a motor vehicle.

      The department of transportation gives you the run-around; if you call to get signs changed, they refer you to the construction department, but when you talk to them, they say you have to speak with the rules&regulations department about the signs.

      It's a bad situation, and I do the best I can, even if I have to violate construction restrictions so I don't cut someone off, but people get hit out here every other day. My state's DOT actually has a much higher satisfaction rating according to various polls than other states, and I've seen a few other similar situations in the last few years in my state alone, so I know this is not an isolated case...

      The quickest way to fix it would be for people not to do this whole "THANK GOD I'M OUT OF DOWNTOWN" and floor it to go 57% over the speed limit as soon as it changes from 25 to 35 when there are signs that warn them that merging drivers cannot stop, that they have limited visibility, that merging drivers have limited visibility, that it is

    38. Re:Detection by beav007 · · Score: 1

      If you can't brake safely for an non-emergency situation from 100mph, then it really wasn't safe to be doing 100mph.

    39. Re:Detection by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 1

      Man, this was always about the guys behind you braking safely, not you. If you slam the brakes out of the blue because your radar detector went off, you have people who didn't expect you to on your tail. What's safer? Braking out of the blue, or keeping at 100 mph?

      If you brake for a hidden radar that only you know about, in the best case nothing happens. Typically, it creates a traffic jam. In the worst case, with someone distracted/tailgating, you get rear-ended at 75 to 100 mph. But hey, you saved the money from the ticket, so that's okay, right? RIGHT?

    40. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The forward looking radar on the Taurus operates at 76-77GHz, instead of police radars which operate in k-band. In other words, there is no interference.

      Mercedes uses a 76GHz radar AND ultra-wide band short range radars. I believe that these radars could cause interference.

  2. But does it trigger speed radar detectors? by nedlohs · · Score: 0

    And hence cause idiots to keep jamming the breaks when you get near them...

    1. Re:But does it trigger speed radar detectors? by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Brakes" ... the word you wanted is "brakes".

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:But does it trigger speed radar detectors? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Maybe, or maybe it was a pun on the results of idiots suddenly slowing down everytime you get close behind them.

    3. Re:But does it trigger speed radar detectors? by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      Well, the operative word there is "idiots" and has nothing to do with radar.

      What might happen is the people with all these radar speed detectors, who are very likely to be the group that does the most speeding anyway, will find that they're constantly being targeted and either slow down to to the legal speed limit or get so distracted that they drive into a ditch instead. Either way I don't see that as a bad thing.

    4. Re:But does it trigger speed radar detectors? by giorgiofr · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I do that on purpose to piss off idiots who tailgate. I switch on the extrabright rear fog lights, too.

      --
      Global warming is a cube.
    5. Re:But does it trigger speed radar detectors? by FreakyGreenLeaky · · Score: 1

      ...as opposed to the other speeding idiots who don't brake in time and cause accidents?

    6. Re:But does it trigger speed radar detectors? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      "near" does not mean "behind", it can also mean "beside" in which case yes two idiots take each other out which sounds good except that non-idiot with the shiny car with a radar in it gets side swiped in the resulting crash because he was overtaken by an idiot being followed by another idiot.

    7. Re:But does it trigger speed radar detectors? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Tat's whey spill chuckers donut work.

    8. Re:But does it trigger speed radar detectors? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I want to use that as my sig, made me lol hard and get dirty looks.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    9. Re:But does it trigger speed radar detectors? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      How about "Eye Owl wise ewes a spill chucker"

  3. So give me the source by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'll take the source to both the F22 radar and the Taurus radar.

    Thanks.

    GPLv2 Section 3b:

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange

    1. Re:So give me the source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Open Source != GPL

    2. Re:So give me the source by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because the GPL is the only open source license.

    3. Re:So give me the source by Ian+Alexander · · Score: 1

      Considering that they haven't said what the software they used in particular was it may not be a safe bet to assume that it's GPLv2 licensed. What if they decided to use, say, the OpenBSD kernel? That's a piece of open-source software which has no source redistribution requirements.

    4. Re:So give me the source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Open source doesn't mean GPL you religious tool.

    5. Re:So give me the source by zippthorne · · Score: 1, Informative

      Even assuming they used GPLv2, They only have to do that if they make modifications and don't include the source with the software.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    6. Re:So give me the source by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      It is? That's good to know!

    7. Re:So give me the source by dwillden · · Score: 2, Informative

      Open Source in this context means the radar was built based on unclassified research and technology. Not that it used free code that you and I can request.

      An example of this definition of Open Source is the story of Tom Clancy and his publishing of "The Hunt for Red October."

      He was investigated for revealing classified information about the operations of our submarines. But he was able to point out where he obtained every bit of information that they were concerned about. He had documented all his sources and all his sources were Open Source, i.e. unclassified sources.

      OSINT or Open Source Intelligence is an actively persued branch of the intel world.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    8. Re:So give me the source by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I take it you haven't been here when people have explained why the BSD and MIT licenses aren't open source.

    9. Re:So give me the source by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You mean the zealots? Yes, I've heard them. Of course, they're wrong.

    10. Re:So give me the source by HyperQuantum · · Score: 1

      That depends on your definition of 'open source' really... A lot of people will disagree with you.

      --
      I am not really here right now.
    11. Re:So give me the source by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Well, the OSI agrees with me. Also the definition of the words "open" and "source" agree with me.

      I guess if you're under the influence of Stallman's coolaid you might disagree with me. Of course, if you are suckling at the teat of Richard you really should know that what you're talking about is free-as-in-freedom software (according to the "Four Freedoms of Free Software"), NOT "open source."

    12. Re:So give me the source by HyperQuantum · · Score: 1

      Oh sorry. I didn't read the parent so I didn't realise that your post was sarcasm. I actually agree with you that the GPL isn't "the one and only".

      --
      I am not really here right now.
    13. Re:So give me the source by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Ha, I should have made that clearer. I didn't consider that the parent might get modded down and then I'd stick out as a zealot.

      On the other hand, you did give me the opportunity to use the phrase "suckling at the teat of Richard." ;)

  4. Tailgate alarm by royallthefourth · · Score: 2, Informative

    Based on my own driving experience, it seems the trucks need the tailgate alarm more than the sedans!

    I'm comforted by the fact that my small car has a very short stopping distance, but it's certainly mitigated when I'm going to get run over by an oversized Hot Wheels in the event of a quick stop.

    1. Re:Tailgate alarm by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      In a panic braking situation, assuming the brakes are actually working, there's very little difference in stopping distance between vehicles.

    2. Re:Tailgate alarm by Lord+Byron+Eee+PC · · Score: 3, Informative

      Good point: The amount of energy that needs to be dissapated is linear in mass and quadratic in velocity (KE = mv^2/2). The maximum static friction force is also linear in mass (F_fric = mu*m*g). The work (or energy) is the force times distance. Setting these equations equal to each other, you find that: d = v^2 / (2*mu*g) Stopping distance is independent of the mass of the vehicle. Speed, being quadratic, is a huge factor. And mu, which depends on the tires and the road is also important. (So is g, of course, but you stand little chance of modifying gravity.) This implies that decreasing your speed from 75mph to 65mph decreases your stopping distance by about 25%.

    3. Re:Tailgate alarm by royallthefourth · · Score: 1

      I drive a Yaris, which (according to Motor Week) does 60-0 in 120 feet. An F-150 does the same in 150 feet.

      If that truck is tailgating the car and the car stops in a hurry, they would certainly collide.

    4. Re:Tailgate alarm by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The braking distance isn't the problem during tailgating. It is the reaction time of the tailgater. Even if the tailgating car has a significantly better stopping time, it wont make a difference if the driver does not hit the breaks within a second or two.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    5. Re:Tailgate alarm by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Those numbers are meaningless without error bars. Just like Mythbusters, I really doubt Motor Week did multiple trials and calculated a p-value. In that kind of test a twenty percent error isn't unreasonable, and certainly not worth betting your life on.

      So: the F-150 shouldn't tailgate. Nor should the Yaris.

    6. Re:Tailgate alarm by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Why the hell do you have a score of zero? Mods, fix this.

      Back in junior high the cops came and did a presentation on road safety. One of them, an accident investigator, told us that a little car stops in about the same distance as a fully loaded semi (before ABS they used to work out how fast you were going by the length of the skid marks, no correction needed for type of vehicle). I didn't believe him. Then he worked out the math on the board just as you've done.

      I guess a cop doing physics on the board stuck in my mind since I still remember it more than a decade later.

    7. Re:Tailgate alarm by icebike · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > And mu, which depends on the tires and the road is also important.

      A bit of an understatement there.

      The number of square inches tire on the road and the pressure of those tires comes into play as does the texture of the road surface. Because trucks run higher pressure tires, they have fewer square inches per pound than do cars.

      Since the road surface is essentially the same for all vehicles at a given point, it comes down to square inches when brakes are applied hard.

      However, there is often an inverse relationship of weight and stopping distance for big trucks. This is where your mathematical model falls apart.

      A empty truck may skid farther than a fully loaded one. http://books.google.com/books?id=I511spiUbQsC&lpg=PA18&ots=pY7kxO4ewx&dq=stopping%20distance%20lightly%20loaded%20trucks&pg=PA18#v=onepage&q=&f=false

      Further, you over look the fact that stopping distances of various vehicle classes are not designed to the same standards. Recently, the NHTSA mandated shorter stopping distance for trucks to bring them more in line with typical passenger vehicle standards. http://www.examiner.com/x-17128-Houston-Truck-Industry-Examiner~y2009m7d27-Amendment-mandates-new-truck-stopping-distance

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    8. Re:Tailgate alarm by soundguy · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is a significant difference in stopping distance between "juice" brakes and air brakes. Assuming identical reaction times, air brakes take from 500ms to a full second LONGER to initiate mechanical movement. Every professional driver already knows that however, since it's part of the written test to obtain a commercial driver's license (CDL) with an air brake certification. It's why truckers who aren't dickheads leave a few extra car lengths between them and the next vehicle, especially late in their shift when their own reaction time may be a little slower than normal.

      --
      Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
    9. Re:Tailgate alarm by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Only if all of the trailers' brakes are working properly. (I presume that you're talking about a tractor-trailer rig.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    10. Re:Tailgate alarm by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Ah, okay, when I said stopping distance I should have clarified - stopping distance after the brakes are on.

      I didn't know air brakes had such a delay. Still, I doubt the "oversized hot wheels" the OP was complaining about is equipped with air brakes.

    11. Re:Tailgate alarm by 427_ci_505 · · Score: 1

      I believe that tyres of a given compound respond differently to different loads on them. ie. Higher stopping power by mass for lighter car.

      It's been a while since I looked at tyre related data though so I might be wrong.

    12. Re:Tailgate alarm by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I did specify "assuming the brakes are actually working." First sentence, second phrase, actually.

      From the way the OP phrased it though, I think the comparison is actually between something like a pickup truck or SUV and his Yaris (in another comment he specifically gives the comparison as his Yaris to an F150 pickup). Both have four wheels, each with a hydraulic brake.

      The things people say relating to brakes and braking. I know lots of people who insist that four wheel drive in the city keeps them safer, meaning it helps them stop. All cars have four wheel brakes. Four wheel drive helps you GO better, not stop better. And barring malfunction, the guy in the hot sports may be able to accelerate much faster than the subcompact cardboard box or the giant SUV, but they all decelerate about the same.

    13. Re:Tailgate alarm by HiThere · · Score: 2, Informative

      I (generally) feel a lot more like assuming that an SUV's brakes are working than a tractor-trailer rig's. For one thing, the SUVs generally appear to be better maintained. For another the tractor-trailer rig has lots more brakes, and the brake system is more complex.

      I'll grant that if I *know* that the brake systems are working properly, that the driver is attentive, etc. then they are equivalently safe. OTOH, if the tractor hits me, it will do a lot more damage than the SUV.

      So I worry more about tractor-trailer rigs. OTOH, I'll admit that SUVs are a lot more common, so though I may worry less about each of them (on the average), in aggregate I probably worry more.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    14. Re:Tailgate alarm by WAG24601G · · Score: 1

      If a truck is tail-gating you, there's also a good chance it's your fault. In areas with any substantial terrain, trucks have a lot more difficulty modulating their speed than your sedan/pickup. I've seen plenty of people think that having a small car made it OK to slip in a couple yards ahead of a rig's front fender. Those people shouldn't be surprised when the trucker is angrily riding their tail all the way down the hill. Good defensive driving means having a reasonable notion of what's going on in the cars around you, not just your own right-to-the-road (not suggesting that this is parent poster's attitude).

      --
      Everything is easy when you don't understand the problem.
    15. Re:Tailgate alarm by sudog · · Score: 1

      Partially incorrect. There are conceivable scenarios where AWD systems will in fact give the vehicle better stopping power than any brakes or brake systems in any two-wheel drive vehicle.

      Therefore, the type of all-wheel drive in-use can be a factor in slowing down better and with more control than a simple two-wheel drive vehicle.

      The reason is simple: some AWD systems include three four-wheel limited-slip differentials (front-left-right, rear-left-right, and front-rear) which will prevent any one single wheel from spinning when forces on it act to spin it independently of any of the other wheels.

      This means that in those situations where the driver can not reasonably stop or even apply brakes without inducing an immediate slide (black ice on a downhill, say) and the best they can do is ease off the gas, chances are much better that the road is not 100% ice and that at least two wheels can get enough purchase to apply some deceleration forces on the car as a unit. The fact that the two wheels in question can literally be *any* two wheels on these rare AWD vehicles means the chances of clutch-engaged deceleration are significantly higher. I don't mean stopping entirely; I just mean slowing down to engine compression/slope equilibrium. (Which helps stopping considerably.)

      Also, if a slide is already occurring on all four wheels, ABS is worse than useless and could mean that brakes are temporarily rendered inoperable when it's possible that at the end of the slide, the tires regain traction.

      I just wanted to point out that even open differentials where right-left brakes are applied to prevent wheel slippage (active stability) are less effective than those that involve that all-important front-rear limited slip. I know of no cars on the market that aren't already AWD that can do this.

    16. Re:Tailgate alarm by sudog · · Score: 1

      Except for, say, the fact that truckers undergo significantly more driver training, they are required by law to pull out at brake-check stops, are constantly weighing their cargo (and thus know how much momentum they can build,) that SUVs have no maintenance schedules enforced on drivers by law, and are driven by barely-competent people who, on average, were last tested half their lifetime ago?

    17. Re:Tailgate alarm by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      That's AWD, not four wheel drive. And a pretty obscure situation that's unlikely to affect an average driver.

    18. Re:Tailgate alarm by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      So: the F-150 shouldn't tailgate. Nor should the Yaris.

      Agreed.

      However, regardless of which one is tailgating, in an accident between those two vehicles, the F150 always wins.

      So a double moral: Don't tailgate, and drive an F150 if you expect to ever be in a front or rear end collision with a Yaris sized vehicle. ;)

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    19. Re:Tailgate alarm by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      There's more to it than that. Disk brakes will stop a vehicle faster than drum brakes, and the bigger the disk the faster the car will stop. The car I'm driving now has sixteen inch rims and HUGE disk brakes, and it waill stop in half the distance of the car I used to have.

      The bigger the tire, the more of it that's on the road as well.

    20. Re:Tailgate alarm by Alastor187 · · Score: 1

      Stopping distance is independent of the mass of the vehicle. Speed, being quadratic, is a huge factor. And mu, which depends on the tires and the road is also important.

      This is what they teach in high school physics, and if you ask why race cars use larger tires you will get some BS answer about tire wear or rules. However, if you Google 'Tire Load Sensitivity', you will see that mu is not constant. Instead as the tire load increase so does the coefficient of friction, up to a point. Then the coefficient of friction will peak and then as the load continues to increase the coefficient of friction begins to decrease.

      During braking load is transferred from the rear wheels to the front wheels, this effectively redistributes the amount of grip available for braking. The redistribution in grip actually results in a net loss in grip, maximum grip occurs for most vehicles when all the tires share the total vehicle load evenly. The more load that is transferred the more grip is lost during braking. The amount of load transfer is dependent on wheel base, mass, and CoG height.

      If a vehicle's performance could be summed up into two simple equations, there would be a lot race engineers out of a job

    21. Re:Tailgate alarm by icebike · · Score: 1

      The fact that there were imperfect ways of stopping a wheel really has very little to do with this segment of the discussion thread.

      Given that your brakes allow you to lock up the wheels in a panic stop, be it on a passenger car or an 18 wheeler, the equation comes down to the number of square inchs of rubber on the road, with some allowance for the coefficient of friction of the specific tire materials.

      Truck tires tend to be made of harder rubber to give longer life. This also makes them grab the road less, as it takes more weight to pres the rubber into the irregularities of the road surface.

      This combined with higher tire pressure makes lightly loaded trucks skid easier.

      Its not immediately obvious to many people that tire pressure dictates the number of square inches of tire that will be in contact with the road.

      At any given pressure, adding more weight deforms the tire adding more inches of contact area.

      Counterintuitively the tire pressure does not increase much as weight is added. The tire simply deforms, recruiting more square inches to carry the load.

      Tire pressure also dictates the pounds per square inch that the vehicle imposes on the roadway.

      Yet it it total contact area which controls braking efficiency.

      So a lightly loaded heavy truck with high pressure tires applies the same weight per square inch as the same truck with a heavy load, but has significantly smaller contact patches under each tire, and therefore less friction available for braking.

      It has nothing to do with HOW you stop the wheel.

      It has everything to do with the amount of friction you can generate once the wheel is stopped, and that is largely determined by the contact patch.

      There is a reason dragsters run huge tires at LOW pressure (7psi).

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    22. Re:Tailgate alarm by holmstar · · Score: 1

      If you are going to use that logic, why stop there? An F150 would get pancaked by an International CXT. Oh, wait, that would still get smashed by a fully loaded big-rig... ...but the big rig would get completely annihilated by a Liebherr LTM 11200.9 mobile crane. I guess we should all just drive those.

    23. Re:Tailgate alarm by holmstar · · Score: 1

      Not exactly true... That sports car likely has wider and larger diameter tires. This means that the tires have a larger area of rubber in contact with the road, and due to this, the brakes can apply more stopping force before the tire begins to slip (more than a similar car with smaller, skinnier tires). More stopping force = quicker deceleration. However, this really only applies in dry/wet but not puddling conditions. Wide tires tend to reduce traction in very wet/icy conditions. This is because the greater area makes it harder for the tire to push water out of the way and thus increases hydroplaning. Similarly, the tire tends to ride on top of the ice/snow instead of digging in and gripping the snow.

    24. Re:Tailgate alarm by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Given that your brakes allow you to lock up the wheels in a panic stop

      Cars have had ABS for over a decade. It's standard now, and works very well. I don't know if semis have it, but I would be surprised if they didn't, at least newer ones.

    25. Re:Tailgate alarm by icebike · · Score: 1

      True, but ABS was designed to allow better control, not shorter stopping distance.

      On anything other than smooth dry pavement, ABS can lengthen stopping distance by up to 22%.
      http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/VRTC/ca/capubs/NHTSAabsT4FinalRpt.pdf

      And the requirement for ABS use in Trucks is still being finalized:
      http://bulktransporter.com/management/tank-truck/highway-traffic-safety-brake-systems-0310/

      Assuming any comparable braking systems in both cars and trucks, the point I'm trying to make is that "Lord Byron Eee PC"'s expounding of mathematical formula about weight and mass totally ignores the dynamics involved.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    26. Re:Tailgate alarm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...that SUVs have no maintenance schedules enforced on drivers by law...

      Many states require annual or bi-annual vehicle safety inspections. That's lenient compared to commercial freight vehicles, but few SUVs rack up as much milage and none weigh as much, even empty. Can't argue with the rest, though.

      - T

    27. Re:Tailgate alarm by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Sure, if you're on a track and victory is measured in hundredths of a second, some of the obscure second (third, fourth) order grip effects of larger tires might make the difference (in the first order, contrary to most people's intuition, grip depend on contact area). On a street it is not a significant factor in deciding, say, what following distance is safe - everyone decelerates about the same.

      The I've-got-big-tires-so-I-can-stop-faster mentality is even more dangerous than the Road-and-Track-said-my-car-brakes-well one.

    28. Re:Tailgate alarm by sudog · · Score: 1

      Except you admit it is possible, and therefore even in the limited universe the grandparent of this note constructed, AWD can in fact be a better way to slow down and assist in stopping.

      Really, any slippery downhill slope is a candidate for this. It's tough to imagine a scenario that the person the grandparent was writing about was describing where some form of slippage isn't involved, and thus this particular AWD construct could be a help in any of those slippage scenarios.

      The unfortunate reality is that high-quality, effective limited-slip differentials that can lock all four wheels together are actually pretty rare, even on many AWD vehicles (including Subarus.) They're rare because they're heavy and not particularly economical on mass-produced vehicles: open differentials mean you can under-engineer drive shafts and half-axles and save a pile of money on transmission parts. Why? Because if you have an open differential and the engine drives enough power to slip a tire, only one tire slips and the others stay stationary: the torque load on things like drive shafts is only enough to break free a single tire, and then it's released.

      On a WRX STi or a Lancer Evo, the drive shafts have to be strong enough to bear the torque of all four tires' friction simultaneously before everything breaks free and you get an AWD burnout. It's pretty badass. Most normal cars have parts that would snap and break under those stresses, and are therefore less expensive to build.

      So, only the insane rally-racer cars like the Lancer Evo or the WRX STi tend to have the full-on ability to lock all four wheels together. Well.. those and the expensive offroaders, whose oversized tires tend not to be a big help on snow and ice and slippery surfaces anyway. (Wrong tire compound, not enough biting edges, missing studs, whatever.)

    29. Re:Tailgate alarm by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Assuming any comparable braking systems in both cars and trucks, the point I'm trying to make is that "Lord Byron Eee PC"'s expounding of mathematical formula about weight and mass totally ignores the dynamics involved.

      That's so, and was part of what I was trying to say as well.

      Your NHSTA link says in the abstract that "for most stopping maneuvers on most surfaces, ABS-assisted full pedal brake applications stops were shorter than those made with the ABS systems disabled." The one exception was on loose gravel.

    30. Re:Tailgate alarm by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Sure, I'll give you that there are conceivable situations where it might help a tiny bit. Does it help when you're tooling around the city? Not very likely. It's a false confidence, just like the guy who started this whole thread because he thinks he doesn't need as much following distance because he drives a Yaris which Road and Track says can stop a little bit faster than an F150.

    31. Re:Tailgate alarm by holmstar · · Score: 1

      Cars absolutely do have significantly different stopping abilities. Drive a greater variety of vehicles and you will realize this.

    32. Re:Tailgate alarm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're wrong on every count though.
                1) SUV's *appear* to be better maintained because the owners are more likely to wax and wash them. The truck owners are REQUIRED to meet minimum maintenance standards, and usually exceed them to extend service life of the truck; washing is optional, depending on the trucking company.

                2) Regarding truck brakes... in case of a SUV hydraulic failure, YOU HAVE NO BRAKES. In case of a semi air leak, the brakes lock on instead -- so the trucker with bad brakes is forced to pull over, instead of barrelling along then finding out he can't stop when he has to like the SUV driver. In case of other failures, the semi has 18 wheels versus the SUV's 4... any increased likelihood of failure is more than balanced out by the fact that a single-wheel failure would only reduce braking by 5.5% instead of 25%.
                3) Why would you grant a SUV and semi brakes are equivalently safe if in working order? A semi is much heavier, and (even with the extra braking power) typically needs about 3-4x the stopping distance of a good car, and about 2-3x a bloated SUV.

    33. Re:Tailgate alarm by sudog · · Score: 1

      Well, it's not really a tiny bit. I'm guessing the city you're imagining is a slight bit different from the city I live in. Frost, black ice, and snow are a fact of life in most Canadian cities (even Victoria) for many months of the year. Having been in a fully-limited-slip AWD vehicle in dozens (hundreds?) of downhill sliding scenarios, I can say with full confidence that it is a serious advantage. (And quite scary for the people behind me, a fact of which I am very painfully aware.)

      But you're 100% right about the OP.. a Yaris is not one of the vehicles I describe. :)

    34. Re:Tailgate alarm by sudog · · Score: 1

      P.S. I'm aware that anecdotal evidence isn't, but I guess my offtopic point is made.

    35. Re:Tailgate alarm by sudog · · Score: 1

      Do they? Not where I live..

      I wish they did. But.. oh well.

  5. I hope it's written in Python or similar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    That way, if my radar doesn't detect I'm closing in on the car ahead I can fix the source code without a recompile and link.

    1. Re:I hope it's written in Python or similar by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Talk about a quick patch...

  6. so where is the open project by globalsnake · · Score: 1

    I want the hw and opensource software for the radar system. I think its cool just to mess with but am i the only one that is concerned that this multi billion dollar plane has opensource radar meaning it is probably now easy to jam or detect the plane just by the radar signature. I saw an order for a few of these cars to russia, china, iran, venezuela, north korea. Yeah and people complained that they wore trying to shoot down the F22 project, very stealthy.

    1. Re:so where is the open project by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The software is apparently open source. I really doubt the hardware is. Military radar is a closely guarded secret. Also, the article implies that some of the software is open source. The the article is to be believed, it sounds like probably only the return differentiation part is open. You're not going to use that to detect an F22.

  7. Lidar sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    What they can achieve with radar is constant 360 degree monitoring. The local police has gray vans that look like ordinary vans. They park them somewhere near busy intersection. The systems in the car track the movement of every car around the van, and automatically take images of the targets going too fast. Basically there are no police officers sitting inside, they just leave the car there and send you the speeding tickets a few days from the incident.

    Also, radars have improved in the past years. Most of the new systems have advancements from military radars - they hop frequerencies and whisper instead of yelling. The amount of energy they put out has dropped to 100th of what they used to do. At the same time the quality of the radar systems have improved. The old ones used to have quite high margin of error whereas these new systems are accurate to centimeter/hours.

    Lidar is hard to spot but in overall they suck because they can't do all the coolest tricks.

  8. Is it "green" too? by donutello · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sounds a lot like buzzword bingo to me.

    --
    Mmmm.. Donuts
    1. Re:Is it "green" too? by stagg · · Score: 1

      I can't tell if it's just observational bias because I started reading slashdot and got a job in the tech industry... but it sure does seem to be a big buzz word lately. Then again, most of my "civilian" friends without tech jobs or nerdy habits still have no clue what the hell it means.

    2. Re:Is it "green" too? by martas · · Score: 3, Funny

      it's a green, open-source, biofuel-based, alternative energy producing, solar power using, multitouch, next-generation, web 2.0, HTML5, social networking, streamlined, going forward, ajaxian, podcasted, virtualized, cloud-based, immersive car.

    3. Re:Is it "green" too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot fat free and low carb ! And now, for a limited time, you can get it in HD for free !

    4. Re:Is it "green" too? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      cloud-based, immersive car.

      Yeah, mine has windshield wipers, too.

  9. 17mpg? by Manfre · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The Taurus 2010 will average 17mpg in the city and 25mpg on the motorway, on a par with the competition"

    Is this sedan competing with SUVs and trucks?

    1. Re:17mpg? by HazMat+79 · · Score: 1

      I thhink I remember reading in Car & Driver that the way mpg gets figured out is changing to more accurately reflect real world numbers. If that isn't true then, yes this car really does help enforce the American automotive industries stereotypes.

    2. Re:17mpg? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      They're probably only talking about American competition.

    3. Re:17mpg? by dasunst3r · · Score: 1

      Yeah, seriously, what a joke. My 1992 Honda Accord (with a touch less than 187,000 miles) is rated 18 (city) / 26 (highway) and averages around 22. No wonder why American automakers are going down the drain. They can add all these gizmos, but they can never replace my breakthrough "paying attention to the road at all times." All the (safety-related) alphabet soup I need are ABS, SRS, TCS, and possibly TPMS.

    4. Re:17mpg? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      A car with that kind of mileage is actually saleable in the US? Wow. I get a real world 50-62mpg out of mine, and it's no even one of the new 'green' cars.

    5. Re:17mpg? by DittoBox · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's a 3.5L V6...what did you expect? The bi-turbo model has a great power-to-mileage ratio. It has the power and torque of a 4-4.5L V8 but the mileage of V6. For reference my 2001 Volkswagen Jetta (Bora, in EUâ"it's the sedan Golf basically) with a naturally aspirated 2.8L VR6 gets 20/24 mpg and has 175HP and about 180 lb.-ft. whereas the The Taurus SHO has .7L more displacement but gets 365HP/350 lb.-feet, at 17/25 mpg. That's very efficient considering the amount of power it's producing.

      Quite honestly, the cost of the car versus a comparable BMW 5-series is actually really great. According to a few reviews I've read the SHO handles quite well for it's size and weight, with lots of great gadgets.

      I'll admit those are still ugly numbers though, anything south of 30/35 for a daily driver is awful, particularly for a sedan.

      --
      Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
    6. Re:17mpg? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      First off, US fuel economy numbers were made "more accurate," but in the real world, the numbers are now amazingly low, except for hybrids.

      Second, your regional Google site probably translated to imperial gallons, not US gallons, which are smaller.

      Third, just because it was a "big Mercedes-Benz" doesn't mean that it didn't have a 4-cylinder and a manual, although I am assuming you're in Europe. Here in the US, a car the size of the Taurus would have a V6 and an automatic by default - and in this case, it's a 3.5 L V6.

    7. Re:17mpg? by bhtooefr · · Score: 3, Informative

      Imperial or US gallons?

      And, how big is that car? The Taurus is approaching the size of a Mercedes S-class, and has a 3.5 L V6.

      Also, US fuel economy estimates for everything but hybrids are lower than real world fuel economy.

    8. Re:17mpg? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'll admit those are still ugly numbers though, anything south of 30/35 for a daily driver is awful, particularly for a sedan.

      It's pathetic! My '82 MBZ 300SD won't get up and go like this thing will, but it will seat four adults in posh comfort (if you add a fifth it sucks, heh heh) and it gets around 28 mpg on the freeway at good speeds, which I assure you this Ford monstrosity will not. It manages this without any intelligent engine management (the engine is entirely mechanical; the "run switch" is a vacuum switch on the back of the ignition switch.) A 1989 Nissan 180SX K's (J-spec) with the CA18DET gets better than 30 MPG on the freeway and while it has less power and torque will probably murderize this stupid Ford pothole, SHO 'nuff. 2010 VW TDIs (to once again include a Golf, thank goodness) come with 2 liter engines and plenty of pep, and at least another 10 mpg!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:17mpg? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I have a 1982 Mercedes with a 3 liter turbo diesel and no fancy engine management that gets superior mileage. It is an S-class. While Chrysler products can draw from some Mercedes technology, the best Ford can summon up (for a production type vehicle) is Volvo. Chrysler products are only using E class suspension design anyway. Granted, my 1982 S-Class has antiquated design in many ways, but then again the rear suspension is more than superficially similar to what Porsche used in the 944 all the way up to about 1989 and it's hard to find fault with the front at all. While this thing has vastly more power, it will not have the finesse to put it on the street, and I will still be stuck behind people on my local fun highway (Hopland Grade, CA HWY 175 from Lakeport to Hopland or vice versa) who are driving them while I'm wrapped in leather and probably-now-extinct hardwood :)

      P.S. The old SHOs were unreliable bitches. Pretty good power but not much potential since they were wound so tight. Meanwhile, the old Tauruses, especially with V6 engines, were some of the most terrible vehicles to work on ever produced by man. There's more engine compartment room in almost anything including my 1993 Subaru Impreza, or a 1992 Honda Accord, or any of the dozens of other cars I've had my hands in. I hope Ford has done a substantially better job this time around, but I wouldn't go near it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:17mpg? by Cloudwalking · · Score: 1

      Fuel economy estimates are LOWER than real world fuel economy? Really? I don't think so. I recently saw a window sticker that said (in fine print) the highway fuel economy was achieved at 37 mph. You'd be arrested for driving 37 on the highway. Fuel economy estimates are good ideas that have just turned into more false marketing.

    11. Re:17mpg? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So .. don't you think it would be easier to compare if they were in the same units? Guess who is getting screwed.

    12. Re:17mpg? by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      My friends Volkswagen gets similar numbers. It has the 280HP V6. Depends on the car, engine, transmission and year.

    13. Re:17mpg? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, US fuel economy estimates for everything but hybrids are lower than real world fuel economy.

      BAH HAH HAH HAH no.

      Fuel economy estimates in the US have always been high, sometimes to the point of up to half. The difference does vary by company though -- some companies are shadier about these figures than others. The last car I bought -- ford escape hybrid -- was mpg actually accurate. Speaking of which, it's a fucking SUV and it gets 30 mpg. 17 mpg for a car is pathetic.

    14. Re:17mpg? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that one of those diesels that I see belching black smoke and barely maintaining 50mph up a hill?

    15. Re:17mpg? by barzok · · Score: 1

      Also, US fuel economy estimates for everything but hybrids are lower than real world fuel economy.

      The revised EPA mileage numbers & testing process are much more realistic than they used to be.

    16. Re:17mpg? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      The Taurus SHO has .7L more displacement but gets 365HP/350 lb.-feet, at 17/25 mpg. That's very efficient considering the amount of power it's producing.

      Yea, but it's mpg and acceleration (as well as handling) would be a lot better if the thing didn't weigh 4346 pounds. Sorry, but that's completely ridiculous for a CAR to weigh that much. When you can buy SUV's that weigh less, you know you have a bloat problem in your sedan line.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    17. Re:17mpg? by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      The US EPA changed to more accurate MPG measures two model years ago.

      The article is almost certainly using UK gallons, since Ford's website for the Taurus lists fuel economy as 18 mpg city and 28 mpg highway.

    18. Re:17mpg? by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > Imperial or US gallons?

      17 mpg is abysmal either way, especially for a sedan.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    19. Re:17mpg? by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      Fuel economy estimates are LOWER than real world fuel economy? Really? I don't think so. I recently saw a window sticker that said (in fine print) the highway fuel economy was achieved at 37 mph. You'd be arrested for driving 37 on the highway.

      Fuel economy estimates are good ideas that have just turned into more false marketing.

      You're right, the sticker MPG is generally lower than real world.

      However, some non-hybrids are an exception. My 2008 Honda Fit officially has city/highway MPG ratings of 28/34, but my real-world combined MPG is about 35.

      I regularly do 120 on 100 km/h highways, and my old roommates claimed I had a lead foot starting from a stop. I don't hypermile either, unless "don't keep on the throttle until the last second" is considered hypermiling instead of common sense.

    20. Re:17mpg? by rhsanborn · · Score: 1

      The rating for your Accord was on the old EPA system which was much more generous. Many drivers are finding they get much better mileage than the ratings indicate. It depends on driving habits, locale, and amount of stop-and-go.

    21. Re:17mpg? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      FOR HYBRIDS.

      Before the rating changes, diesel cars got slightly better than sticker, gas cars got about sticker, and gas/electric hybrids got worse than sticker.

      Now, gas/electric hybrids get about sticker, gas cars get better than sticker, and diesel cars get significantly better than sticker.

      Source: http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420r06017.pdf Page 16 of the PDF. Current label is the pre-change, MPG-based label is post-change.

    22. Re:17mpg? by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Personally? I expected a minimum of 22/32 or so, even for a big car. This is 2010 we're talking about here. Not a decade ago.
       
      I also expect Toyota and Honda to continue to wipe the floor with the big-4 American car companies. This is especially evident when the Camry starts out $6k less than the Taurus. For the same money, you can get a lot more car, and better fuel efficiency to boot.
       
      Who the hell is Ford competing with here? You can load up a Camry for the entry-level price of a Taurus, and you can buy an entry-level Mercedes for the price of a loaded Tarus.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    23. Re:17mpg? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      I drive a 1989 Mercury Sable (which is really just a Ford Taurus with a different label on it). That's about the same gas milage I get.

      In two decades, you'd think they'd find a way to make it run more efficiently.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    24. Re:17mpg? by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      And, how big is that car? The Taurus is approaching the size of a Mercedes S-class, and has a 3.5 L V6.

      You know, its suddenly becoming more obvious why the U.S. auto industry is failing. The last few years have been filled with outrageous gas prices, SUVs becoming the new overstocked vehicle on lots, and a focus on more fuel efficient transportation, yet Detroit continues to increase the size of it's vehicles so even a "family sedan" gets the same gas mileage as a pickup truck.

      They're supposed to be reducing the size of their vehicles to be more competitive on fuel economy, not increasing it still. There will always be a large family that needs a minivan, large sedan, etc. But let's be honest, the vast majority of customers are buying their vehicle to regularly transport one or two people at a time and don't need a car that big.

    25. Re:17mpg? by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      I am more than happy with my 4.5/100km (or 52mpg). I always halve a good laugh when I see companies touting their fuel economy for their latest models. And my car is 13 years old. Although about 65% of that is country driving.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    26. Re:17mpg? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Imperial or US gallons?

      European swallows or African swallows?

    27. Re:17mpg? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      It's a 3.5L V6...what did you expect?

      My '02 Concorde has a 3.2L V6 and it's the third fastesst car I've owned. I've clocked it at 36 mpg (doing 50 mph on the highway with a donut spare), usually get around 30 mpg doing 68 on the interstate. That's way better mileage than I got with the '84 four cylinder, fuel injected Rabbit we had back in the eighties, and it's roomy and comfortable, unlike that tiny little VW.

      And before the jokesters come around, yes I've had it to 100 mph and it only took seconds to go that fast.

    28. Re:17mpg? by holmstar · · Score: 1

      Of course your s-class get's better mileage! It is a diesel 3.0L engine in a car that weighs about 3500lbs, vs a 3.5L gasoline engine in a car that weighs 4400lbs.

      Not a fair comparison.

    29. Re:17mpg? by holmstar · · Score: 1

      The Taurus SHO weighs 4400lbs vs the 3669lbs of your escape. Plus the SHO has a 3.5L V6. Given those numbers, 17mpg city isn't that crazy. Granted, a 4400lb car is a little nuts.

    30. Re:17mpg? by holmstar · · Score: 1

      No. The new EPA guidelines changed for all cars. I have a mazda 3, which had 1 or 2 mpg better (on the sticker) before the switch. It was pretty much the same for all cars.

    31. Re:17mpg? by holmstar · · Score: 1

      Newsflash! ...The Taurus SHO wasn't designed for you. This is the high performance variant of the Taurus. Fuel economy is secondary. You have the fuel efficient version of the S class. in that case, performance was secondary to economy. Not a fair comparison.

    32. Re:17mpg? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Correct, the guidelines changed for all cars.

      The point is, they used to be roughly accurate for gas cars, lower than real world for diesel, and higher than real world for hybrids.

      Now they're only accurate for hybrids, and lower than real world for everything else.

    33. Re:17mpg? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That's a bunch of crap. What year is it? Aren't we supposed to have direct-injection turbo gas engines by now? Ford's not even trying to be efficient, that was my whole point: what's that POS got over my classic, vastly cheaper Benz? Acceleration. And what does it pay? Mileage. Meanwhile Ford is crowing about the mileage. The whole thing is a fail.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    34. Re:17mpg? by holmstar · · Score: 1

      Ford's point is that it gets better mileage than would the same car if it had a v8. This doesn't matter to you, because you don't care about performance that much. But if you were someone who values performance, having a bit better (though still not great) fuel economy is a plus.

    35. Re:17mpg? by holmstar · · Score: 1

      Aren't we supposed to have direct-injection turbo gas engines by now?

      BTW, the SHO does have a direct injection turbocharged engine.

    36. Re:17mpg? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      BTW, the SHO does have a direct injection turbocharged engine.

      Then I re-iterate, this is pathetic mileage. Direct injection was supposed to allow gasoline engines to compete with diesels on efficiency, because they would be able to run lean. Diesels ALWAYS run lean, IIRC they tend to cruise around 22:1, a nice comparison with Gasoline's 14.7:1 (ideal @ sea level, etc.) Direct injection is supposed to eliminate precombustion by taking the fuel out of the "pre" stage and allow you to get the efficiency up.

      Ford is barely getting more performance and mileage out of this turbocharged, allegedly direct-injected 3.5 liter V6 than Nissan is getting out of a naturally aspirated 3.7 liter V6. Ford is an also-ran in the technology department and deserves to fail. I can put together a 2 liter Nissan engine from 1991 that will get more power in the high end and give more mileage in the low. I suspect you could do it with the 1.8 liter from 1989; I've heard of that making 350hp on the street, although getting it over 300 is cost-prohibitive.

      Ford FAIL

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    37. Re:17mpg? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Newsflash! ...The Taurus SHO wasn't designed for you. This is the high performance variant of the Taurus.

      What I want to know is who the SHO was designed for? I guess it's "people who can't afford a G35 Sedan", because the performance is barely better than Nissan's naturally-aspirated, multipoint fuel injected 3.7 liter V6... as is the mileage! Meanwhile, the Taurus has been described as "a big car that feels like a big car", or in other words, it handles like shit.

      This is neither impressive mileage nor impressive performance from a modern powerplant, and Ford should be ashamed for bragging. Slashdotters should be more choosy. Nothing about this vehicle is impressive whatsoever. If well-tuned, you could get similar performance and mileage out of a twin-turbo studebaker. I assure you that when you stick your foot into this thing and milk it for power the mileage will be nowhere, because of the absurdly high displacement for the power output. Mitsubishi is getting almost the same number of horses out of the 2 liter in the lancer.

      Ford has changed everything about the Taurus that made it successful. The SHO was a fuel sipper for its day. Again, Ford FAIL

      (Why did I compare my efficient S-class? Because it uses antique technology and I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that I will beat a SHO over the twisty road of your choice. Power without finesse is worse than useless; it will get people into trouble they can't recover from. And the SHO's acceleration is USELESS; the vehicle is going to be a cow next to anything genuinely performant.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    38. Re:17mpg? by holmstar · · Score: 1

      No you are confusing direct injection with HCCI. HCCI is homogeneous charge, compression ignition. And it doesn't work exactly the same way as a diesel. In a diesel, the air is compressed to high temperatures before any fuel is injected, and the fuel burns on injection. But this produces a lot of soot. If we were to build a diesel cycle gasoline engine, it would indeed be more efficient, but it would still produce a lot of soot. And since gasoline has less energy per unit volume, it still wouldn't be as efficient as a diesel. In HCCI, the fuel is injected with the air, and thus allowed to mix fully. When the mixture is compressed, the heat of compression causes the air/fuel mixture to ignite. Being fully mixed, combustion is clean, very efficient, and doesn't produce much soot. This difficulty in this is that it isn't easy to get the mixture to ignite exactly when you want it to, and this makes it hard to run an engine the way that we do in a automobile. (at a variety of speeds and power output)

      Direct injected engines inject the fuel into the cylinder just after or as the air enters. The evaporating fuel cools the air charge, which allows the engine to use a higher compression ratio. (cooler air/fuel mixture means less threat of knock) This provides more power per stroke while keeping the same displacement. You could use it to increase efficiency if you then used a smaller displacement engine, and thus got the same power out of a smaller engine, but in this case they used it to increase power output.

      FYI, the Nissan VQ37VHR engine is direct injected as well, and does have 5% more displacement. It also has a better variable valve setup. Without that greater displacement it would make around 311 hp vs the fords 350. This just tells you that the ford engine isn't using very much psi, and if you are into tuning, you could probably easily get this car to around 450.

      And yes, you can tune small engines to produce amazing max hp numbers, but they almost always achieve that by using oversized turbos that push the power band into the very high end of the rpm range. Those cars can also be rather difficult to drive in a normal way. In the low rpms you have the power of a 2L... and then all of a sudden the turbo spools and you are fighting to maintain traction. That's fine if it is just a drag car, but not so great if you are just trying to merge on the interstate.

    39. Re:17mpg? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Direct injection doesn't specify when the fuel is injected, only where. It's injected directly into the combustion chamber. MPFI and other indirect injection techniques (including prechamber injection as in IDI diesels) are not called DI because they are not direct injection.

      Direct injection allows you complete control over injection timing, which you don't have with any other type of system; with indirect injection you can only add fuel when the valve is where it needs to be (depending on if it's a prechamber system, or something else.) VVT mitigates this limitation but then you are locked into certain patterns of valve timing and injection timing. Perhaps one day we will get working solenoid-driven arbitrary/continuous VVT, but until then, this is still an issue.

      As for turbo lag, there are several ways to handle that problem. One is with sequential turbochargers. Another is with multiple symmetric turbos. And in many applications, active boost control is more than adequate. You can get a $500 aftermarket fuzzy logic boost controller that will self-optimize in fairly short order and improves acceleration time on basically everything that has an adjustable wastegate with some adjustment left in it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    40. Re:17mpg? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did a Ford Taurus run over your pet dog or something? I've never seen someone so angry at a car before.

      From what I found on Wikipedia, I seriously doubt that a MB 300SD could keep up on a twisty road (or any road) without some serious modifications.
      * only 170ft/lb torque, though 3.69:1 axle helps
      * swing axle!!! ultimate FAIL.
      * can't have large brakes with 185 HR 14 tires!

      Best of all Wikipedia claims under 17mpg (US) which laughable.

  10. Cause more accidents than it prevents? by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is it just me or does this sound like it might create more accidents than it prevents?

    Sometimes I recognize that I need to do a correction (speed up, slow down, watch out for some other car driving recklessly, etc.) and my wife recognizes that need at the same time and makes a loud gasp. At those moments I find myself more distracted and occasionally make a stupid mistake (like pressing the brake harder than I need to). I worry that a loud noise and lights may make drivers panic and make poor decisions in response.

    1. Re:Cause more accidents than it prevents? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Then the light bars and sirens on the cop cars should make them shit themselves and crash immediately. The thing this system has going for it is that you'd be used to it past the first few times it goes off.

    2. Re:Cause more accidents than it prevents? by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · · Score: 1

      Is it just me or does this sound like it might create more accidents than it prevents? Sometimes I recognize that I need to do a correction (speed up, slow down, watch out for some other car driving recklessly, etc.) and my wife recognizes that need at the same time and makes a loud gasp. At those moments I find myself more distracted and occasionally make a stupid mistake (like pressing the brake harder than I need to). I worry that a loud noise and lights may make drivers panic and make poor decisions in response.

      Actually it will cause more accidents than it prevents, especially someone going in to a "blind panic" and running off the side of a road down a ditch because they do not know what to do. The question is, how much more control and sensible judgement do you want to have taken away from you? IMHO it is your duty to "pay attention" not just for yourself but others. If you cannot grasp the concept of being "alert" then you might as well be dead.

      --
      All cows eat grass!
    3. Re:Cause more accidents than it prevents? by AtomicSnarl · · Score: 1

      I remember a early 1990s (?) story where a national bus company installed a front bumper radar to enforce a safe following distance for their drivers. It would activate the brakes automatically when the driver got too close to the car ahead based on the speed. The problem was other drivers cutting in front of the bus would make the system stomp on the brakes, thus dumping the people in the bus and causing tailgaters to rear end the vehicle.

      Needless to say, it was removed pretty quickly...

      --
      Pacifist paratroopers yell, "Ghandi!" when they jump.
    4. Re:Cause more accidents than it prevents? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      People on the road may drive less safely with such a device due to Risk compensation.

      They perceive driving as being less risky, because they have an electronic device to 'save' them.

      There's also a possibility that when it malfunctions, it could cause accidents.

      People could come to rely on the device too much and become dangerous when they're driving their spouse's older car that doesn't have the device.

    5. Re:Cause more accidents than it prevents? by stagg · · Score: 1

      It's also just one more thing that can break, putting computers and printed circuit boards into cars has decreased their lifespan and made them harder to fix. It's just one more thing that can break, one more thing that only the authorized dealer can repair. If you want people to be safer while driving, ban cellphones and make them take defensive driving classes to renew their license every five years. Gadgets are just one more crutch to rely on while you put on mascara in the rearview mirror.

    6. Re:Cause more accidents than it prevents? by mysidia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, that was dumb. But it would have been a lot smarter if it just sounded an alarm to alert the driver.

      Or if instead of imposing breaking, it prevented a stopped bus from accelerating if there was something directly in front of it.

      The problem inherent is not the safety sensor, but the 'action' wired to the safety sensor.

      It's a bad idea for a safety device to FORCE a vehicle to do something that might be unsafe in some situations (such as slam the breaks), the decision should be left to the driver if possible.

      At least until the technology is a lot better and can determine the speed of the vehicle ahead, whether there's a vehicle near the rear, and whether there's anyone standing up the on the bus that might be injured, and act more intelligently...

      e.g. forced slowing to minimize the probability damage incurred to the vehicle ahead, the vehicle behind, and the bus itself, based on physics modelling of expected collision based on measurements taken.

      That is, until onboard computers are smart enough to actually drive the vehicle, they shouldn't be allowed to preempt the operator and make decisions that are likely to be bad in any common situation.

    7. Re:Cause more accidents than it prevents? by mpe · · Score: 1

      I remember a early 1990s (?) story where a national bus company installed a front bumper radar to enforce a safe following distance for their drivers. It would activate the brakes automatically when the driver got too close to the car ahead based on the speed. The problem was other drivers cutting in front of the bus would make the system stomp on the brakes, thus dumping the people in the bus and causing tailgaters to rear end the vehicle.

      Which is actually the fault of the tailgaters... Before that there was the Goodyear Grand Prix S. Advertised as safer because of decreasing stopping distance, especially of wet roads. At least until it was pointed out that having a shorter stopping distance than most other cars is carries it's own set of dangers.

    8. Re:Cause more accidents than it prevents? by mpe · · Score: 1

      There's also a possibility that when it malfunctions, it could cause accidents.

      What's going to happen when you have many cars fitted with radar in close proximity?

    9. Re:Cause more accidents than it prevents? by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 1

      I've seen way too many cars unsafely slow down when they spot a cop car. Sometimes they weren't even speeding but their gut reaction is "Uh oh...I'd better slow down". People will be going 5 miles over the speed limit and I'll see off in the distance a trail of cars suddenly hit their brakes and go to 5 miles under the speed limit until they get past the cop car. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it has caused accidents on occasion.

    10. Re:Cause more accidents than it prevents? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Oh man, passengers who can't be cool should just be left home, or made to walk by constitutional law or something. That is so true. You're trying to focus and they're caught up in some wacky half-aborted attempt to notify you of a situation you saw coming before they even realized where they were.

      On the other hand, a radar system would be able to let you know well in advance that something was coming. It would be able to alert you to conditions that you're not capable of detecting, at least not as fast as it can. And there's no reason it has to be loud. It just plays a soft little tone to let you know something is happening, with the importance perhaps dictated by tempo.

      I wonder how much control the driver has over the throttle during self-parking. I presume they have complete control over the brake...

      I very much want an in-car sensor package that will give me relative speeds of surrounding vehicles, perhaps with reality overlay. Any day now...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Cause more accidents than it prevents? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      I was making a right turn on a red a couple years ago, and my sister loudly gasps "Oh my God!" I nearly drove into a parked car looking around for what I missed and almost got rear ended by the car turning right behind me. Turns out she was reacting to something utterly unrelated to the road. I nearly banned her permanently from being a passenger when I'm driving.

    12. Re:Cause more accidents than it prevents? by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      It doesnt matter who's fault it was. The end result was that more people got hurt WITH the feature than without.

    13. Re:Cause more accidents than it prevents? by martas · · Score: 1

      well, just put a giant "don't panic" sticker on your windshield... problem solved. (and don't forget your towel).

    14. Re:Cause more accidents than it prevents? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I recognize that I need to do a correction (speed up, slow down, watch out for some other car driving recklessly, etc.) and my wife recognizes that need at the same time and makes a loud gasp. At those moments I find myself more distracted and occasionally make a stupid mistake (like pressing the brake harder than I need to). I worry that a loud noise and lights may make drivers panic and make poor decisions in response.

      How long have you been married? It seems to me that after being married for several years, you'd learn to ignore that. Kind of like how after being married for several years wives learn to ignore when their husbands want sex.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    15. Re:Cause more accidents than it prevents? by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Is it just me or does this sound like it might create more accidents than it prevents?

      I dunno.

      99.99% of car accidents are caused by human error.

      Anything would be an improvement...

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  11. Correlation-causation anyone? by denzacar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anyone? How about a non sequitur then? No? Fruitcake?

    Clearly, 'open source' is being thought of outside the IT world as a good thing, and that surely is itself a good thing.

    You know what else is open source? Knives. Used to stab people to death. And many people find that a good thing. Surely it must be.

    Also... Nowhere in the text does it say that "the software is built from open source". No. They say:

    "...The F22 radar technology which they took and built upon was all open source.... "We then added our own Ford algorithms to determine whether or not objects are a 'vehicle target'."

    From what I gather - someone in the "chain of reporting", whether it is the BBC reporter or people at Ford has no clue what the term "open source" actually means (which no part of a clearly still partially classified F-22 Raptor isn't), and is probably confusing it with the term "public domain" - which radar technology is.

    Come on. What is next?
    A submission of a cake recipe cause it is open source? Look... you can add your own ingredients and develop it further.
    How about an open source walk?
    You know... as opposed to those covered by government grants and thereby being partially owned by the government.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Correlation-causation anyone? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      You know what else is open source? Knives. Used to stab people to death. And many people find that a good thing. Surely it must be.

      It's not like knives don't have many other uses. I mean, I can use them to cook, put them on a motor and cut the lawn, open boxes.....the possibilities are endless!

    2. Re:Correlation-causation anyone? by dwillden · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem with the submission is that the submitter does not realize that there is another definition of Open Source. One that is used in referring to possibly classified information or equipment. And this definition has been around much longer than the current IT realm definition.

      What Open source in this context refers to isn't the IT/GPL version of Open source it means it was developed from unclassified research and publications.

      So what it is saying is that Ford has not put classified technology into these cars, not that they used free "as in beer" software.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    3. Re:Correlation-causation anyone? by stagg · · Score: 1

      The broader application of the term Open Source outside of software frustrates me. Open Source seems to be equated with transparency, public domain, or even ownership. People have been rebuilding their own cars for years without that being called Open Source, but give it a few more years and someone will hit on the revolutionary idea of Open Source automobiles. It *is* nice that the idea is gaining some popularity, but I don't think that most people have the slightest idea what it means. Not that I blame them really.

    4. Re:Correlation-causation anyone? by gerf · · Score: 1

      A submission of a cake recipe cause it is open source? Look... you can add your own ingredients and develop it further.

      What about OpenCola?

    5. Re:Correlation-causation anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not like knives don't have many other uses. I mean, I can use them to cook, put them on a motor and cut the lawn, open boxes.....the possibilities are endless!

      The original poster is from the U.K. where they've outlawed all of that and people have to mow their lawns with spoons.

    6. Re:Correlation-causation anyone? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Because it means very little when applied outside of software.

      Even if you allow analogy, an open source car would be one for which you can get all the blueprints, circuit diagrams, manufacturing specs, CAD drawings, etc. NOT one that you can pull the engine out of and drop another into.

    7. Re:Correlation-causation anyone? by stagg · · Score: 1

      "Because it means very little when applied outside of software." Exactly. I'm a fan of openness and technology that the user can understand, interact with and generally "own." But calling it open source just muddies the water.

    8. Re:Correlation-causation anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha, that might be the funniest thing i've read all day.

  12. Useless gadget by kheldan · · Score: 1

    With the way most people drive, I see this as a completely useless gadget that will end up being turned off, disconnected, or raising complaints from drivers of cars using it. People habitually tailgate, pass in an unsafe manner, etc etc etc. The damned thing would be going off constantly, and the average driver is going to assume it's broken instead of actually questioning their own driving habits.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  13. Re:Useless in the city by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the real world people who drive like that cause the accidents that clog freeways and streets for hours. Leave for your destination 5 minutes earlier. Don't drive like an ass.

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  14. UPS! SORRY... Meant to say "is" by denzacar · · Score: 1

    (which no part of government owned technology used in a clearly still partially classified F-22 Raptor is)

    OK, OK... So I've edited it a little more than just "is".

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  15. New Safety Features I Actually Want! by lgbr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think we're finally seeing some of the safety features that consumers actually want, rather than safety features that the government mandates. Radar guided cruise control and braking will save a lot of lives and a lot of money by almost eliminating rear end collisions.

    Another feature I can't wait to see in the average car is brake lights that flash during emergency braking. The biggest nuisance for me in my 30 mile urban freeway commute is people who get in front of me and use their brakes simply to control their speed. It means I have to concentrate really hard on to figure out how hard someone is braking. A car with flashing brake lights (you're already seeing this on many Mercedes and European cars) will flash its brake lights rapidly under heavy braking so that the driver in the car behind knows to do the same.

    It's good ideas like these that save a lot of lives and earn revenue for the auto companies that implement them, like Ford has here.

    1. Re:New Safety Features I Actually Want! by vlm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Radar guided cruise control and braking will save a lot of lives and a lot of money by almost eliminating rear end collisions.

      How it will detect ice, snow, standing water/hydroplaning, and sand/gravel on the road is a mystery. Road conditions account for all my past close calls, especially unknown / unpredictable conditions. I know there are people whom don't pay attention to their driving, but I'm guessing that is an extremely small fraction of the overall driving population... I would suspect it'll save approximately zero lives and cause a net loss of money.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:New Safety Features I Actually Want! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      How it will detect ice, snow, standing water/hydroplaning, and sand/gravel on the road is a mystery.

      LIDAR is the answer to all of these.

      Modern ABS/TC can already detect sand/gravel and will lock up the wheels for a moment to build some up if you're driving in it, when needed.

      I know there are people whom don't pay attention to their driving, but I'm guessing that is an extremely small fraction of the overall driving population...

      HAHAHAHA

      I hope very much you aren't driving in the USA. If you are, you are clearly not paying attention to the other drivers, thus you are unqualified to drive, and please stay the hell off the roads, you are a danger to yourself and others. If you are assuming this based on what it's like driving in some other country, consider that most people in the world might not be so well-controlled. Only in a few extremely population-dense centers is it actually difficult to get a license... And unfortunately, none of those places are in my country of residence :(

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:New Safety Features I Actually Want! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. I've been doing this for years. If I'm on a highway (>=55MPH speed limit), and I have to break below the speed limit (and especially if the traffic was moving above the speed limit and comes to a stop or almost stop with low visibility, what do I do?

      Hit that little button the dash called "Hazard Lights." Would be nice to have it automated though.
        (On a side not, you really are a hazard moving well below the speed limit or stopped on a highway, as people will be used to going fast.)

    4. Re:New Safety Features I Actually Want! by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

      How it will detect ice, snow,

      IR sensors/cameras: ice/(different kinds of) snow/water/hail are distinguishable

      standing water/hydroplaning,

      turn rate sensors/accelereometers/steering wheel angle: The on-board computer already
      has a pretty good picture of how the car should behave, used for all those assistive
      technologies. Detecting hydroplaning using this data is feasible, and I believe already
      done by Mercedes (and probably by others too).

      sand/gravel on the road is a mystery.

      Microphones. Seriously, by listening to the sound the tyres make on the ground,
      quite bit can be inferred about what this ground is.

      I'm not saying the system mentioned does all this - but there already is an awful
      lot of sensing equipment in a modern car, and it will not take too long for cars to
      have complete situational "awareness". Heck, I'm sure even today's high-end cars
      already are better at it than some of the drivers out there.

    5. Re:New Safety Features I Actually Want! by webdog314 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but that's absolute bullshit. Just because YOU might have radar that thinks for you, how likely is it that the person behind you with the 25 year-old pickup truck has it as well? He might react faster than your computer controlled brakes, but I doubt it. Unless the radar and computer can assess the road situation at least a quarter mile away and apply the brakes slowly over time when you fail to, it's going to be useless if you're moving more than 50 mph, and certainly won't "eliminate rear end collisions". Unless you're completely distracted by the bosomy redhead in the halter top by the side of the road, nearly all rear end collisions are caused because the car in front of you brakes too quickly for you to react. A quick-acting radar system MIGHT stop you in time, but simple physics says that you doomed yourself when you decided to tailgate the guy in front you. The only safety feature I want in new cars is some way to teach people how to actually drive. Your post reads like an ad from Ford.

    6. Re:New Safety Features I Actually Want! by chord.wav · · Score: 1

      I've used the automatic flash lights in a Citroen C4. They are great when you are in the road. They also turn off automatically when you accelerate again to more than 5mph or something. So it's one less thing to keep your mind on.

    7. Re:New Safety Features I Actually Want! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Depending on what makes it "difficult" to get a license, it can make things worse.

      Where I grew up you start driving at about 13 (ssh, don't tell) and get a real license at 16. It's pretty much automatic. BUT, while you don't have a license you're not driving on busy roads, and when you do get one you're probably not driving at night or in difficult conditions. Then, when you're 18 and off on your own, you've got years of driving experience.

      Where I live now most people don't get their licenses until they're at least in their mid twenties. Now they've got money, independence and frequently think they're above the peons who don't have cars. The result is that most of the driving population drive like teenagers without the superior reaction times or (even minimal) parental supervision.

      It's seriously safer to cross the street against the light because the oncoming drivers are way more likely to see you in front of them than the turning drivers are to look to the side.

    8. Re:New Safety Features I Actually Want! by pongo000 · · Score: 1

      Lack of planning and taking into account driving conditions account for all my past close calls, especially unknown / unpredictable conditions.

      There, fixed that for ya.

    9. Re:New Safety Features I Actually Want! by martas · · Score: 1

      even better - giant LCD screen on the back of each car showing speed and acceleration (positive or negative), along with angles for both.

    10. Re:New Safety Features I Actually Want! by ThrowAwaySociety · · Score: 1

      A car with flashing brake lights (you're already seeing this on many Mercedes and European cars) will flash its brake lights rapidly under heavy braking so that the driver in the car behind knows to do the same.

      Uhh, no, I've only seen them on pimped-out little with huge-ass wing spoilers and loads of decals & ground effect lighting who think that flashy=cool. (And they just flash anytime the brakes are tapped, not during panic braking.)

      I'd support such lights if and when it's proven that they help to reduce crashes and not just be distracting, and only if the police start enforcing vehicle lighting regulations to make sure that they're meaningful

    11. Re:New Safety Features I Actually Want! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless the radar and computer can assess the road situation at least a quarter mile away and apply the brakes slowly over time when you fail to, it's going to be useless if you're moving more than 50 mph, and certainly won't "eliminate rear end collisions".
      [...]
      nearly all rear end collisions are caused because the car in front of you brakes too quickly for you to react.

      A car radar system should be more like the (movie?) radar systems which visualize objects and must have a range beyond merely the first car in front of you.

      -V

    12. Re:New Safety Features I Actually Want! by FrankieBaby1986 · · Score: 1

      The biggest nuisance for me in my 30 mile urban freeway commute is people who get in front of me and use their brakes simply to control their speed.

      When I learned to drive (only about 6 years ago) I was taught that the goal on the highway is to avoid using the brakes as much as possible, as that is inefficient. Besides, there should always be enough space between you and the car in front of you so that, should they begin to slow down a little, all that is needed from you is to left off the gas.

      This simple guideline enforces safe driving distance, prevents hard-braking, reduces fluctuations in speed and reduces wear on your brakes. This is simple, now if only we could get people to signal lane changes and stop weaving unnecessarily, we would be halfway there.

      --
      ERROR: SIG NOT FOUND (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?:
    13. Re:New Safety Features I Actually Want! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Radar guided cruise control and braking

      I don't tailgate, so radar guided braking would be worthless to me, but I would like radar guided cruise control. It's annoying having coming up on a slow driver and having to take the cruise off untill everybody else is finished passing.

      Actually I want Sally.

  16. Software defined radio by YayaY · · Score: 1

    They are probably using GnuRadio, a software-defined radio software.

    --
    Votator.com implements a fair voting scheme (free
    1. Re:Software defined radio by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      In other news, GNU Radio project team claim that they nave no objections to bulls with frickin' radars attached to their heads.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  17. Fewer crashes, heh by orkysoft · · Score: 1

    Maybe their thinking went like this:

    Windows: crashes often, closed source
    Linux: doesn't crash, open source
    Our car: doesn't crash, so its firmware needs to be associated with, or run, Linux, or the for most people vague concept of open source

    --

    I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
  18. Random Sample by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From my random sample test, indeed the Taurus is on par.
    (In case the link doesn't work:)
    Ford Taurus 2010 (4d SE Sedan): 18 city / 28 highway.
    Acura RDX 2010 (4d Sport) : 19 city / 24 highway.
    Mazda MAZDA6 2010 (4d Sport) : 20 city / 29 highway.
    Honda Accord 2009 (2d Coupe) : 22 city / 30 highway.

    [NOTE: There were no Honda 2010 models to compare]

    So not really. Fords claims have held for my test.

  19. Compiled by jlebrech · · Score: 1

    With Open Source (GCC)

  20. Does it have electrolytes? by mangu · · Score: 1

    Sounds a lot like buzzword bingo to me.

    You know, for some kind of consumers buzzwords help in sales.

  21. Re:Useless in the city by Adriax · · Score: 1

    75MPH? Where are you going that slow, a school zone?

    --
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
  22. How So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Clearly, 'open source' is being thought of outside the IT world as a good thing"

    Because Ford is outside the IT world? Perhaps at somepoint they will hire some engineers and buy some computers and become part of the IT world, maybe get a few cool robots like honda...

    I'm all for open source but the plugs get tiring....

  23. Voice alarm... by syntheticmemory · · Score: 1

    Danger!!!, Will Robinson, Danger!!!

  24. Anti-tailgate thingy for celliots? by Chuqmystr · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    So most of the tailgaters I encounter here in California are either impatient asses or what I unaffectionately call celliots. Nothing like driving a Civic down the freeway and having a few tons of a Fraud Excrusion 18 passenger SUV Ultra crawl up your ass at 80+mph because the pilot of said living room on wheels is too busy yapping/texting away. How dare we interrupt their conversations with, you know, driving. I digress. Anyway, why not take this thing a step further? I say add in some RF spectrum analysis and a retractable cartoon-esque metal hand in the headliner above the driver. Once a proximity alert is detected RF analysis is done to check for local mobile spectrum use. If the signal doesn't fluctuate enough in say 5 seconds to indicate a drop in talking or of the call altogether then the previously mentioned paw O' reckoning drops down, taps the driver on the shoulder and if they continue to ignore it slaps them silly and shakes an accusing finger at them. RF jamming tech could work well too but the FCC will have no part of that and well, its just not as cool as looking in the rearview to see the hand dole out a little justice.

    1. Re:Anti-tailgate thingy for celliots? by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      Oops. Looks like at least one mod drives a Fraud Excrusion since you're not really off topic. They really don't like having their bad behavior pointed out to them.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  25. So why is this in the Taurus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd love it if, every time some jackass in a Ford started tailgating, his vehicle started yelling at him. But for that to happen we need this feature in the Ford Super Duty, not the Taurus. Funny enough, when someone's car purchase isn't overcompensating for anything, usually it seems that their driving style isn't either.

  26. I'm an F-22 engineer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and I suspect this is just PR guy/mediot talk. The only thing this consumer-level gizmo has in common with the Raptor is, they both use Electronically Scanned Array (ESA) radars. Unless Ford bought the parts from Northrop Grumman (doubtful, given NG's notorious pricing, bureaucracy, and unwillingness to play well with others), this box doesn't have anything to do with the jet.

    I can categorically state that Ford is not using NG's F-22 radar software. Even the prime contractor (Lockheed) doesn't have access to all the innards of those modules.

  27. Target locked. Clear to fire... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1
    From TFA:

    "F22 fighter jets use this advanced radar that can read down the road and identify everything from trees to people,"

    Dear god, I hope our (now canceled) fleet of Raptors aren't deployed actually on the nation's highways.

    "We then added our own Ford algorithms to determine whether or not objects are a 'vehicle target'.

    Not the word choice I'd use, but if the next phrase is "target locked, clear to fire", well that would certainly help with collision avoidance and traffic congestion.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Target locked. Clear to fire... by dwillden · · Score: 1

      The Raptors were not cancelled just permission to purchase more than the 180 or so that have already been paid for.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    2. Re:Target locked. Clear to fire... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Fox three mother goose. Kill confirmed. Repeat, the target has been eliminated. Standing down weapons hot. Okay honey, you can turn the DVD player back on.

  28. Open Sauce by ramjambam · · Score: 0

    Anyone got a recipe for Open Sauce?

    --
    Artificial Intelligence stands no chance against Natural Stupidity
  29. A solution without a problem! by earlymon · · Score: 1

    I worry that a loud noise and lights may make drivers panic and make poor decisions in response.

    Absofreakinglutely correct.

    TFA discusses blind spots - good point. How about a simple set of CCDs and an in-dash display for the blind spots?

    But the real problem here is Ford and the insurance gang. From TFA:

    "The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in the US put out a report last year saying if every vehicle in the US were equipped with this forward collision warning system, we'd save about 7,000 lives a year," Mr Kozak told BBC News.

    Wow. Geez - and just how did they arrive at that fact? By comparison to other similarly equipped vehicles? No, I don't think so.

    The problem here is sociological as well as financial. They're trying to "help" us. Just as other draconian measures in society are trying to help us.

    Want to save more than 7k lives/yr on the road? Penalize for cell-phoning instead of driving. Penalize for putting on make-up while driving. Do NOT ever have a statistic or a newspaper report explaining how someone has gotten their third time in jail for a DWI - by targeting the real problems.

    But do NOT give already lazy drivers comfort in their laziness and tell them that tech makes laziness OK - and that's exactly what this does.

    Next step with be our financial penalty - if the insurance kiddies think they have a study that this saves lives, one of them will start offering a discount if your vehicle has it. Give it 2 or 3 years and then it will become a surcharge for any vehicle that does not have it. Oh - and add in the costs for the new studies, the new data tracking and the accountancy.

    Insurance companies do give discounts on anything - they do not manufacture a hard product. Instead, as a soft product supplier, they simply shift costs (prices) between various consuming groups. And there won't be a reduction of any sort, given that this increases their cost to provide their product (insurance coverage).

    I guess I'll close with this bit of mock-humor: we want stealth technology on our roads? Really?

    --
    Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
  30. Wonder how it deals with rude lane-changers by drdrgivemethenews · · Score: 1

    It's common in heavy urban traffic to have a rude lane-changer pull over a car length or two in front of you. It would be interesting to see how they deal with it, but not interesting at all if that involves slamming on the brakes or flashing lights and sirens. As a rule, the correct response is to simply ease off and give them room, as you mentally turn into the bug from MIB, tear off both car roofs and dismember them limb from limb, all the while steering adroitly with your two middle legs.

    1. Re:Wonder how it deals with rude lane-changers by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      It'll be interesting to see, but I suspect this is not a super-obnoxious alarm, or that might startle drivers so much it panics them and causes more harm than good. I suspect it it simply some sort of not-too-annoying chime or a mild beep. Sort of like the chime that some cars use to alert you that fuel level is low - I doubt most people find that so alarming that they panic, but it does get their attention.

  31. No F22 ANYTHING.... by Dolphinzilla · · Score: 1

    other than the fact it is a radar I can assure it shares NOTHING in common with the F22's AN/APG-77 radar, no components, software, waveforms, algorithms NOTHING - that is some serious literary license

    1. Re:No F22 ANYTHING.... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. They both use radio waves.

  32. "Vehicle targets" - yes, unfortunately by Animats · · Score: 2, Informative

    I used the Eaton VORAD automotive radar on a DARPA Grand Challenge vehicle. It's a useful little device. You get, for up to 20 targets, range, range rate, and azimuth. Targets smaller than a motorcycle usually do not show up. It will not see pedestrians at any useful range. Azimuth info accuracy isn't very good, but range and range rate are quite good. That's ten year old technology; the newer units are better. Those units have been on some big trucks for fifteen years. But the technology was too expensive for most cars. It's been appearing as "intelligent cruise control" on some cars for years.

    The Eaton units, with the display and controller used for vehicles, supports accident reconstruction. The last 15 seconds are retained, and you can see what other vehicles in front were doing. Trucking companies find this useful, because they often can show that it was the other driver's fault.

  33. I use a similar system... by WestCoastSuccess · · Score: 1

    ...called "eyes" to let me know if I'm too close to other cars. Any they're open source too, in a manner of speaking...

  34. "Based on a F22 radar" by chord.wav · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For values of "based" near to zero.

    This is just marketing to make feel the buyer like Maverick in the danger zone. OTOH I guess it is just what a large segment of American consumers want. The closer the car is to a military vehicle, the better.

    1. Re:"Based on a F22 radar" by tuxicle · · Score: 1

      ... which makes me wonder why the report was on the BBC

    2. Re:"Based on a F22 radar" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah yes. another clueless slashtard who doesn't know enough to understand that military development is the real reason they get to sit behind a computer and bitch or is too proud to admit to the fact.

  35. based on F22 radar... by markana · · Score: 1

    What I want to know is - did they incorporate the F22 fire-control systems? It's getting increasingly difficult to line up a Sidewinder shot on the tailpipe of the idiot car ahead of you. Hybrids and EVs will only make that worse - going to have to switch to fully radar-guided missles, and the current Ford package just won't handle it.

    (and you think YOU have a tough commute...:-)

  36. Re:Useless in the city by Amanitin · · Score: 4, Informative

    Do you really think tailgate asses do it because they are late?
    They do it because it's what they like. I heard it's the only way they can get an erection.

  37. *Blink* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The purpose of the radar device is to [...] [sound] an alarm and flashing red lights [...]

    BLINKENLIGHTS! MORE BLINKENLIGHTS!

  38. Re:Useless in the city by YeeHaW_Jelte · · Score: 3, Informative

    Too lazy to read your own article?

    That research was done with a model featuring .... pedestrians. Rarely seen those doing 120 kph.

    Even better, quoting the last few alineas:

    "However, there is one rule you shouldn't break, according to a new analysis of how high-volume traffic flows along a highway. Cecile Appert-Rolland, a physicist at the University of Paris-Sud, looked at the tailing distances between cars traveling on a busy two-lane expressway in the suburbs of Paris."

    Her research showed that tailgating drivers were more likely than a non-tailgater to have a car in the lane next to them, so they weren't just speeding up in order to change lanes. She also found that these short time headways tended to extend across several vehicles, creating a platoon.

    "We can identify at least seven or eight cars where they have time headways of half a second," she said. Considering that a driver's reaction time is about one second, these platoons are disastrous pileups waiting to happen. "If the first one brakes, the second one has to brake harder, the third one even harder, and the last wouldn't be able to brake hard enough."

    --

    ---
    "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
  39. Chronic tailgaters by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

    Chronic tailgaters are either going to turn it off, or ignore it, or maybe yell back at it. What makes anyone think they're going to respect it? They already fire back at the warning signs they currently get -- the finger and the brake light.

    I sort of understand tailgating someone going too slow who could move over into a more appropriate lane. What is the point of tailgating someone who has nowhere to go?

    Admittedly this system might help when SoccerMom is distracted by the kids in back at exactly the moment traffic grinds to a halt ahead of her.

    Mal-2

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  40. Re:17mpg? NO: 25 city, 40 hwy! by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 2, Informative

    "The Taurus 2010 will average 17mpg in the city and 25mpg on the motorway, on a par with the competition"

    WTF? I've had two Tauruses, and both had 3L V6 motors with automatic, air, cruise, etc. My average with the 1986 model was about 32 mpg for mostly city/suburban driving. With the 1997 model, it was a bit worse, about 29 mpg. BTW, these are imperial gallons, but multiplying by 0.833 to convert to US gallons still gives 24-26 mpg for city/suburban driving. On long trips by highway, the 1986 model could average 45-50 mpg (around 37-41 mpg/US).
    Admittedly, it's not a compact car, but what exactly have the marketing geniuses done to ruin its fuel economy like that? Mere engineers could not have accomplished it unaided.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  41. Stupid concept by Juliemac · · Score: 1

    What a stupid concept. Put down the cell phone, stop playing with the MP3 player and drive the d**m car.

    1. Re:Stupid concept by jimicus · · Score: 1

      This is a variation on the old idea that you can train away social engineering security issues.

      And, for exactly the same reasons, it's bullshit.

      If that was possible, it would have happened years ago.

  42. Re:Useless in the city by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

    "We can identify at least seven or eight cars where they have time headways of half a second," she said. Considering that a driver's reaction time is about one second, these platoons are disastrous pileups waiting to happen. "If the first one brakes, the second one has to brake harder, the third one even harder, and the last wouldn't be able to brake hard enough."

    Which is why I laugh every time I see morons on the highway doing that. At least once every couple of months I see a 5 car pileup because there's a string of cars doing 75 - 80 mph and riding an inch off the bumper in front of them. When cops are called out in events like that, everyone but the car in front (who obviously wasn't tailgating) should be shot on the side of the road. THAT would stop tailgaters pretty damn quick.

    --
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  43. F-22 huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Pentagon sure relaxed their tech transfer restrictions.

    Unfortunately Toyota announced immediately afterwards, that they are incorporating F-35 stealth technology in the 2010 Camry sedan ... one hand giveth, the other taketh away...

  44. Teaching, not immediate prevention by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

    I think in reality this will be more of a teaching tool than an immediate safety mechanism. It's not about being "alert." It's about not even being aware that they're doing something dangerous. There are just too many people out on the road that don't even understand the consequences of tailgating. It happens to me all the time. I usually travel in the slow lanes (going the speed limit) and usually someone will roll up behind me leaving less than a second's distance between our bumpers, all the while there is plenty of room to pass me in the other lanes.

    People are just generally dense about driving. They don't take it seriously. They don't think they're in control of a deadly piece of machinery. Top it all off with the modern notion that the car is the 21st century telephone booth and it's disaster waiting to happen.

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  45. Open source car: not only an analogy by Incadenza · · Score: 1
    You mean like the c'mm'n?.

    The path to truly sustainable mobility is the open source concept. Just like open source software, the product is 'open to all.' The c,mm,n car blueprint and the c,mm,n mobility concepts are freely available under an open source licence. This allows the whole world to take part in the development of truly sustainable mobility. Everyone is free to use and modify the design. The only condition is that any resulting derived designs are returned to the c,mm,nity as open source.

    1. Re:Open source car: not only an analogy by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yes. THAT would be an "open source" car (complete with the traditional trying-to-be-clever-but-unpronounceable name).

  46. maybe it originated with DARPA Grand Challenge by Locutus · · Score: 1

    this sounds like something which might have been used in any one of the DARPA Grand Challenge vehicles and we know a good number of those were open source and a few were even Linux based. So, maybe Ford got the basic ideas, design and code from there and tweaked it to work on the highway.

    It is pleasing to see them publishing that it came from an open source design.

    LoB

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  47. Re:Useless in the city by blueflash2o · · Score: 1

    He chose a bad study its distracted and or slow drivers not speeders that cause delays. http://jalopnik.com/5352906/helpful-holiday-traffic-graphic-why-highways-come-to-a-halt

  48. Unavoidable crash notice by phpster · · Score: 1

    I hope the dev for the app has a sense of humour, so that if the system detects the crash is unavoidable, it print out a big red 'you're fucked now' image on the window.

  49. Other uses. . . by JSBiff · · Score: 1

    "Admittedly this system might help when SoccerMom is distracted by the kids in back at exactly the moment traffic grinds to a halt ahead of her."

    Or, when someone falls asleep at the wheel, and the alarm wakes them, possibly, in time to deal with the problem instead of crashing.

    Maybe you're looking in the rear-view mirror for an opening to change langes, and someone just happens to change lanes in front of you at that exact moment, cutting off the assured distance you *used* to have (granted, peripheral vision *usually* catches things like that, but I suppose a little chime to catch your attention might not hurt).

    Although, I do think you make a good point. My fear is that, adding these extra 'safety' features will put people at a false sense of greater security, and so they will tailgate more, do more distracting things like texting on cell phones, or whatever, because they figure the tech will save their asses, instead of being as vigilant as possible with respect to the road and other vehicles around them, and ultimately end up in situations where the alarm goes off, but it's too late because their very human reaction times are too slow to break soon enough.

    On that note, it seems like one of the car companies, recently, has been advertising a car with a similar radar or sonar system, but instead of just flashing warning lights, it'll automatically activate the brakes? Again, not sure it's a great idea, but probably more useful than just an alarm.

  50. Re:Detection, I certainly hope so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Hell with that. Can they invent a car that pulls over, stops, kills the engine, and locks the wheels/transmission and ignition for 15 minutes when the driver gets too close to another car?

    I certainly hope so, you should be the first person they use it on, you old biddy.

    Lord.

  51. Re: The Window Sticker Lies! by colinnwn · · Score: 1

    I get a little better gas mileage in real life than the sticker said on every car I've driven. I drive faster than the speed limit and am no shrinking violet pulling away from a stop. But my dad taught me about conservation of momentum and not wasting your gas and brake pads. I've been practicing some of the principles of hypermiling for 15 years, long before I new there was a name for it.

  52. I have one of these systems by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    1. Re:I have one of these systems by evilviper · · Score: 1

      I have it in every car I drive.

      Sure you do... When visibility is 100%, nothing is distracting you, and you're feeling good.

      Otherwise, not so much.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  53. not amazing, not impressive. by nimbius · · Score: 1

    love the tech, but this is ford. They havent proven in the last 25 years they can do anything with their cars but leverage lobbyists to ensure a market monopoly, noncompliance to regulations and a guaranteed blank check to disregard my safety. bigger engines, bigger vehicles and louder stereos have been their order of the day for innovation if i recall correctly (the ford excursion anyone?) while the taurus, the one in the article, hasnt even bothered to change its outdated green console clock in well over 12 years. and just now it gets supersonic fighter jet radar!? "ford innovation" is an oxymoron to me

    Raptor radar isnt going to help much if the car breaks down after 40000 miles, except maybe identify the towtruck that sends the thing back to the dealer. Honda and Toyota arguably have more expertise in radar systems (ex: a car that parks itself) so whats my incentive to try the new guy other than "their technology to keep me safe is also used by my military industrial complex to kill brown people."

    again, I dont know about the average american ford customer, but when my parents helped me get a car for college i didnt get a brand new one. i drove a 1992 toyota klunker sans the special keys.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  54. Radar Love by Sqreater · · Score: 1

    It'll drive people crazy. Driving is a controlled crash. Sqreater

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
  55. The mention of Open Source... by DrewBeavis · · Score: 1

    is probably a way to avoid liability if it ends up causing an accident. "Your honor, it wasn't our technology, it was the linux geeks who wrote the software that caused the crash."

  56. we're going to see more of this by speedtux · · Score: 1

    I suspect they may not actually give you the source code (but someone correct me if I'm wrong). Most likely, they are using BSD-licensed software somewhere in there. If that's the case, it's not very useful. Microsoft Windows uses plenty of BSD-licensed code as well.

    "It's open source--you just can't get the source."

    "It's open source (which means that if it doesn't work, we can point the finger at someone else)."

    "All the buzzword compliance of open source without the many pesky braces and semicolons."

  57. The gaping hole in your argument is by aminorex · · Score: 1

    mu is not a constant.

    --
    -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  58. based on F22 fighter radar by chrisj_0 · · Score: 1

    When can I get missiles on my Taurus?

  59. It faces the wrong way by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    Perhaps there should be unmarked trucks with rear-facing radars, that slam on the brakes when they detect tailgating.

    --
    Nullius in verba
    1. Re:It faces the wrong way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps there should be unmarked trucks with rear-facing radars that change lanes to allow passing by faster vehicles instead of vehemently maintaining the fast lane and impeding traffic.

  60. Re:Useless in the city by holmstar · · Score: 1

    I would say that the vast majority of accidents are caused by a combination of the following:
    - Not paying attention to driving / not paying attention to cars around you.
    - Drivers doing things that other drivers don't expect.

  61. Re:Useless in the city by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OR (!) why don't stop being a retard and get out of the way. Left lane is for passing. If you're not going faster than the right lane you belong there.

  62. Tailgating and crashes by DrYak · · Score: 1

    If you crash into the speeding idiot when he/she brakes out of the blue, that means it's your fault : You shouldn't have driven so close.
    Always keep a safety distance, for fuck's sake.

    Because next time, the driver in front of you might not be braking because of radar got detected.
    The driver might be braking to avoid bumping some poor pedestrian.

    Disclaimer:
    Well, ok. I live in Europe. Most of the time I drive in populated area. Therefor, a driver suddenly braking of the blue is something that can happen - usually because he/she saw a ball rolling on the street, and quickly hit the brakes before the inevitable kid that would come running after the ball any time soon.
    So maybe I'm more biased toward keeping a safety distance, than people leaving in regions were you can drive for half an hour without encountering anything but other cars.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Tailgating and crashes by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 1

      Jesus, I DO keep a safe distance and mostly avoid braking on the freeway. That's not the point! Is it that hard to envision that not everybody does, thus making that braking dangerous behavior? Plus, even with a safe distance, even a small distraction can have consequences in that case.

      P.S.: I live in Europe too, but I don't think that's relevant to this discussion.