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.'"

42 of 259 comments (clear)

  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 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
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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
    6. 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.)

    7. 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.

    8. 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!

    9. 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.

    10. 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.
  2. 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 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%.

    2. 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
    3. 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.
    4. 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
    5. 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.
  3. 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.

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

    Open Source != GPL

  5. 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 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.

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

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

    --
    No sig today...
  7. 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 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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.'"
  8. 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 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.

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

    Because the GPL is the only open source license.

  10. 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 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.
  11. 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/
  12. 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 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.

  13. "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.

  14. 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.
  15. "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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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."
  18. 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
  19. I have one of these systems by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/