Ford System Will Warn, Correct Lane-Drifting Drivers

PolygamousRanchKid writes "Ford says its new Fusion, which will debut at the North American International Auto Show in a couple weeks, will be the first mainstream midsize sedan in North America to offer a lane departure system. Lane departure systems are aimed at warning drivers, especially drowsy ones, if their vehicles wander out of their lane. A digital camera mounted on the windshield ahead of the rear-view mirror keeps a watch. The system not only causes the steering wheel to vibrate if it senses an unintentional lane departure, it will also steer the car back into the right lane. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 100,000 police-reported crashes occur every year as a result of drowsy drivers, leading to 1,500 deaths, 71,000 injuries and $12.5 billion in monetary losses." I'd just like to know how hard the AI will fight if it misinterprets a driver's intentional lane change.

Comments

Turn signals are a good thing

[EngrBohn]

Personally, I'd guess that a turn signal will convince the AI to allow an intentional lane change.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[newcastlejon]

I wonder if this system could be integrated with parking sensors, to prevent some instances of lane-changing when there's another vehicle in the blind spot.

re: indicators, I welcome anything that even gently enforces their use.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

re: indicators, I welcome anything that even gently enforces their use.

As do I. All these nut bags that refuse to use their signals are a danger on the road.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[sribe]

As do I. All these nut bags that refuse to use their signals are a danger on the road.

Turn signals are dangerous. They provide your adversaries with advance notice of your intention; it's much better to take them by surprise. (I came to understand this when I lived in Boston.)

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume your talking about those assholes that speed up to block you the moment you put on your turn signal. I hate those mfckers.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Big problem in NJ then, where lane changes are apparently required every 100ft or so, and signal use is strictly prohibited.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Macman408]

In my car, yes, that is the case. Also, the torque applied to the steering wheel to keep you in your lane is pretty minimal; even grandma would have no trouble overpowering the motor to, say, make an emergency lane change to avoid an accident.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[phantomfive]

I came here to say the exact same thing, the post is written in the window waiting for a submit button-press,

Then I realized that in some emergency situations, a lane change is absolutely required. Vibrating the steering wheel is ok, but if it's forcing you to move back to your lane, then this could cause accidents.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[cvtan]

This needs some additional explanation. Why is signal use prohibited?

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[swalve]

I find it hard to believe that other drivers pay ANY attention to the other cars on the road, much less actively obstructing them. It's narcissism to think otherwise.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

They prohibited turn signals so you wouldn't get the joke.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[EdIII]

I assume your talking about those assholes that speed up to block you the moment you put on your turn signal. I hate those mfckers.

Which is why this system would prevent my patented "drunk man behind the wheel" maneuver. Asshole does not want to respond your signal and let you in? Just start drifting over a little, correct, and then drift back more forcefully.

If they think you are lucid, they become aggressive. If they think you are having problems it is amazing how much distance they give you right away.

Of course, when I had a F350 raised up, everybody gave me room right away. I miss that beast.

P.S - Yes. I fully acknowledge that I am psychopath on the road, but then I view it as warfare just like the poster you replied to.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[zippthorne]

You haven't driven in the boston area, then.

If you want to get anywhere inside of route 495, you have to throw out almost everything know about safe driving. That knowledge is useless to you. You are in a battle. It is as important to move forward as it is to survive.

If you decide to visit boston, if it is your first visit, and it is raining or snowing or (especially) foggy, don't get on the roads.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[cvtan]

Typical AC remark...

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[The Grim Reefer]

In my car, yes, that is the case. Also, the torque applied to the steering wheel to keep you in your lane is pretty minimal; even grandma would have no trouble overpowering the motor to, say, make an emergency lane change to avoid an accident.

That's all well and good, until the Sontarans decide otherwise.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Dripdry]

Couldn't agree more.

I do my best to be nice on the road, but I'm amazed that in Chicago people are fairly likely to let you in if you signal (hey, we gatta' getta' sasij ta duh frunchroom fer da Bears game!) whereas people in less urban areas seem genuinely oblivious or aggressively mean when it comes to traffic.

I've come to the conclusion that the best way to handle this is to simply act like I might be dangerous: drift a little, change speeds if necessary. Probably not good for the populace in general, but if that's what it takes to wake them up...

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[RicktheBrick]

One is trying to do a right hand turn onto a four lane road. The car to your left has his right turn signal on. Do you assume the car is going to turn and proceed or do you assume that the car made a lane change and just forgot to turn the signal off? Your are in the left hand lane of a two lane freeway the car ahead of you is going 15 mph below the speed limit and has its right hand turn signal on. Do you wait to see if the car is actually going to change lanes or do you go to the right hand lane and pass the car on the right. You are walking across a busy road at an intersection. There is a truck on your right about to go through the intersection and it has its emergency flashers on but by glancing at it you only see the right hand turn signal on so you proceed and than run to avoid getting hit. It might be dangerous to turn your signal on but it is just a dangerous to forget to turn them off so if there are no cars that could use my signal than I will not turn it on.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Some car manufacturers don't put turn signals on their vehicles. BMW, Jaguar, Mercedes, and Cadillac come to mind. Most of these cars don't seem to have them built-in. But I do believe there is an aftermarket turn signal package because a few (very few) do have signals.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[dr2chase]

Piecewise linear driving works for that, too.

Problem is, if I want to encourage people to ride their bicycles instead, making them think the road is full of drunks is not going to help.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, when you say something stupid, you just know an AC will come along and point out that you're stupid.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[dr2chase]

"Some emergency situations" occur how often? No doubt, for every safety feature on a car there is some fringe case that it makes worse, but the net is (usually) better. What if you *needed* to lock up your brakes and slam the car into a skid, and the ABS prevented it? But overall, ABS is a good thing. We (humans) seem easily distracted by "fault", "intent", and "blame", when it would make a lot more sense to just try to minimize the body count.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[jersey_emt]

Technically, NJ laws state that a turn signal isn't enough notice. The way the law is written, you are required to honk your horn before changing lanes. Seriously.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[foobsr]

You haven't driven in the boston area, then. ... You are in a battle. It is as important to move forward as it is to survive.

Somehow reminds me of Brussels (maybe things have changed there).

CC.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, perhaps, you dumbAsses(tm) could just *slow down* and merge BEHIND whoever you think isn't "letting you in".

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[alostpacket]

I would imagine it to work much like cruise control too. Any force applied by the driver disengages the system.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[robi5]

so if there are no cars that could use my signal than I will not turn it on.

You should also signal to those drivers you're not aware of. Maybe traffic code says things for a reason. But if it's "invent your own traffic rules" day, then I guess anything goes :-)

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh you know, many times on a single trip while semi's leave their lane into yours repeatedly. It's ridiculous how many drivers weave around or don't stay in their lane.

Stop being a dumbass.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[thegarbz]

Forcing? The amount of force required for "drifting" into the other lane (and this is slow drifting, not fast and the furious drifting) is infinitesimal. My guess is that the people who designed this system (engineers like you and me) probably took this into account.

My method would be to make this "force" about as strong as a typical torque steer when going around a corner in front wheel drive. This could easily keep a car in a lane yet could be overpowered by even the weakest driver.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

if there are no cars that could use my signal than I will not turn it on.

Ok, so what if there are cars that you don't see? Or maybe you see other cars but you think they don't care about your signal. What gives you the right to decide for them whether or not they want to see your turn signal?

The most important reason to ALWAYS use your turn signal -- even if nobody is around -- is just to form a solid habit. So much so that it should feel strange to turn or change lanes without using your turn signal. If you have this solid habit of using your turn signals every time, you don't need to worry about analyzing every situation to determine who may or may not need to see your turn signals (and sometimes be wrong) and concentrate on the parts of driving that actually do need your brainpower. Just do it.

If you're worried about leaving the signal on afterwards, maybe you should be paying more attention to your driving.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[cbiltcliffe]

Or, perhaps, you dumbAsses(tm) could just *slow down* and merge BEHIND whoever you think isn't "letting you in".

Then it'd just be the next car back that wasn't "letting them in."

This situation actually happens. Don't discount it just because you live somewhere where drivers have at least half a clue.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[RandyOo]

I would imagine it to work much like cruise control too. Any force applied by the driver disengages the system.

Assuming it works like the "LKAS" system in my vehicle, it does NOT. However, the amount of force exerted by the system is very small, and *very* easily overpowered.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[cbiltcliffe]

when it would make a lot more sense to just try to minimize the body count.

If that's the case, then instead of investing in electronic babysitter feature after electronic babysitter feature, wouldn't it make a lot more sense, body count wise, as well as both economically and environmentally, to just GET THE IDIOTS OFF THE ROAD!!!

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[cbiltcliffe]

I'm sorry. I can't do that, Dave.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Aighearach]

The good news is, the subway riders are very polite. That's the only war for polite people to stay alive and still get anywhere, after all.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Aighearach]

You still have to make an aggressive move towards the space if you expect it to merge.

It isn't like power merging here in the NW, where you can cross a large number of lanes in a short time by using your signal and aiming in between other cars... who will surely make some room for a fellow citizen.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Aighearach]

According to Oregon law, you're never supposed to veer out of your lane to avoid an accident, you're supposed to maintain enough space in front and behind that you can stay in your own lane while making an emergency stop.

It is way more important to save 7 people's lives by staying in your lane and not creating a pile up, than it is you'll actually save that squirrel's life, or to prevent a fender-bender.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Aighearach]

This is just one small step towards being able to put the traffic computer in charge, yes.

Once the tech is built and people are comfortable, component by component, that it is safer... and using it lowers insurance... people will happily adopt it.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, seriously. I learned within weeks of moving to San Diego that turn signals translate to "accelerate so as to prevent lane change" to Southern California drivers.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[dr2chase]

It would, but people manage to simultaneously hold in their heads both "I am a better than average driver" and "the anti-idiot squad might come after MY driver's license". There's a huge diversity of opinion about exactly what "good driving" is, too -- I try to be very conservative with following distance (not slow, just plenty of space, and not in the fast lane, either) , and sooner or later someone who ends up behind me will get upset that I am doing this, because look at all that empty space we could be driving in. As far as they are concerned, I'm one of those idiots, even though I am taking deliberate steps to avoid known-dangerous driving. Obviously, I think THEY are the idiots. At least one of us is wrong.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[LordLimecat]

Not if you do it right, it is very difficult to stop someone from merging from the side of a vehicle to behind it.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I UNDERSTAND. On my first visit to Boston, I was forced to make a left turn from the right hand lane at a red light in Newton. Including turning lanes, the road was six lanes wide. The cop three deep in the opposing direction never blinked. That's when I understood.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say it could operate like this:

1. Intentional lane changes require either indicator (turn signal) action, or sudden action on behalf of driver ( as in avoiding an obstacle )

2. Slow changes due to drifting should invoke steering wheel vibration before the car leaves the lane, and increases as it hits the edge of the lane. Deactivated by sudden change on the steering sheel or driver hitting the brakes. An internal (wakeup) horn could also be used, as in aircraft cockpits. Power assisted adjustments helpful, but should be able to be overridden by force on the steering column.

It could be quite useful in conjunction with side radar to catch traffic in your blindspot, and forward radar to automatically slow the vehicle, especially when reading a book in slow traffic .

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[BitterOak]

As do I. All these nut bags that refuse to use their signals are a danger on the road.

Turn signals are dangerous. They provide your adversaries with advance notice of your intention; it's much better to take them by surprise. (I came to understand this when I lived in Boston.)

Fortunately Boston has an awesome subway system.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I've visited Boston several times. Compared to back-road driving in Wisconsin, Boston was a joke. Either that or I'm a real ass of a driver...

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[cbiltcliffe]

Not if they don't have a problem with tailgating five feet back from the car ahead of them. Nobody can merge into that small of a space. And that's what a non-trivial number of them do.

If I'm trying to merge left, sometimes I just start pushing my way in at this point, which means they either back off and stop being an ass, or I push them into oncoming traffic.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[cbiltcliffe]

You're making the assumption that it will lower insurance rates.

Please present your evidence that this will be the case.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[doon]

My 4 year old Cross Country has Lane Departure Systems. And that is the way they work. You cross the lines it beeps at you. You cross the lines with your blinker on, and it assumes you meant to do the turn. It is pretty handy feature to have.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends how powerful the motor is.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[doon]

When driving in NJ (specifically Northern Jersey). I always thought that law had to be, turn signals optional, but if they are on, said car is coming over right away regardless of safety or a car in that lane. Well at least is the way the majority of the people on the major roads seem to drive :)

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Grishnakh]

Yep. As much as I like turn signals in theory, the problem in practice is assholes like that who speed up to block you from changing lanes. Maybe if cops would look for people doing dangerous stuff like that instead of just speeding, safety-minded people would have more respect for them.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you wait to see if the car is actually going to change lanes or do you go to the right hand lane and pass the car on the right.

You never undertake.
Never.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Grishnakh]

I gotta move up there if they're that polite. That's nothing like here in Phoenix where everyone's an asshole. Although I don't think it's quite as bad here as it is in some of the northeast cities like Boston. The biggest problem here in Phoenix is that everyone is from somewhere else, so they all bring their regional driving habits with them, and they're all in conflict.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Grishnakh]

If leaving the signal on is a frequent problem for you, then you need to sell your car and buy one that has a built-in turn signal reminder. My mother had one of these way back in the early 90s; it was an Oldsmobile (I forget the exact model, Cutlass something; it was one of the cheaper models but it did have a V6, though the handling was dangerously bad). She hated that feature! But she obviously needed it.

So if your car doesn't have it, maybe you should trade in your car for something like a Buick or Lincoln, or some other car aimed at elderly drivers.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

According to Oregon law, you're never supposed to veer out of your lane to avoid an accident, you're supposed to maintain enough space in front and behind that you can stay in your own lane while making an emergency stop.

It is way more important to save 7 people's lives by staying in your lane and not creating a pile up, than it is you'll actually save that squirrel's life, or to prevent a fender-bender.

All find and good until someone decides to turn out in front of you thinking "oh hey, I can make it!" No amount of following distance is going to apply when that happens 200ft in front of you. Then it's either swerve or t-bone the idiot, possibly killing them.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Grishnakh]

Whoosh....

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I would prefer a more forceful enforcement of their usage but that might be difficult without causing more harm. I am becoming convinced that there may actually be blinker fluid and that most cars need a refill because of the lack of blinker usage I see.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Grishnakh]

I can't imagine any case where "slamming your car into a skid" would be a necessary or even useful action, unless you're filming a Hollywood movie. If your car is skidding, that means your tires have lost traction. Losing traction is a bad thing, always. Again, unless you're filming a Hollywood movie like True Lies where Arnold makes the car skid all the way around into its parking space without hitting the car in the adjacent space, which is something only a professional driver could do and even then they probably had a few mishaps.

However, if for some reason you really thought you needed to do something like that, it's easy in almost any FWD car to lock up the rear brakes by simply pulling the parking brake. ABS can't do anything about that.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Grishnakh]

Yes and no. The problem is, in modern North American society, it's pretty much impossible to have a decent job and life without being able to own and operate your own car; all the infrastructure is set up that way. Yes, a lot of people survive on public transportation, but it's pretty miserable, taking 3-6 hours a day to get anywhere like here in Phoenix, so only poor people use it, and it really hurts their lives in many ways wasting so much time sitting on a bus. There are a few exceptions like NYC, but most of the country isn't like that.

A better system would be a Personal Rapid Transit system like SkyTran, where you get a small, private car that automatically takes you wherever you want to go, and eliminates the human factor, but that's not going to happen in the USA any time soon as it requires too much investment and wouldn't make any profit for politically-connected corporations like Halliburton and General Dynamics.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Jeremi]

wouldn't it make a lot more sense, body count wise, as well as both economically and environmentally, to just GET THE IDIOTS OFF THE ROAD!!!

The problem is, everyone is an idiot at some point. Nobody is perfect, and it only takes one second of inattention, distraction, or bad judgement to cause an accident. Even "excellent drivers" have a non-zero cognitive failure rate. So "getting the idiots off the road" means getting everyone off the road, which might be good for the environment, but probably wouldn't be so good for the economy.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I've driven in and around Boston many times and didn't think the driving was any different that any other place I have been. Street signs leave much to be desired but there are no more asshole and brainless drivers there than anywhere else that I have seen.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Blakwing]

As a good friends grandfather yelled at us when we questioned his lack of Turn signal use.. "IT'S NO ONE ELSES GODDAMN BUSINESS WHERE I'M GOING!!" Ah... the elderly..

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

road diversions that criss cross existing lines and many other possible scenarios where you just can't trust what is painted on the road.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Sounds similar to my old Bronco II that looked like it was going to start dropping parts most of the time people stayed plenty clear of that. Yet there were still people who thought it was a good idea to cut it off, or like one urban troubadour walk right out in front of it on an icy road. Guy wasn't even looking and decided to jay walk across a major street (4 lanes each direction including the turn lanes) and I had an idea that he was going to do this so I was already trying to stop but came within a foot of hitting him. Retard boy decided to curse at me calling me a mother fucker, ass hole, and so on while banging on the hood and I just went off, think Marine drill instructor. I doubt anyone had ever told this individual they were at fault and that they weren't a victim it doesn't hurt that I am bigger than most people so it adds to the intimidation factor. Problem is most people are just self absorbed ass holes more so when in their car so they assume that you will get out of their way and that when you change lanes you are encroaching on their road.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[bidule]

Then I realized that in some emergency situations, a lane change is absolutely required. Vibrating the steering wheel is ok, but if it's forcing you to move back to your lane, then this could cause accidents.

Yeah, right. If it takes you more than a mile to change lane, it must be a real emergency. If the system activates in less than a 1000 feet, it must be buggy.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Maybe the solution is to actually enforce the current traffic laws and pay attention to what they are doing the above problems wouldn't happen. We have all seen the blinker on for 15 miles. The worst is the people who don't know how to turn with the double left turn lanes and will turn into the inner most lane when they are in the outer most left turn lane. I have had a couple of people clip the back end of my old Bronco II who did this. I never cared when it happened to that vehicle and would care if it happened with my nice car as I have insurance. In the Bronco I would get out and we would have the talk and I would explain that I wasn't going to be filing an insurance claim but that if they wanted to I would be happy to get the police to file an accident report that shows the intersection with the lines marked for where you are suppose to turn. After that they don't ask for my insurance forgetting that Minnesota is a no fault state (I really wish they would change this).

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Mal-2]

Then it'd just be the next car back that wasn't "letting them in."

This situation actually happens. Don't discount it just because you live somewhere where drivers have at least half a clue.

Los Angeles is this way as well. The trick here is to start your move, then just as you know the person CAN'T accelerate you out of your spot, you signal just to let them know you aren't wandering due to a lack of attention. This may seem pointless, but if there is someone in your blind spot that you didn't see, at least they now know your intentions and can hit the horn or whatever needs to be done.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[aardvarkjoe]

As far as they are concerned, I'm one of those idiots, even though I am taking deliberate steps to avoid known-dangerous driving. Obviously, I think THEY are the idiots. At least one of us is wrong.

Not necessarily. You could both be idiots.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[0WaitState]

Personally, I'd guess that a turn signal will convince the AI to allow an intentional lane change.

In addition to informing the AI, it'll also let other drivers know of your intentions. Revolutionary! You could even try putting on the signal BEFORE you turn the wheel instead of halfway through the lane change.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I'd guess that a turn signal will convince the AI to allow an intentional lane change.

That's exactly how it works in my 2010 Prius. Even without using the turn indicator it's still possible to change lanes, but the system will squawk at you a little. Nothing as drastic as "Sorry, Dave ...."

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Actually they do come with turn signals, but they use special synthetic DOT 7 blinker fluid that is difficult to find and most oil change shops are unaware of this need as they can barely remember to change the oil filter. As this needs to be changed with every oil change the signals cease to function after a short time of neglect. This is much like the Lucas wiring harness smoke that people would in inadvertently let out of their older British vehicles.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Each safety device actually does lower insurance rates. My old 88 Ford Bronco II cost me $88 every 6 moths to insure but when I replaced it with my current 96 Jeep Cherokee my insurance dropped to $82 every 6 months. Same coverage same company but because the Jeep had an air bag and anti lock brakes it got a lower rate even though it has a vastly more powerful engine and is a nicer vehicle. This isn't fancy coverage but liability only but still it is a discount.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[theshowmecanuck]

I had to do some work in Providence a while back. Flew in back and fourth and spent 7 to 8 months of one year there. Every time I flew in via Logan and drove down. The first time there I learned the meaning of 'Boston Defensive Driving'. That is, the best defense is a strong offense. Psycho drivers and fast. Even the state police didn't seem to work in the same parameters as the rest of the country. I remember doing 85 - 90 north up 95 between Attleboro and Foxboro running a little behind. I was passing a bunch of people but wasn't the fastest on the road by any means. What got me was I looked out the side window one time and a marked highway patrol was passing me and the trooper didn't even look over... looked like he was just relaxed and cruising along. And the driving got crazier the closer you got to Boston. It was fun.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Bob the Super Hamste]

The problem is that people are stupid and don't maintain proper following distance. I do and have never rear ended anyone, but yet I have been rear ended.

As far as saving a squirrels life I take the approach that if the animal is larger than about 40 lbs or has horns I will avoid hitting it, otherwise its going off to the rendering plant. Most animals will avoid getting run over, but yet there are some in every group that seem to need to be taken out of the gene pool. A perfect example of this is the one squirrel I have actually ran over, I was idling through a state park campground and it couldn't manage to avoid a tire coming at it at about 2 mph. I wasn't aiming for it but it couldn't figure out what the hell it was doing under the my car and got ran over by the rear tire. Birds are much the same at proper highway speeds birds easily avoid cars but every once and a while one meets my car.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[arkane1234]

Sounds like a good Pavlovian way to train people to START using turn signals for lane changes.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[arkane1234]

That only happens where more street policing is necessary.
Or Boston, Baltimore, and Washington D.C....

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[arkane1234]

Of course, when I had a F350 raised up, everybody gave me room right away. I miss that beast.

Of course they do. Too many people use those trucks to cause mass destruction. I had one hit me at 50 MPH as it ran through a red light. I was on a motorcycle making a left-hand turn through a green arrow. Most of the time, douches drive them.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Rhodri Mawr]

Do you wait to see if the car is actually going to change lanes or do you go to the right hand lane and pass the car on the right.

You never undertake. Never.

...unless you want to visit an undertaker...

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[arkane1234]

... and they all believe a Prius is somehow sluggish and needs to be driven around.
I'm in Phoenix too, and all the time people are attempting to accelerate around me as I'm doing 10 mph over the speed limit in the middle lane. I say try since a Prius isn't a sluggish vehicle by any stretch of the imagination...

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Pentium100]

One is trying to do a right hand turn onto a four lane road. The car to your left has his right turn signal on. Do you assume the car is going to turn and proceed or do you assume that the car made a lane change and just forgot to turn the signal off?

He either wants to get in my lane or turn right from the 2nd lane, you are usually not allowed to turn right from the second lane, so I assume he wants to get in my lane and may even slow down to let him in (though if there are no cars behind me, then he can get behind me).
I never assume that the guy forgot to turn the signal off, well, unless it is possible to do what he is signaling but he isn't doing it.

Your are in the left hand lane of a two lane freeway the car ahead of you is going 15 mph below the speed limit and has its right hand turn signal on. Do you wait to see if the car is actually going to change lanes or do you go to the right hand lane and pass the car on the right.

Wait and see.

It might be dangerous to turn your signal on but it is just a dangerous to forget to turn them off so if there are no cars that could use my signal than I will not turn it on.

I turn it on always when it is required by the rules, even if I'm alone in the road. This is so I can do it automatically and do not need to think ("Do I turn the signal on? Let's see: no cops around, no cars that I think could use my signal, OK, I'll leave it off") because then there is higher chance of me not turning the signal on when it's needed (a cop saw me, a car was in my blind spot etc).I remember to turn it off quite fast and most of the time the signal turns off automatically (and in some cases I have to hold it on - or example in a small roundabout).

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Pentium100]

My car turns off the signal if I turn the wheel to the opposite direction than the signal is indicating. It works most of the time, at other times, the clicking of the relay and the flashing light makes me notice quite fast that it did not turn off automatically.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[arkane1234]

you do get it now, right?

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Grishnakh]

The problem in some cars I've noticed is that there's no relay clicking (the flasher is electronic), and the beeping sound they use in place of it is almost inaudible.

However, this wasn't a problem in my mother's old Olds; it was loud enough, she just didn't pay attention.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Fjandr]

The drivers in urban areas in the NW are among the nicest you'll encounter amongst city drivers. Not that there aren't drivers who are assholes or clueless nearly to the point of criminal negligence, but there are far fewer of them than in other areas.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[tlhIngan]

Then I realized that in some emergency situations, a lane change is absolutely required. Vibrating the steering wheel is ok, but if it's forcing you to move back to your lane, then this could cause accidents.

Or ... if it's an emergency, most drivers would easily overpower the servos.

It's like the autopilot in an airplane - the servos are actually quite weak and any pilot is capable of overpowering them. It's considered the "failsafe" for the autopilot - the pilot can always overpower the automation.

In this case, if you're tired, you're not gripping the wheel with any much force so a relatively weak servo is capable of turning the wheel.

If you're needing to swerve, you're awake enough to overpower the servo. Ditto when changing lanes - it probably makes the wheel feel "heavy" but the servo's easily overpowered.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[hairyfeet]

But will it detect crap in the road, or potholes that could bury a dog? Because sometimes you NEED to drift if you are on a poorly maintained road and there isn't any traffic, better to drift and avoid the giant potholes or blown semi tire pieces than end up with a blow out or screwed front end alignment.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[deadtree9]

That is, if the person in your blind spot isn't texting, eating, applying makeup, looking at their iPad, sipping wine from a wine glass (seen this personally more than 10 times), completely immersed in their phone conversation, or any of the other things Los Angeleans seem to prefer to do than pay attention to what is going on outside their vehicle. There's a reason that, per person, there are more Body Shops in our fair city than any other major city.

(DC and NoVa are the same exact way. Only difference is that those that are paying attention are even more hostile than here.)

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[hairyfeet]

Yep, try Memphis, its combat driving central, although Dallas/Houston is worse. LR is actually pleasant, folks will let you in if you signal but Memphis you might as well not bother as nobody cares. It always seemed like in TX they went out of their way to be assholes though, you had to charge and gun it to get anywhere at all, whereas Memphis they honestly just don't pay attention to shit. And if you want to get anywhere this year avoid MS as I swear its like old person with a hat central down there. you don't know slow until you get old guy in a hat or blue hair lady whose so short all you see is knuckles and the beehive, man you could walk faster. Nicest place i found was the Ozarks up around Branson, plenty of passing lanes, slow cars stay right, people let you pass, nice smooth roads.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I've survived Boston driving while using turn signals to signal a lane change. I drive a big old ugly battle damaged pickup truck, so I once I signal that I'm moving over and give sufficient warning, I just start moving over. Any Boston jack asses who want to try to fill in the space before I move over are going to learn a hard lesson about playing chicken with a redneck in a pickup truck (that's paid for and over-insured).

As it turns out, they might swerve and flip the bird, flash their lights, honk their horns... but in the end they get the hell out of my way.

Except the guy in the Infiniti that tried overtaking me on the shoulder. I guess he didn't see that overpass coming. Oops.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[gumpish]

if there are no cars that could use my signal than I will not turn it on.

You know why motorcycles are dangerous? It's because of people who assume they know what's in (or not in) their blind spot and can't be bothered to signal, let alone actually do a head check.

How about checking your pretense to omniscience at the door and just fucking signalling?

Thanks.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

You are in a battle. It is as important to move forward as it is to survive.

Reminds of getting on/off I-476 at Allentown or paying at Philly, between 4 and 6.
9 toll booths turn into one lane, with no markers whatsoever. Mirror checking is important, but some people just whip out around you anyway.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[AvitarX]

Yes you can, ride half a car-width to the right, and accelerate. I see it all the time.

City driving is a bitch.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Lord Kano]

I find it hard to believe that other drivers pay ANY attention to the other cars on the road, much less actively obstructing them. It's narcissism to think otherwise.

You, sir, must not be from a major metropolitan area. I've seen this phenomenon first hand in Pittsburgh, New York and Washington DC. It happens. They do it.

LK

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

How so? In Detroit there is normally less than a car length between the cars. How would you merge behind a vehicle into 1/2 a car length?

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[um... Lucas]

I'm from mass and drove around boston a fair bit. Not even a sliver as terrifying as I-95 in south Florida. Driving here is just insane. Search for deadliest highways and I'm pretty sure you'll see reconfirnation of that

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[ChrisMaple]

Any place with very heavy traffic and at least 2 lanes in your direction will have offensive driving. The heavier the traffic, the worse it is. In and around big cities, where the drivers seldom experience open conditions, the bad habits become ingrained.

I've seen people deliberately make it impossible for someone in an adjacent lane to cut in front of them. It's happened to me, and I've done it myself. I'm so glad that I now live in a rural area, where this behavior is almost nonexistent, and usually not even possible.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[DeciDigi]

I drive a full size, 15 passenger van. When I first started driving it, I was polite, gave plenty of advance notice that I was changing lanes, merging, turning, yada, yada, yada.

What I quickly learned is that people can't seem to see the dang thing. Its like I'm driving with a cloaking device on. So now I just go. I'm bigger than about 90% of everyone else, they will move, or I will win. Yeah, it's fucked, but that's also why I carry good insurance.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[ChrisMaple]

In snowy areas, it is occasionally useful to be able to do an accelerating oversteer skid in the manner that only a RWD car can do. This is usually a slow speed maneuver, well below 20 mph.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I drove a car all over Boston on my first visit to the city for work. Not that bad. Just small shitty twisty roads full of assholes driving how you describe. I drove safely, with signals, and got around fine.

Try driving in Manilla, or Bangkok. New Delhi, Beunos Aires, Mexico City, Cairo.... You'll lose that sense of stupid "its awesome to be a bad driver because I'm from Boston bro!" You'll be scared shitless and realize how nice and orderly Boston traffic is. You'll CRAVE rules, lanes, signals, ROADS...

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Cosgrach]

Yep, and if some dip-shit tailgates me, I simply down shift. They learn real quick to pull back.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

He either wants to get in my lane or turn right from the 2nd lane, you are usually not allowed to turn right from the second lane

There are plenty of multiple lane roads in cities where it's permitted. Usually, but not always, one of the streets is a one-way.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

More often then you think, if someone is merging into you and you need to do a quick lane change to avoid being hit. I see it happen all the time in rush hour... Let's not get started on inattentive drivers and drunk drivers...

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I welcome anything that even gently enforces their use.

even when they will be used to deny you insurance claim and/or cite you a ticket in a crash?

whenever this thing goes off, records will be kept... even if you're fully alert, sober, and in complete control of the vehicle. you get in a crash, insurance companies and investigators will examine the data.......

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so what if there are cars that you don't see?

There are cars you CAN'T see??!!

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

...you don't need to worry about analyzing every situation...

Well, there's your problem: you don't analyze every situation. Back in High School, my Driver's Ed instructor taught me a valuable lesson that has always stuck with me. He said, "Any idiot can move a car. Put in the key, press the brake, turn it on, put it into gear; the big round thing changes your direction, right pedal goes, left pedal stops. It takes education, skill, practice, patience, and the ability to continuously learn to become a driver."

If you are not aware of anyone entering your blind spot that doesn't immediately leave it, then that tells me that you are a car mover, not a driver. It's the car movers that I look out for; the one's that I feel have no business out on the road. They are the one's the absolutely require me to use my turn signal because they haven't the foggiest clue as to what they are doing, let alone what I'm trying to do or where I'm trying to go. They also happen to be the one's that don't even notice my use of the turn signal. So, either way, it doens't matter if I use it or not.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[backslashdot]

They can use radar to determine the speed of the cars around you and warn you if there is an imminent collision. Warn as in set off alarms. In the future maybe cars .. with the assistance of a camera .. will be able to warn you if you or even someone else is headed to run a red light or a stop sign .. using image recognition and AI that incorporates data from a variety of sensors and radar. At minimum it can prepare the passengers and car for an imminent collision.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[stephanruby]

That makes sense. I would also hope that the system turned itself off when one hits the brakes abruptly.

Sometimes, the only way to avoid an animal/child/object on the road, or a plane/falling object just ahead, is to hit the brakes and veer off quickly (because the brakes may not be enough by themselves, and I would hate to have to rely on turn signals as well in that case).

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I'd guess that a turn signal will convince the AI to allow an intentional lane change.

I hit the comment thread to say exactly this.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[watice]

As do I. All these nut bags that refuse to use their signals are a danger on the road.

Turn signals are dangerous. They provide your adversaries with advance notice of your intention; it's much better to take them by surprise. (I came to understand this when I lived in Boston.)

You're going about it all wrong. Use your turn signal when you are overtaking your adversary. It's a warning/notification tool, not a permission slip. (I came to understand this driving thru Manhattan)

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[shentino]

Deliberately obstructing other drivers sounds like reckless driving in itself though.

Why are those assholes not getting ticketed for it?

Hell if I was a cop I'd pull them over for reckless endangerment and slap the cuffs on them right there.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow reminds me of Brussels (maybe things have changed there).

Nope :)

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[shentino]

People usually value their own life above everyone else's.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[shentino]

Better yet, get everyone except me off the road.

Or, more likely, get everyone except the elite off the road.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[shentino]

Darwin's laws of traffic perhaps?

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

When in a construction zone, where the lanes are temporarily shifted, will the "feature" steer you into the car next to you, so you don't go out of your lane. Likewise, when there is an accident on the side of the road, partially blocking a lane, or a deer darts out onto the roadway, will the feature prevent you from changing lanes quickly?
And finally, will you have to hit control-alt-delete, or turn off your car and restart it, when the system starts correcting your steering incorrectly?

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[dr2chase]

Yeah, I realized afterwards that I failed at logic there. Both be idiots is what I meant.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

And you still have a dead spot, because DMV thinks you're all idiots and can't understand curved rear view mirrors.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[dr2chase]

For that, there's brakes. It has the disadvantage that it allows the lane-merger to "win", but at anything above parking-lot speeds it clears the hazard without creating any new ones (assuming that the guy behind you maintains a safe following distance -- but then the hazard was not newly created, it was already there), and it is always an option, whereas changing to the other lane might not be an available choice. For a robotically controlled car, that would certainly be the algorithm, because it ensures that the robot will not be at fault if a crash occurs following the avoiding maneuver. Impatient+savvy human drivers might learn to aggressively cut off robot-cars, but this would also be true even if the reaction was a swerve, even an optional swerve.

Braking has the secondary advantage of reducing speed in any crash that might subsequently result, which generally reduces the severity and scope of the crash.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[bipbop]

Holy crow! I'm glad you're okay. How bad was it?

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[sribe]

Fortunately Boston has an awesome subway system.

Which I used extensively when I didn't actually need to drive my car...

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[swalve]

Just that little backwater known as Chicago. I've driven in all those places, too. I've witnessed the occasional examples of people driving like that, but the vast majority of incidents that *seem* like the driver is sticking it to me, are really just drivers who do not even see the other cars. Evidenced by when a toot on the horn is responded to with a terrified look of "where did that car come from?"

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually they are just being good God fearing Christians. By using their turn signal they are claiming knowledge of the Lord's plan for them. It's a form of predicting the future and thus forboden by the Bible. They must go where God tells them, and accept the fate that God has chosen for them. Jesus has set them on this path and should they stray from it they will not be welcome in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

You are walking across a busy road at an intersection. There is a truck on your right about to go through the intersection and it has its emergency flashers on

I don't know about where you live, but where I am this is a violation of the traffic code in itself. Emergency flashers are *only* to be used while the vehicle is stationary or in other situations where they are cannot be mistaken for a turn indication like this:

Hazard warning lights. These may be used when your vehicle is stationary, to warn that it is temporarily obstructing traffic. Never use them as an excuse for dangerous or illegal parking. You MUST NOT use hazard warning lights while driving or being towed unless you are on a motorway or unrestricted dual carriageway and you need to warn drivers behind you of a hazard or obstruction ahead.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I'm moving over to avoid someone changing their tire, avoiding a blown truck tire, dead animals, live animals, potholes, ice, law enforcement officer with someone pulled over, etc., this system will correct that and actually keep me in line to hit them or nearly hit them. Nice. I hope the started a superfund to take of the lawsuits that will happen. No amount of money will bring someone back to life. In a emergency you don't have time to use your turn signal. I can't wait to see the accidents even with ice mentioned above. Scenario: freezing rain maybe a little light snow, car begins to drift and it will drift because it is so light, driver corrects but before he can hit the brake, the car automatically corrects sending the driver into a spin hitting 2+ other cars sending them into the ditch or other drivers. Nice.

Security word to send this "mishap".

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[dzfoo]

The idiots need to get to work too, and it's more expensive and harder to invest in a good mass transportation system.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

He either wants to get in my lane or turn right from the 2nd lane, you are usually not allowed to turn right from the second lane

There are plenty of multiple lane roads in cities where it's permitted. Usually, but not always, one of the streets is a one-way.

In every case where I've seen it permitted, the outer lane is labelled for turning only, so the question of whether the indication is for a turn or a lane change is irrelevant, as any traffic that cares will be turning anyway and thus not crossing the lane he'd be turning into.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a truck on your right about to go through the intersection and it has its emergency flashers on but by glancing at it you only see the right hand turn signal

It's illegal (or if it isn't where you are it should be) to use 4-way flashers if you are moving. They are only for use whilst stationary. The only exception I have seen for that is in the UK, they are occasionally used to give advanced warning to traffic behind (ie people driving too fast for the conditions) that there is an obstruction up ahead.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[drinkypoo]

If you really thought you were going to need to lock up the brakes it would be beyond easy to modify your vehicle to allow it to happen. You add a switch into the circuit which powers the ABS, done and done. I believe you can even get a wirelessly activated switch which takes the place of a fuse, but seriously, if you need this feature you can make it happen, and if you can't make it happen you don't need this feature.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[laffer1]

You haven't traveled much then. Different parts of the country (or even at the state level) drive differently. I've seen the behavior they're discussing in boston in Silicon Valley too.

Other crazy stuff. If you're in Flint, MI, people will almost always pass you on the right. In the Detroit area, people will actually stop in their lane until someone lets them in. It's also not uncommon on I-94 for someone to cut into your lane with no warning to get to an off ramp 3 lanes away. I've even seen semi trucks do this.

Chicago requires you to risk getting your car hit to force yourself into another lane.

In indiana, you can have amish with buggies try to block up lanes and other crazy stuff.

In Ohio, if you're car breaks down, they just leave you for dead if you have out of state plates.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[drinkypoo]

According to Oregon law, you're never supposed to veer out of your lane to avoid an accident, you're supposed to maintain enough space in front and behind that you can stay in your own lane while making an emergency stop.

How do they propose I handle someone coming at me head-on in my lane, for example deciding to make a passing move at an inopportune moment?

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Aighearach]

You're supposed to come to a complete stop, and wait for the danger to pass.

Signal with your horn if necessary.

Trying to stop instead of swerve is the best thing to do. The law is dead on. It is not the most satisfying emotional response in the situation, the emotional desire is to take control of the situation and avoid the obstacle. It just turns out to be more dangerous. The thing you have to be focused on in that situation is reducing your speed as much as you can before the impact.

That can really save your life.

And it prevents you from accidentally killing a family of 7 in the minivan in the next lane that you didn't have time to check for.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[SScorpio]

I wouldn't be surprised if they do this. Ford already offers an option for blind spot warnings which turns on a warning light in side mirrors when a car is in your blind spot. It piggy backs on the parking sensors like you mentioned.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[drinkypoo]

And it prevents you from accidentally killing a family of 7 in the minivan in the next lane that you didn't have time to check for.

If you don't know whether there's a minivan in the next lane already, you're not driving correctly.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Turn signals are dangerous. They provide your adversaries with advance notice of your intention; it's much better to take them by surprise. (I came to understand this when I lived in Boston.)

When I'm in Boston traffic I flick the turn signal a split second before I change lanes, otherwise they accelerate to block you off, at least they know I'm not drifting into the lane. It's habit we got forced into by overly aggressive drivers.

When I moved to New Hampshire, I discovered that they call Massachusetts drivers "Massholes!".

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[blueg3]

Possibly, though it's also very likely they've developed a good model of the difference between an intentional and unintentional lane change. (To be fair, I've seen people on the road where it was hard to tell which it was. Maybe the car will teach them to drive better. Ha!)

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[SomePgmr]

Drivers absolutely do this here. I feel like it must be a primal, "I can't let someone get in front of me and slow me down... they're cutting in line!" reaction. That's total speculation, of course. It could just be that people are faceless assholes in their cars.

I don't think it's coincidence that so few people seem to use their turn signals for lane changes. It's absolutely dangerous.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[SomePgmr]

Chicago requires you to risk getting your car hit to force yourself into another lane.

So true. It's really scary if you ride a motorcycle. There's no extended courtesy for bikes, they're just pests in the way.

You end up having to merge into tight spaces and they'll ride right up on your rear wheel to let you know they didn't want to let you in. They know their giant mommy SUV full of rats will roll right through you if it comes to that. They won't even have to hang up the phone or put their latte down.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Thing 1]

There is a truck on your right about to go through the intersection and it has its emergency flashers on but by glancing at it you only see the right hand turn signal on so you proceed and than run to avoid getting hit.

Perhaps the "turn signal" should not be conflated with the "emergency hazards"? (Potential patent.)

It might be dangerous to turn your signal on but it is just a dangerous to forget to turn them off so if there are no cars that could use my signal than I will not turn it on.

Perhaps there could be a 30-second shutoff timer for the turn signal? (Potential patent.)

(I too have driven in Boston, and agree that using one's signals just means the other driver(s) will fill the gap... Not that it has changed my behavior for the negative; now, I just choose not to enter that gap, when driving in Boston: I get there slower, and in one piece.)

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Thing 1]

Former wife used to badger me with "what, are you notifying the ghosts that you're turning?" No, (expletive deleted), I am ensuring that this pattern is repeated every time I change lanes, regardless of whether there is anyone to receive the communication. That way, I won't end up driving like my dad.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Builder]

I very much doubt that the safety features were the main contributor to that premium drop.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[fnj]

Yeah, traffic code has a reason. Maybe that's why in my state it says that if there is no traffic which could possibly be affected you don't have to signal.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

so if there are no cars that could use my signal than I will not turn it on.

Motorcycle riders have died because of that attitude.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[fnj]

But signaling DOES serve on balance a useful and beneficial purpose. If you see a vehicle which is signaling, that is a sign that vehicle is LIKELY (not certain) to be changing its baseline. Not necessarily in the direction of the signal; never assume that for a certainty. There is always a percentage of drivers who signal one way and turn the other, just because they are uncoordinated. There are also the looney tunes who leave their left turn signal on from the time they start to pass until they have merged all the way back in ahead of you. Most of these latter just do not understand the logic of signaling one way to start passing and the other way to complete. Nobody ever explained it to them. And there will be some drivers who leave their signal on for hours because they just don't realize it's on and don't have a good habit of periodically checking everything.

But just seeing a signal as a general alert will give you a better statistical chance of recognizing that some maneuver is likely to occur soon, and recognizing that sooner than otherwise.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[fnj]

How do you know he is not a good blind spot checker? You're assuming things you don't know.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[fnj]

Another good Boston rule is that if you're passing most of the other cars most of the time, these other drivers, always assumed inferior to you in skill and safety, are less likely to fuck up passing YOU. And if you just STAY in the passing lane ALL of the time, you greatly reduce the number of dangerous merges to which you expose yourself. Also, the faster you complete your trip in general, and the faster you get across an intersection, the shorter your period of exposure to dangerous traffic.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[fnj]

There is a mirror image to the behavior to which you object, and it is even more assholeish. If you leave a prudent space ahead of you in your lane, a guy on your left will immediately cut in to try to pass the guy ahead of HIM, and erase the safety gap. And another. And another. And if you slow down because you are REALLY determined to have a space space in front of you, the stream of cars cutting DIRECTLY in front of you (no matter HOW much room there is) will become a crescendo. And there will always be a percentage of them who cut in front of you and immediately SLOW DOWN to below your own speed.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing that if you turn the steering wheel, the system will count that as 'intentional'. It probably only kicks in if you're drifting out of your lane and you haven't moved the steering wheel or put your blinker on.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[FatAlb3rt]

Good thing there are no douches on motorcycles...

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to subscribe to the "turn signals are for sissies" from my slash and burn style of driving learned while living in metro Detroit. I came to understand that turn signals save lives while living in Virginia. Now I'm of the opinion that not using ones turn signals should be a careless driving ticket. Too many pissed off people, too much bad karma. Safety first kids and check the ego before getting behind the wheel.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Mana Mana]

In NYC less than 50% of drivers use their turn signals! It's dangerous, causes traffic jams, pisses me off.

OTOH, say, any automobile engineers here?! Why haven't car manufacturers installed a circuit to _turn on headlights when windshield wipers are activated?_ It's the law in most places, I'd dare, if not BCP. In NYC, again less than 50%, shieeet, I'd say, less than 33% of drivers follow this rule. to their danger.

To disallow unneeded activation whislt

a Washer fluid pump cleaning your windows in traffico (=)
b Not mass startling/blinding motorists
c Non-automatically (i.e., semi-manually) episodically wiping rain

add circuit logic.

- a: disallow, save for concurrent rain use
- b: add circuit randomness
- c: add minimum wiping period requirement (i.e., clear intent)

It seems simple to design cars to automatically turn on headlights when it's clear that the wipers are being used for wiping rain for a non trivial period of time. Am I crazy?

Is the proverbial `it'll cost one or two cents times a million cars, that's real money' car maker myth still applicable?

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[RESPAWN]

Actually, properly adjusting your side mirrors can eliminate 90% of a car's blind spot. Every time I get in my mom's car, I have to wonder why half of the side mirrors are filled with the side of the car. I don't need to look down the side of the car. If there's something that close to me, I sure as hell hope I know it. I need to see what's actually in the lane beside me and behind me.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Mana Mana]

> If you're worried about leaving the signal on afterwards

*jijiji* That reminds me of an !old! George Carlin diddy, that I use to this day: ``Hey! That d00d is going left around the world! Alllriiighttt.''

> If you have this solid habit of using your turn signals
> every time,

Dood, you are the m-a-n! I say this ^ to my gf (that I have to teach to drive) regularly. My quote is: Those fucking guys don't have to calculate every unperceived permutation variation on blinking, just follow the fucking rules---blink when turning, or changing lanes. No complicated logic analyses required.

In NYC, I have self immolated too. So. Beginning to pull out of a parking space, I did not blink so as to warn, I did not take a second's pause to look carefully for non vehicular traffic, I did not calculate for my nighttime reduced visibility, I did not want to get beat by rushing Myrtle Avenue traffic, I did not cool my heels for an _extra_ second, I am gunning out of my parking spot when I hear a yell, I noticed a blinking white light, I register a blur past my window, I register a chiding maybe insult, I am grateful that the yipster cyclist is OK! I curse mine own stupidity. I blush at disobeying my own law. I am not perfect. Follow the fucking rules, man.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[RESPAWN]

Of all the places I've been, Little Rock is actually one of the best places to drive. It's generally pretty good. My only complaint is the people who slow down to 15 MPH below the speed limit a good half mile before their exit ramp. That's what the exit ramp is for, guys!

By far the worst place I've ever lived was Atlanta. I would have at least one close call a week when I lived there. I really think it was the worst place I've had to drive.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

DOT-7 blinker fluid? Is that anything like putting a diesel rated spark plug into a gas engine?

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[KingAlanI]

Boston's weird street layout probably doesn't help (that's what you get in a city much older than the automobile?)

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[KingAlanI]

yeah, every area seems to have its share of idiotic drivers. perhaps particular stupid behaviors are more common in some areas.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[KingAlanI]

the clicking is a darn clear reminder to turn the directional off.
however, it's aggravating to hear it when I haven't had a chance to make the turn/lane change yet

also, the directional often turns itself off with the motion of the steering wheel resetting itself after the maneuver.

(this is with a Ford Focus)

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[KingAlanI]

consistent use of directionals is one of my better driver skills
sometimes you don't want to activate it too soon because it would be unclear where you're turning , something like "is he going to turn right into that parking lot, or turn right at the next intersection?"

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[KingAlanI]

to quote my dad venting about some other driver, "moron, it doesn't help if turn on your directional after you've already hit the brake."

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Ford already has BLIS on most models

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

ABS is a good thing? Oh, I call bs. I like in NW MI so I'm used to driving on slick or snow covered roads. AND I don't lock my wheels. Most folks around here know enough about driving on snow covered roads, know enough not to. I still say ABS was designed for people who panic at the sight of 1/2" of snow on the road. For the rest of us, it's a PITA that can cause more accidents than prevent.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Thorodin]

Slightly less than 1 million miles driven and no at-fault accidents. Yeah, I'd say I'm better than average. (And I also use turn signals 99.99% of the time even to the point of catching myself using them when the road does curve.) And I also understand that if two drivers are turning into a multi-lane highway (one turning left and the other turning right), both drivers turn into the lane closest to them. In other words, turning onto a multi-lane highway is not MULTIPLE CHOICE!

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Crudely_Indecent]

There are times when turn indicators are inconvenient, like when avoiding a collision.

When I was a kid, my dad zig-zagged his way through a multi-car accident - changing lanes 5 or more times on a 3 lane freeway, narrowly avoiding multiple spinning vehicles. Mom was in disbelief, holding on for dear life while squeaking out sounds of sheer terror. I can't imagine what would have happened if the car had attempted to "adjust" his driving efforts that day.

I can appreciate a car that takes care of the tricky parallel parking operations, but shouldn't a driver be in complete control of the vehicle when interacting with something other than a parking space?

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Austerity Empowers]

Never use a turn signal in NY or Texas roads. This signal tells unfriendly drivers to speed up and box you in. What you do is you get halfway into the lane, THEN signal. It's like saying "haha, I win".

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[hawk]

>The car to your left has his right turn signal on. Do you . . .

Around here (las vegas), I start by praying, assume he's crazy, whimper pitifully, and then wait while he makes a 90 degree turn in front of me . . .

hawk

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[hawk]

>A better system would be a Personal Rapid Transit system like SkyTran, . . .
>and eliminates the human factor,

I thought that that was skynet . . .

hawk

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[hawk]

It was about the only way to get out of the alley behind my house in PA . . . Which predated automobiles being common.

Take a running start in the lower area that wasn't steep, continue rolling as the grade went up enough that you couldn't accelerate on the ice, then gun the V8 enough to cut the wheels lose and allow the torque to spin the car clockwise so that it was pointed in a drivable direction.

I'll never live in snow country again . . .

hawk

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[hawk]

In PA, we could tell when it was deer season by the numbered of cars damaged by deer filling out their tags . . .

I believe that the insurance companies were rejecting claims for damage from avoiding deer.

hawk

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[hawk]

But the finger is still optional, isn't it? :)

hawk

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes dipshit. That's why they call it a BLIND SPOT.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Grishnakh]

Close, but not quite. When SkyNet gains consciousness, it starts a nuclear war killing most humans. When SkyTran gain consciousness, it just torments passengers by locking them in their cars, sending them to the wrong destinations, driving them in circles, etc.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[hairyfeet]

Actually if you'd ever lived in the area you'd know there is a reason for that, its because when the cops get behind on their ticket quota they like to troll the exits looking for speeders. if they are bad behind on their quota they may give you a ticket for as little as 3MPH over so you really have to watch it on the offramps around LR. All in all though one of the nicer places to drive except for the quality of the roads but to their credit they are adding lanes and fixing holes it'll just take awhile. you want a beautiful scenic drive though try highway 5 going from Conway to Branson. Man the views are breathtaking with lush mountains and incredible scenery, plenty of passing lanes that are all smooth as glass, and folks are nothing but friendly. my GF lives up in that area and we take turns with me coming up and her going down and the view is always so relaxing.

that is why i never understood all the folks making ugly jokes about AR, I've been all over the south and even when i had ass length long hair and a biker jacket folks all over AR were friendly and easy enough to get along with, and other than speeding tickets even the cops didn't seem to be much for hassling folks, unlike TX where being a prick seems to be a requirement of all cops. But if you are ever going through that area try highway 5 its truly just a lovely drive.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[coinreturn]

Each safety device actually does lower insurance rates. My old 88 Ford Bronco II cost me $88 every 6 moths to insure but when I replaced it with my current 96 Jeep Cherokee my insurance dropped to $82 every 6 months. Same coverage same company but because the Jeep had an air bag and anti lock brakes it got a lower rate even though it has a vastly more powerful engine and is a nicer vehicle. This isn't fancy coverage but liability only but still it is a discount.

If the policy is "liability only" why would air bag make a difference?

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[coinreturn]

Slightly less than 1 million miles driven and no at-fault accidents. Yeah, I'd say I'm better than average. (And I also use turn signals 99.99% of the time even to the point of catching myself using them when the road does curve.) And I also understand that if two drivers are turning into a multi-lane highway (one turning left and the other turning right), both drivers turn into the lane closest to them. In other words, turning onto a multi-lane highway is not MULTIPLE CHOICE!

In states where I have been licensed, the rule is that the right-turner MUST turn into the rightmost lane. The left-turner (assuming only a single left-turn lane) may turn into ANY lane; however, if left-turner wants the rightmost lane, the right-turner has the right-of-way (unless otherwise controlled, eg by signal arrows).

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[coinreturn]

It would, but people manage to simultaneously hold in their heads both "I am a better than average driver" and "the anti-idiot squad might come after MY driver's license". There's a huge diversity of opinion about exactly what "good driving" is, too -- I try to be very conservative with following distance (not slow, just plenty of space, and not in the fast lane, either) , and sooner or later someone who ends up behind me will get upset that I am doing this, because look at all that empty space we could be driving in. As far as they are concerned, I'm one of those idiots, even though I am taking deliberate steps to avoid known-dangerous driving. Obviously, I think THEY are the idiots. At least one of us is wrong.

I believe the rule is: anyone driving slower than me is an idiot; anyone driving faster than me is a maniac.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't lump all of North America together, I spent 3 years living in Halifax, NS, Canada and sold my car because I walked or rode the bus everywhere. I haven't owned a car in 10 years now and have no problem, for the rare occasion I can't walk, bike, or bus, I can rent a car.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[mcgrew]

As do I. All these nut bags that refuse to use their signals are a danger on the road.

Those people annoy me as well -- but "those people" are damned near everyone on the road. I don't know why they bother installing turn signals, because so few of us use them. And when most people do use them, they use them in a way making them useless; for instance, once you're in the turn lane it's pretty evident you're turning. Why won't people signal that they're gettting in the turn lane?

Then there are those whose brake lights come on before the turn signal. Hey, dimwits, your brake lights already alerted me to the fact that you're doing something and it's probably something stupid.

The problem with these idiots is they drive as if they're the only vehicle on the road... and have you noticed that the worst offenders drive the biggest cars? "Hey get outta my way I'm IMPO'TANT!"

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[mcgrew]

I don't think it's coincidence that so few people seem to use their turn signals for lane changes. It's absolutely dangerous.

Using your turn signal isn't dangerous, the response by idiotic assholes is what's dangerous. If you see my left turn signal, try to pass at your own risk. Ny signal is a courtesy, and I expect people to respond to courtesy with courtesy (unrealistically, usually).

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[SomePgmr]

Oh no, I meant just the state of things is crazy dangerous. And yeah, I kinda change lanes the same way... I signal, shoulder check, pray to the traffic gods and merge.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[mcgrew]

What if you *needed* to lock up your brakes and slam the car into a skid, and the ABS prevented it?

You NEVER need to be in a skid! Slamming on the non-ABS brakes (skidding) will make the vehicle take longer to stop; all you have is the friction of the tire and the road, your brakes transfer far more motion to heat than your skidding tires can. This is why we were taught in the Air Force motor pool to NEVER lock the brakes up; this was before ABS.

Plus, when you're in a skid you have NO steering whatever. When you're skidding you're completely out of control. You NEVER want your car to be out of control.

Air bags would have been a good example. Air bags have killed people in accidents that would not have been fatal if the bag wasn't there, but overall they've saved far more lives than they've cost.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[dr2chase]

"Never" is mighty strong language. I don't offhand know an example, but I'd swear that I had seen/heard someone else express a similarly emphatic opinion about the occasional necessity of skid.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Carnildo]

"Some emergency situations" occur how often?

At least fifteen times in the past seven years. My car's got two dents from other drivers changing lanes without looking, there have been three other times when I spotted the other vehicle before impact, my daily commute goes past a blind corner where drivers often stop with the front of their vehicle sticking a few feet out into cross traffic, and I had to swerve to avoid a buffalo once. This doesn't count the time the three-year-old ran out into the road in front of me (it was on a road with no lane markings), the times I've braked for deer and other small animals (rule of thumb: don't swerve if you can see the road over its back), or the sidewalk bicyclist who lost control and fell into the street behind me (the car following me was the one that had to make an unsignaled lane change).

This also doesn't count driving on snowy roads, where it's more important to follow the ruts (where the good traction is) than it is to follow the lane markers.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[mcgrew]

He's probably thinking about action movies where the brakes are slammed on and the steering wheel pulled hard to turn the car completely around. It's just movie crap and has no more to do with reality than McClain jumping off of a burning fighter jet and sliding down an offramp. It just doesn't work like that. It would be faster to slam on the ABS and do a U turn when slow enough. The brake-slamming turnaround is good cinema, but like most things in most movies has little to do with the real world.

During professional driver training (before ABS) they had a car equipped with a gun that fired chalk at the ground. The driver got to 40 mph and the passenger hit a button that fired the chalk. The gun went off again when the brake was pressed, and the passenger marked it again when it stopped. The skidding car went a good 30% farther than the one who braked correctly; not an easy thing to do in an emergency, the normal reaction is to slam on the brakes as hard as you can.

The "occasional necessity of skid" is the "occasional necessity of having your car completely out of control and taking longer to stop". I can't think of a single reason that could ever possibly be a good thing. It's a matter of physics.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[dr2chase]

Believe me, I know ALL about skidding versus traction. I ride a bicycle 2500 miles per year, and I've done the manual ABS thing both on the bike (when the rear wheel starts to rise, back off the front brake, then brake more, repeat till stopped) and in a station wagon-on-unsalted-snow-down-a-hill. I've also used the real thing once in a hard stop, and that was impressive as heck. Nonetheless, these people are out there, and lacking a proof that they are totally blowing smoke, I'm going to assume that once in a million years, skidding the brakes will save someone's butt. Of course, they could be as physics-challenged as the crowd that claims that rear-wheel bicycle braking (.25G max) is as good as front-wheel bicycle braking (.5G max).

And, to slightly make the case for my own ignorance (and hence, unwillingness to reject claims out of hand), I drive FWD cars only, and since moving to the Boston area, every once in a while I'll spot someone on nasty snow/ice who knows what they are doing in a RWD car, and they pull some really interesting (and intended, and successful) maneuvers with a distinct lack of traction. These people are rare, of course -- most people merely manage to be interesting (from a safe distance) under those conditions.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

What if someone else starts to enter your lane so you start to switch lanes to avoid the collision, will the AI redirect you back and cause a crash?

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Coren22]

I would say the whole of the Maryland highway system...not just Balt. Towing a canoe trailer to a boyscout campout, I turned on my turn signal to merge left (entrance ramp onto a highway) and was surprised when the semi that was letting me over honked, I look behind me, and the Camry that was behind me decided they wanted to risk being run off the road. :)

It happens far too often that people just think they are the only one on the road.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing

[Coren22]

Snow? My car's antilock has a built in limitation that if it engages too long (very short time) it locks up, as when stopping in snow, that is the safest option.

Winter

[dorix]

What will it do in the winter when the clear tire tracks that are safe to follow aren't necessarily perfectly between the lines?

Re:Winter

[The MAZZTer]

Then the camera won't be able to see the lines, now will it?

Re:Winter

[Anonymous Coward]

In that case, the tire tracks will be the only lines that the camera will be able to see. If you can't see the lines, how can the camera?

Re:Winter

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah but those lines are where the tires have to go to have any sort of actual traction. Not off to the side of your tires or vehicle.

Re:Winter

[tipo159]

Then the camera won't be able to see the lines, now will it?

Do you spend much time driving in winter conditions? Sometimes two lanes in the direction of travel end up effectively reduced to one with the painted lane divider line clearly visible in the middle of the lane. Around curves, the position of the painted lane divider line will shift relative to the track of the lane of travel.

I can't imagine that there won't be a disable button for this feature for stuff like winter driving.

Re:Winter

[ae1294]

I wonder when the drunk driving patch will come out. Basically that's what ford is doing with this sort of system. If you can't stay awake while behind the wheel your ass shouldn't be driving.

Re:Winter

[robi5]

The new system will assure that they *will* be perfectly between the lines.

Re:Winter

[RandyOo]

As I mentioned in a previous comment, the LKAS system installed in my vehicle is very picky about what sort of lane markings it accepts before the system is active.

Beyond that, in my vehicle, the system is disengaged by default. Every key cycle, you're forced to manually enable the lane-keeping assistance system. Disabling is always a steering-wheel button-press away, but since the power it exerts is so small, it's hard to imagine a scenario where it would be necessary...

Re:Winter

[Aighearach]

I know more places aren't as tropical as it is here in Oregon, but for a lot of us you can see the lines just fine for all but 1 or 2 days of winter most years.

Re:Winter

[Anonymous Coward]

Half the roads in my county don't even have lines painted on them. A 3rd of them aren't even paved.

Re:Winter

[Anonymous Coward]

"I can't imagine that there won't be a disable button for this feature for stuff like winter driving. "

Which is why this is a complete fucking waste of time and YOUR money. The moment anyone takes issue with the decisions that some engineer made (i.e., their car argues with them), they will disable the device (or, if there is no means of disabling the system manually, pay a mechanic to do it) and it will never be used again.

One more "feature" the manufacturers add to increase cost of the overall sale. Expect heavily-lobbied legislation that requires it.

Re:Winter

[Mana Mana]

> a disable button for this feature for stuff like winter driving.

I doubt it'd be needed. If it can't detect a clear scenario I doubt it'd activate at all. If anyone can name a gravel/snow/sand ABS analog, let's hear it.

More Crapware by Software "Engineers"

[Anonymous Coward]

Just great. More crap-ware on my car, designed by a "Software Engineer", aka college/highschool drop out, who can string together some code.

If the system malfunctions I can't sue anybody, because it was provided "AS-IS" and "WITHOUT WARRANTY" or "FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE".

Gotta love software engineers. Want all of the titles and respect of regular engineers, but none of the responsibility or liability.

Re:More Crapware by Software "Engineers"

[TheGratefulNet]

but none of the responsibility or liability.

sort of like, ohhh, I don't know - maybe posting as an AC ??

you'd be the expert on that, then.

Re:More Crapware by Software "Engineers"

[Anonymous Coward]

No-one's relying on the GP's expertise to keep them safe while barreling down the road in a tin box at 70mph.

Re:More Crapware by Software "Engineers"

[RandyOo]

If the system malfunctions I can't sue anybody, because it was provided "AS-IS" and "WITHOUT WARRANTY" or "FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE".

I have to assume that the sue-happy culture of the USA is probably part of the reason why this system isn't already being sold on a mainstream vehicle in North America. (I own a 1.5-year-old vehicle with a very similar system)

Slightly off-topic: After growing up in the USA, then spending some time living in Europe, I've often been shocked by some of the seemingly dangerous things that are allowed here, compared to the USA. I guess they expect people to exhibit some common sense here, rather than go crying to the courts when didn't make it all-but-impossible for them to injure themselves...

Re:More Crapware by Software "Engineers"

[Anonymous Coward]

As if posting as TheGratefulNet is taking some sort of responsibility for your own posts?

Re:More Crapware by Software "Engineers"

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Don't worry I over heard one of my co workers complaining that they backed into something because their beeper wasn't working. By beeper they meant the reverse collision detector because they apparently thought that having one of those meant you didn't need to look behind you when going in reverse. You can try to make a better device but as a society we will create better idiots.

My Prius

[Anonymous Coward]

already has Lane Keep Assist. It doesn't steer me back into the lane, but it does give me an annoying beep when it senses me leaving the lane. Personally, I'd much rather have my car alert me about this stuff and let me control the vehicle rather than have the vehicle do the stuff on its own.

Re:My Prius

[hedwards]

Given that you've purchased a Prius, I think it's a fair bet that the more the car does for you the better. Being unable to earn a driver's license seems to be the key to Prius ownership.

Re:My Prius

[Ol Biscuitbarrel]

Toyota says "the National Highway Transportation Administration (NHTSA) has found that almost 40% of all the fatalities on US highways are caused by driving off of the road." Hence the irritating tweets. Heh, it functions from 50 to 112 mph. Thoughtful of Toyota to be looking out for the wellbeing of DeathRace participants.

Are the lives this saves worth the extra added weight and complexity? It's a premium feature too. Not tweeting for those on a budget.

Re:My Prius

[dr2chase]

How much extra weight are we talking about? Consider how the driver could probably extend his/her life by losing an amount of weight that is probably comparable, it's unlikely to matter. Add to that, all the people who buy grossly overweight cars because they think they are safer.

One other problem with the "driving off the road" death metric is that some fraction of those are cars traveling at speeds (or on wet/snowy/icy surfaces) where nobody, human or computer, will be able to keep the car on the road.

Re:My Prius

[Pentium100]

Looks interesting, but it probably wouldn't work if there are no lane markers (common where I live).

Re:My Prius

[arkane1234]

Apparently, posting on slashdot is getting pretty low as well.

work zones / new pavement with out lines

[Joe_Dragon]

In works zones some times you see lines all over the place will the AI be smart and auto trun off when it sees that?

Also on new pavement you see the temp lines that may not be picked up the AI.

Re:work zones / new pavement with out lines

[robi5]

In works zones some times you see lines all over the place will the AI be smart and auto trun off when it sees that?

The developers must have not thought of that, and just assumed that their cars will be driven in perfect worlds. Probably whatever output the AI gives will be used to turn the wheels, irrespective of confidence measures, speed, driver intention etc. The developers should have clearly come here to Slashdot first, asking for advice.

Re:work zones / new pavement with out lines

[jamesh]

I've wondered about this... i'm sure they have a solution but i'd like to know more about it.

The one that bugs me is where they've altered the road and painted over the old lines in black paint and painted on new lines. Under some circumstances (wet road and low sun) the paint on the old lines becomes quite reflective because it's smooth (new paint on old paint makes it more level) and makes the old lines look white while the new lines are almost invisible.

I guess that's a corner case though... the computer should be smart enough to know that if it isn't sure about it to just do nothing.

Re:work zones / new pavement with out lines

[RandyOo]

I have a vehicle with a similar system: a European Honda Accord with LKAS (Lane-Keeping Assist System).

It's very particular about the lines being painted a specific way, and if the lane markings don't meet the spec, the system stays in standby. That said, it was able to cope with the yellow work-zone lane markings on the Autobahn, which seem to take priority over the normal ones.

Re:work zones / new pavement with out lines

[Joe_Dragon]

also some times you can see the older marks on roads that have been widened. If you have been on I-355 in the 90's even in to 00's you did see some of the older marks when parts of it where only 2 lanes each way.

Re:work zones / new pavement with out lines

[doon]

I've only had the system in my volvo get confused a couple of times in work zones. I haven't figured out the exact combination that triggers it, but when you have temp lines that got over other lines gradually that seems to confuse it a bit. but if the lines are at more severe angles to each other it seems to handle it just fine.

Re:work zones / new pavement with out lines

[RightwingNutjob]

You're joking, but I've worked with some robotics guys (in academia, admittedly) who built self-driving cars, and based on my experience with the personality types who do this sort of thing in academia (and get hired by Ford and GM to do it for real) is that I wouldn't put it past them to think their discrimination algorithm is God, at least until the first round of uncommanded steering maneuvers causes a fatality or three.

Re:work zones / new pavement with out lines

[houghi]

Have you read that it is the "first mainstream midsize sedan in North America"? So not "the first car ever". So other cars elsewhere already have this and companies have experience with it.

It is now waiting for the first person in sue-happy USA who had an accident while driving drunk to sue Ford.

Re:work zones / new pavement with out lines

[gr8_phk]

In works zones some times you see lines all over the place will the AI be smart and auto trun off when it sees that? Also on new pavement you see the temp lines that may not be picked up the AI.

If this is the system I think it is, then it is fully capable of autonomous driving at highway speeds on dirt roads. I've seen in-car video and that was over 5 years ago. The safety and legal concerns have limited the practical use of such systems to passive lane departure warnings and mild lane keeping assist.

`why not stop the car?

[MollyB]

The idea that we should promote drowsy driving by making it (hypothetically) less fatal to do so is laughably absurd. Sometimes a driver needs to swerve to miss an accident occurring--no time to signal, so into the pileup we go? Hmm...

Re:`why not stop the car?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because parking the car in the middle lane of the I-90 is more dangerous than waking up the driver.

Re:`why not stop the car?

[Garybaldy]

I would totally agree with you if said drivers only killed them selves off. Be gone with the idiots they are only dumbing down the human population as a whole. Unfortunately they have a habit of taking those with them who only had the misfortune of being in close proximity of the idiot.

Re:`why not stop the car?

[Anonymous Coward]

Being in close proximity to idiots is not a survival trait.

Re:`why not stop the car?

[hedwards]

I would agree with you, but I'm not sure that people who drive while drowsy are thinking rationally. It's something I avoid, but it's not always obvious until it's too late. And figuring out where exactly the line is isn't always easy. Really any technology that can prevent a drowsy driver from killing other people is something worth considering.

But, more than that, what needs to happen is for the consequences of drunk or drowsy driving to be aligned with similarly dangerous behavior out of the car. Around here there's talk of increasing the penalties to match what similarly dangerous behavior would warrant if a car weren't involved.

Re:`why not stop the car?

[Delarth799]

You fail to realize a great number of things and assume some really crazy ones. Your assuming the AI will take complete control of the steering and apply massive force not allowing for change. When in reality it will be almost certainly be a very gentle steer since it doesn't take much to correct some drifting. Also when you drift your not using your steering wheel to do it. Cars without perfectly aligned wheels drift one way or the other and slight curves in the road and other factors will also cause slight drifts as well, that's why you keep a hand on the wheel at all times. When you INTEND or NEED to change lanes you actually use the steering wheel so the people who designed this, which most people here seem to think are complete morons, probably were smart enough to design the AI so an application of a certain amount of turning power to one degree or another will stop it from vibrating and not trying to steer you back.

Re:`why not stop the car?

[MollyB]

After read tfa, I concede your and the AC's point. As bpjones sagely notes below, though, we need better design goals.

Re:`why not stop the car?

[icebike]

The idea that we should promote drowsy driving by making it (hypothetically) less fatal to do so is laughably absurd. Sometimes a driver needs to swerve to miss an accident occurring--no time to signal, so into the pileup we go? Hmm...

From the linked story, (which you clearly didn't read):

When the system detects the car is approaching the edge of the lane without a turn signal activated, the lane marker in the icon turns yellow and the steering wheel vibrates to simulate driving over rumble strips. If the driver doesn't respond and continues to drift, the lane icon turns red and EPAS will nudge the steering and the vehicle back toward the center of the lane. If the car continues to drift, the vibration is added again along with the nudge. The driver can overcome assistance and vibration at any time by turning the steering wheel, accelerating or braking.

The return to lane feature only works if you start to drift into the other lane, not if you actively turn into the other lane, or supply any other common control input to let the system know you are in fact paying attention.

Its not too hard to distinguish an alert driver at the wheel from someone nodding off, because a normal driver supplies 10 to 30 small control movements to the steering wheel per minute (Steering Reversal Rate), and these are typically Greater than 2 degrees and less than 6 degrees regardless of road curvature or lack there of. Once this rate falls to less than 5 reversals per minute, the car's computer can assume from this single measurement alone that the driver is getting drowsy, and when there are almost no reversals at all, that the driver has fallen asleep.

So the mere presence of control frequent movements on the wheel would sufficient to distinguish an intentional lane cross from an unintentional one.

There is a large amount of research already available on the web about his stuff. Google steering wheel reversal rate. This stuff has been known and measured for decades.

Re:`why not stop the car?

[icebike]

But, more than that, what needs to happen is for the consequences of drunk or drowsy driving to be aligned with similarly dangerous behavior out of the car. Around here there's talk of increasing the penalties to match what similarly dangerous behavior would warrant if a car weren't involved.

What similarly dangerous behavior is there when a car is not involved?
Its not too often someone fatally crashes into a neighbors kitchen table while getting drunk playing cards at his own kitchen table.

Removal of the car makes no sense when evaluating penalties for events that only happen in cars.

Re:`why not stop the car?

[icebike]

Exactly.

People are fixating on that phrase "will also steer the car back into the right lane", as if control of the vehicle would be usurped any time it crosses the line.

None of the read TFA (yeah, I know), where it states:

The driver can overcome assistance and vibration at any time by turning the steering wheel, accelerating or braking.

Re:`why not stop the car?

[jamesh]

You have to concede though, getting rammed from behind would wake them up.

Re:`why not stop the car?

[dr2chase]

Such technology exists in various forms already. There's bicycles, mass transit, scooters, and small motorcycles. If we had these hypothetical collision-avoiding self-driving cars, they wouldn't need to weigh so damn much "for [my] safety".

Given that someone driving a car can kill people and entirely escape any criminal penalty, I think we've got a long way to go.

Re:`why not stop the car?

[Anonymous Coward]

This will give the Google Car a run for its money. Let me explain. The one thing all auto-tinkers (like me) want is an electric-steering wheel. Eg, some way to attach an algorithm to steering. This is a great advance in this area. All other controls are nearly electric (fly by wire), braking, gas, key. Plus Fords idea to use a camera is beautifully cheap and a departure from all the laser-solutions (LIDAR Google Car, Laser Lexus version, etc).

I actually build things in this arena. Here is one that attaches your cruise control to a speed limit database.

Speederaser after market cruiseControl enhancer

Jim Pruett, Director
WikiSPEEDia.org
A TN CHarity

Re:`why not stop the car?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, the article says it will apply a steering "nudge," that is deactivated when force is detected on the wheel, meaning he doesn't have to overcome anything. It's just like how cruise control is turned off when the gas or brake is pressed.

Re:`why not stop the car?

[arkane1234]

Getting rammed from behind would wake up anyone...

Re:`why not stop the car?

[Isaac-1]

My concern on this is it mistaking an intentional action for unintentional drifting and compensating, like slowly moving over to the edge of a lane to avoid debris in the road, particularly under slippery conditions.

Re:`why not stop the car?

[BenJCarter]

The return to lane feature only works if you start to drift into the other lane, not if you actively turn into the other lane, or supply any other common control input to let the system know you are in fact paying attention.

This sounds good, but it must WORK.

Its not too hard to distinguish an alert driver at the wheel from someone nodding off, because a normal driver supplies 10 to 30 small control movements to the steering wheel per minute (Steering Reversal Rate), and these are typically Greater than 2 degrees and less than 6 degrees regardless of road curvature or lack there of. Once this rate falls to less than 5 reversals per minute, the car's computer can assume from this single measurement alone that the driver is getting drowsy, and when there are almost no reversals at all, that the driver has fallen asleep.

That sounds good too, if it works. Billions of us humans use these vehicles to engage in random activity that resembles organized movement. I want to know how many vehicles have used this protocol, how many accidents they have had, and how many have been reported as "vehicle error" before I will consider buying a vehicle with this option. The command protocol to help correct 'deficient' driving behavior described by icebike sounds sane when I read it here on Slashdot, but the idea of any situation where my vehicle fails to respond to my commands when I am DRIVING MY CAR I believe is VERY dangerous to me and the other meatbags around me.

So the mere presence of control frequent movements on the wheel would sufficient to distinguish an intentional lane cross from an unintentional one.

If not, people die.

There is a large amount of research already available on the web about his stuff. Google steering wheel reversal rate. This stuff has been known and measured for decades.

Does the hardware support the protocol to the level of trust required to mass produce? We shall see.

This technology sounds promising, but I won't buy one yet. I need to see how those early adopter Ford Fusion autopilots do first. And I'll be watching every new Fusion extra careful from now on....

Re:`why not stop the car?

[Maritz]

Dunno, there's always Rohypnol... ;)

Re:`why not stop the car?

[Maritz]

The idea that we should promote drowsy driving by making it (hypothetically) less fatal to do so is laughably absurd. Sometimes a driver needs to swerve to miss an accident occurring--no time to signal, so into the pileup we go? Hmm...

What's genuinely laughably absurd is that you didn't read the article before making your devastating, game breaking criticisms. Your assumption that the designers and engineers of a system like this would never have thought of your scenarios is a real illustration of the arrogance of ignorance.

Re:`why not stop the car?

[okmijnuhb]

So, this technology will allow drivers to safely fall asleep at the wheel?

Re:`why not stop the car?

[shentino]

Removal of the car makes perfect sense.

Make drunk driving a felony and forfeit the car.

Re:`why not stop the car?

[meta-monkey]

Not only is it a nice feature that could save lives, but it's a stepping stone to what we really want, which is a commercially-viable car that can drive itself. Seeing technology like this on a non-luxury product is a great step.

Ford's doing nice work these days. I was extremely impressed when I drove the Ford Edge last year, and almost bought one, but couldn't justify the expense. The new Escape is coming out in a few months and I'm getting in line.

More of a distractionary feature.

[sethstorm]

If only Ford didn't go all Eurotrash and eviscerate anything American from their lineup, favoring globalized-to-hell golfcarts with fancy electronics as the mass market option.

It's a nice feature and all, but it seems to be more of a distraction from the lack of a proper, US-sized engine block under the hood than anything else.

Re:More of a distractionary feature.

[Trepidity]

"Proper, US-sized engine blocks" aren't selling well, and when you consider the cost savings they'd forego if they didn't share parts between their US, European, and Asian lines, are even less cost-effective to sell.

Re:More of a distractionary feature.

[TubeSteak]

If only Ford didn't go all Eurotrash and eviscerate anything American from their lineup, favoring globalized-to-hell golfcarts with fancy electronics as the mass market option.

The USA's push for higher fuel efficiency requirements across a company's product line is having that effect.
More globalized-to-hell golfcarts is exactly what we'll get, because European gas taxes already created a market for small cars with small engines.

Re:More of a distractionary feature.

[ryanov]

If only... then they'd still be circling the drain like they were before they made the change.

A "proper US-sized engine block" is a selfish and environmentally damaging pointless excess. Thankfully the sales figures these days appear to corroborate that.

Re:More of a distractionary feature.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a nice feature and all, but it seems to be more of a distraction from the lack of a proper, US-sized engine block under the hood than anything else.

By US-sized do you mean built on tech from the seventies, and oversized because the car has to be large enough to qualify as a truck?

I'll never understand why Americans persist in trying to poke fun at other country's cars when their own are so inelegant and antiquated. You do it with food as well, this coming from the country that gave us "cheese" in a can.

Riddle me this: why are so many US makers in trouble whilst everyone is buying Japanese or European cars? Might it possibly be because people want to buy them?

Re:More of a distractionary feature.

[Anonymous Coward]

At least our cars can go around a corner without leaving 5,000 miles worth of rubber on the road ! :-)

Re:More of a distractionary feature.

[EmagGeek]

You mean proper sized engine blocks like the 2.0L twin turbo that makes more torque at lower engine speed, and more power than most of the other engines in the lineup, and providing better fuel economy to boot?

Re:More of a distractionary feature.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. Nice re-purposed chainsaw engine you have there.

5.0 litres +, or go home whus!

Re:More of a distractionary feature.

[plover]

It's a nice feature and all, but it seems to be more of a distraction from the lack of a proper, US-sized engine block under the hood than anything else.

What, sheer mass makes an engine "better"? I'll put my EcoBoost V6 up against the old 385 V8 Big Block, just because it's about 2/3 the weight for the same HP. And that thing just purrs like a happy kitten. A finely tuned happy kitten.

Of course the car it's wrapped in still comes in at over 2 tons. :-( Still, it gets better than twice the mileage of the old land whales that used to have the 385 (when I'm not driving it like I stole it.) Yes, I'd rather have it in a Mustang than a Taurus, but that wasn't an option for us.

Re:More of a distractionary feature.

[sgbett]

5.0 litres +, or go home whus!

Yeah, and more megapixels makes for a better camera!

Re:More of a distractionary feature.

[The Master Control P]

We're sorry that the average American can't afford a 350hp V8 penis compensator under the hood any more. Complaints can be filed with OPEC to your right.

Re:More of a distractionary feature.

[sethstorm]

19/27 for a largish car is not a problem to be solved by removing such cars from the mass market domain and putting it in the nomenklatura one.

Build the landwhale right, and efficiency still can be built in. Take away the regulations like CAFE, and such cars can be made available to mere mortals. Without block-and-transmission-killing [turbo|super]chargers, or other cheats around the proper solution of displacement.

The first thing I'd do to an EcoBoost car is rip out the drivetrain and replace it with one that isn't as environmentally impaired. That's if it's not a Eurotrash platform that has no provision for something larger than an I4.

Re:More of a distractionary feature.

[thrich81]

The guys that really know cars don't agree with you. When Motor Trend tested the 2011 Ford F-150 Pickups "the idea was to see whether it makes more sense for buyers to get the twin-turbo V-6 or the 5.0-liter V-8" (their quote). Continuing they said, "From the dyno and track results, the EcoBoost's performance data makes it a better rival for the 6.2 (liter V-8). The EcoBoost F-150 was fastest of the test..." The story is at http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/trucks/1110_2011_ford_f_150_full_line_test/viewall.html. I've owned a variety of big block and factory turbocharged cars including the real good ones -- 427 'Vette, 6.6 Liter Trans Am, 455 Stage 1 Buick, 3.8 liter Buick Turbo-Regal, GMC Syclone 4.3 liter turbo V-6, Volvo 2.3 liter turbo I-5. The turbo cars were better all around performers than the big blocks -- just as fast and better in every other category. One reason is that with a small, lightweight engine the car can be lighter and better balanced. In a direct comparison, I had a hot-rodder friend who owned the following two cars -- '69 Camaro with a transplanted 427 (L88 427 -- the real factory race engine in the late 60's, 7 liters for the metric oriented reader) and an '86 Buick Regal T-Type with the turbocharged 3.8 liter V6. After some garage tweaks the Regal ran a faster 1/4 mile at the dragstrip than the Camaro, both in the 11's as I recall. And I remember guys breaking rods racing naturally aspirated V-8 cars all the time.

Re:More of a distractionary feature.

[cbiltcliffe]

"Proper, US-sized engine blocks" aren't selling well,

There seem to be plenty of Mustangs, Camaros, Challengers, and non-work V8 trucks on the road where I am.

Re:More of a distractionary feature.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's only because you drive them like pussies. :P
Unless you're Spanish. Or Italian.

Re:More of a distractionary feature.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I assume that you mean a proper sized engine to the massive vehicle. By most Americans' standard I have a car with a small V8 engine (4.4L) while others have V8 engines that are at least 5.0 liters and as high as 8 liters in cars. People tend to buy the largest most powerful car they can afford unless they are trying to make a statement.

Re:More of a distractionary feature.

[Trepidity]

I dunno what people you know, but most Americans I know just want some sort of generic reliable commuter car, neither anything particularly powerful nor overtly small/"green"/whatever. Hence the popularity of Honda Civics and similar cars.

Re:More of a distractionary feature.

[drunkennewfiemidget]

Stick to computers, because your knowledge of cars is visibly non-existant.

Re:More of a distractionary feature.

[drunkennewfiemidget]

existEnt. Damn it.

Re:More of a distractionary feature.

[thrich81]

Nothing to be too sorry about -- a new 2012 Mustang with a 305hp V6 lists for $22,310 and is EPA rated at 31 mpg for highway fuel economy -- actually quite affordable, not that any compensation is necessary.

Re:More of a distractionary feature.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Have you driven a modern vehicle in a comparable class to that of the old american cars? A modern american compact car is better in every way to the ones from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s the same holds true for all other classes as well. They all put out more power, get better gas mileage, handle better, put out less pollution, last longer, better acceleration, higher top speed, and have more of the creature comforts. About the only thing I hear people complain about is the lack of style, when compared to cars from the 50s or 60s, and the difficulty of working on them. Maybe this will help you understand engine sizes for your proper US-sized blocks:
8.2 Liter = 500 cu in (in 1970 this engine first production year it produced 400 hp and in its final year of production 1976 produced 190 hp)
6.6 Liter = 400 cu in
7.0 Liter = 425 cu in
7.5 Liter = 455 cu in
5.0 Liter = Ford 302 cu in or GM 305 cu in
5.3 Liter = 327 cu in
5.7 Liter = 350 cu in
7 Liter = 427 cu in
3.8 Liter = 231 cu in
3.7 Liter = 225 cu in
3.0 Liter = 181 cu in
4.3 Liter = 261 cu in
4.1 Liter = 250 cu in
4.8 Liter = 292 cu in
4.0 Liter = 242 cu in
These are all actual historic 6 and 8 cylinder engines that were produced by US manufactures. Now granted these displacements are large by European standards but then the US cars that we made at the time were land yachts. Technology has come a long way since then and now in a lot of applications where a large V8 was needed a smaller V6 works and produces as much or more power as the old V8. If one looks at the smog motors of the late 70s and early 80s it is even possible for a modern small turbo charged 4 banger to put out more power than the old V8.

Re:More of a distractionary feature.

[germansausage]

"People tend to buy the largest most powerful car they can afford unless they are trying to make a statement"

That's funny, I think you have it backwards. People tend to buy the smallest cheapest car that meets their transportation needs, unless they are trying to make a statement. I see a whole lot more civics and corrollas and mazda 3s on the road than I see chrysler 300s. There are always exceptions, like my neighboor who bought a ginormous F350 to commute to work in every day, because once a year he tows his boat from the marina to the storage lot.

Re:More of a distractionary feature.

[Gordonjcp]

the lack of a proper, US-sized engine block under the hood

What, you mean a wheezy obsolete 4.6 litre petrol engine that is comfortably outperformed by a modern diesel less than half the size? Seriously, 200bhp from nearly 5 litres - did you forget to plug half the injectors in or something?

Re:More of a distractionary feature.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I hang around with a lot of what are typical gear head types and my neighborhood is filled with people near the end of their careers. It is a blue collier neighborhood but since everyone saved and worked hard they have the big powerful vehicles. My next door neighbor has a 3/4 ton Chevy pickup and his wife has a Suburban, across the street one of the neighbors has a newer Lexus LS, the other one still has his work van (Ford E350) as he is semi retired but still does some work while his wife has a Mercedes E class, the neighbor on the other side of me has 2 Explorers and also has one of the recent reincarnations of the Fort Thunderbird. The economic reality that I see is that people do drive smaller cars like mazada 3s, civics, corollas, and others but if they could afford it they would be driving something larger and/or more powerful like a proper muscle car, sports car, or a large truck/SUV. The fact that they aren't is because they also have to keep up with everyone else in the neighborhood by having all the toys and everything is new every 5 years. So they just end up pissing away all their money. If people really did buy only the bare minimum they needed then why do I see so many SUVs and large vehicles when a 4 door compact car is all that is really needed.

Re:More of a distractionary feature.

[sethstorm]

When Motor Trend tested the 2011 Ford F-150 Pickups "the idea was to see whether it makes more sense for buyers to get the twin-turbo V-6 or the 5.0-liter V-8" (their quote). Continuing they said, "From the dyno and track results, the EcoBoost's performance data makes it a better rival for the 6.2 (liter V-8). The EcoBoost F-150 was fastest of the test..."

Except that it still read like it was a mixed bag - where the V-6 still was deficient if you wanted to get anything from it. Shoving more air through won't make up for what those extra cylinders will do.

I've owned a variety of big block and factory turbocharged cars including the real good ones -- 427 'Vette, 6.6 Liter Trans Am, 455 Stage 1 Buick, 3.8 liter Buick Turbo-Regal, GMC Syclone 4.3 liter turbo V-6, Volvo 2.3 liter turbo I-5. The turbo cars were better all around performers than the big blocks -- just as fast and better in every other category. One reason is that with a small, lightweight engine the car can be lighter and better balanced. In a direct comparison, I had a hot-rodder friend who owned the following two cars -- '69 Camaro with a transplanted 427 (L88 427 -- the real factory race engine in the late 60's, 7 liters for the metric oriented reader) and an '86 Buick Regal T-Type with the turbocharged 3.8 liter V6. After some garage tweaks the Regal ran a faster 1/4 mile at the dragstrip than the Camaro, both in the 11's as I recall. And I remember guys breaking rods racing naturally aspirated V-8 cars all the time.

That was before the whole rush by manufacturers to use turbochargers as a cylinder substitute, not an engine complement. Those blocks were fine without them as opposed to the cylinder cut+turbo that happens in the name of environmentalism.

Re:More of a distractionary feature.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I will concede that people who drive the really powerful or large vehicles are also making a statement I still stand by my statement when applied to people who buy cars like the smart car, Prius, or Insight, Leaf, or Volt. I also have a buddy who has a F350 (his might be bigger) because he "needs" it for towing his boat and for going hunting. It is the quad or crew cab (which one is the big cab where the rear doors are the same size as the front one) long box off road Eddie Bauer edition. His boat rides on a single axle trailer and is only slightly larger than another friend's boat which gets towed with a Nissan Versa (probably too small but still can get the job done). As far as hunting he refuses to take it off paved roads because it might damage the paint. Most people are stretched so thin that they can't afford a Chrysler 300 so they end up buying a Civic instead. I drive one of the nicer cars at work but paid less for it than almost everyone else's vehicles because I don't spend every dime I earn and am willing to buy a used vehicle instead of a new one. In the 5 years I have been at my current job I have had the same vehicle (the previous was was totaled out just before I started) yet some of my coworkers are on their 3rd vehicle in that same time period.

Re:More of a distractionary feature.

[thrich81]

Reasonable answer -- I was a bit harsh in my original reply but still pretty much disagree. Two points -- philosophically I like some sort of intake charge compression (turbo or supercharging) because of a basic imbalance in the way a reciprocating engine works -- you have hundreds of psi of exhaust pressure (pushed by the piston) to empty the cylinder but only atmospheric pressure (15 psi) minus throttle losses to fill it on each stroke -- that's why intake valves are always bigger than exhaust valves. Also with a turbo you are able to capture some of the waste heat in the exhaust stream increasing the basic thermodynamic efficiency of the engine. On the whole environmentalism issue -- you have to admit that the engines of 2012 are more powerful and drivable than the best engines of the glory days of the 60's, while being almost infinitely cleaner and considerably more efficient. Of course this is all technology driven but a bunch of that technology was forced by environmental requirements. Since about 1992 (when the new Chevy 5.7 liter LT-1 came out) the car makers have shown we can have it all -- clean, efficient engines and more power than than you can use on the street. This drive to even smaller displacements is just along the same trend as technology gets even better.

Sedans?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF is a sedan? Americans.

Re:Sedans?

[Trepidity]

A "sedan" in US English is what UKians call a "saloon car".

I'm not sure the UK wins less ridiculous name on this one, unless your saloon car also has swinging wooden doors, serves alcohol, and has several cowboys as passengers.

Re:Sedans?

[Gabrill]

You mean yours doesn't?

Re:Sedans?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure the UK wins less ridiculous name on this one, unless your saloon car also has swinging wooden doors, serves alcohol, and has several cowboys as passengers.

Mine does, here in Ireland. I leave my hat in the back of the car, too.

Also, I saw in an old episode of Top Gear that Volvo was to come out with a similar system, but would vibrate the seat instead. Maybe that explains poor driving by women *ducks*.

Bad Timing

[assertation]

Bad timing for that feature, after Toyotos troubles. People now know that steering wheels, accelerator pedals, brakes are just interfaces, not the actual "controls". I think many people would prefer for cars to be less automatic and give them more control from that perspective.

What happens when Ford, like Toyoto, outsources some component to a third party who fucks up? You are driving along one day when you car decides you aren't driving properly and decides to ram you into a tree.

Re:Bad Timing

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens when Ford, like Toyoto, outsources some component to a third party who fucks up? You are driving along one day when you car decides you aren't driving properly and decides to ram you into a tree.

Naw, that'll be a Dodge not a Ford.

Re:Bad Timing

[Anonymous Coward]

it's "toyota" not "toyoto"

Re:Bad Timing

[LostCluster]

Automotive automatic driving machines exist, the problem is the danger caused by accidents with non-automated drivers that then sue and create wrongful death verdicts. If there's ever tort reform, automated driving will come quickly thereafter.

Re:Bad Timing

[aenea]

It's already outsourced. Most of the electronics in cars comes from 3rd parties.

Bad timing for that feature, after Toyotos troubles. People now know that steering wheels, accelerator pedals, brakes are just interfaces, not the actual "controls". I think many people would prefer for cars to be less automatic and give them more control from that perspective.

What happens when Ford, like Toyoto, outsources some component to a third party who fucks up? You are driving along one day when you car decides you aren't driving properly and decides to ram you into a tree.

Re:Bad Timing

[jamesh]

I think many people would prefer for cars to be less automatic and give them more control

Sure they would, but people are idiots. Almost everyone I know has nodded off at the wheel at least once in their life, a few have even left the road because of it. This feature is going to save lives and not just the lives of the people falling asleep (although I suspect most people falling asleep at the wheel in Australia end up hitting trees but there are still their passengers to consider).

What you need is an override switch to allow the driver to turn off this feature (like they can also turn off the stability control features etc) and ensure that a judge can use that information when sentencing - "Not only did you fall asleep at the wheel, but you disabled the one feature that would have saved the lives of that family you killed.".

Re:Bad Timing

[shentino]

I can see that happening for chinese electronics with logic bombs targeted at dissidents actually.

Is this a poor mans self driving car?

[trout007]

So if I get on the highway can I set my cruise control and take my hands off the wheel?

Re:Is this a poor mans self driving car?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you take your feet off the unintended acceleration pedal too. That's the one farthest to the right.

Re:Is this a poor mans self driving car?

[Prof.Phreak]

...that, with adaptive cruise control (one that slows down to speed of vehicle in front), and yah,... can prolly cruise for hours without touching the controls. Can't wait!

Re:Is this a poor mans self driving car?

[tftp]

So if I get on the highway can I set my cruise control and take my hands off the wheel?

Sure you can, until the nearest construction zone or any other place where the markings on the road are misleading or invisible. Since you are likely to be sightseeing at that time, if not asleep, and not keeping your hands on the steering wheel, Thanatos is going to visit you shortly.

Re:Is this a poor mans self driving car?

[RandyOo]

In my dreams... I'm sure we'll get there eventually. :)

I have a vehicle with a similar system: a European Honda Accord with LKAS (Lane-Keeping Assist System). It seems to have a watchdog timer in place that checks for input on the steering wheel, and if it doesn't detect anything with circa 14 seconds, the lane-keeping system automatically disables itself (with chimes and flashing yellow warning light on the dash). It's immediately re-enabled the moment you apply any force to the wheel. (It's actually a bit of a pain on a long straightaway, where you don't *need* to make any corrections for that long.)

Re:Is this a poor mans self driving car?

[ZigMonty]

I don't know about ford's implementation, but generally the idea is to give you not quite enough torque to stay in the lane. Take your hands off, and you *will* drift out of the lane. It just reduces fatigue on long drives, as it's the one doing the thinking, and you just provide a minor torque assist to it to confirm you're still awake and have your hands on the wheel.

And yes, of course you can override the damn thing with minimal force. Engineers aren't complete morons.

(I do love all the people who think this is a new invention. It's been in japanese vehicles since the mid 2000s.)

Re:Is this a poor mans self driving car?

[stephanruby]

Yes, pretty much.

Add to that an egg timer, and not much traffic, and you could probably take very short naps between each time the timer rings.

Re:Is this a poor mans self driving car?

[drinkypoo]

So just to be clear, your system disables when you need it the most, when you're building up speed on a straightaway while you're asleep? That sounds really, really stupid, but maybe I have less imagination than the engineers at Honda. What problem was the auto-shutoff supposed to solve? And as an aside, is your Accord a Euro R? Always wondered if those were any fun to drive. The Accord is very good to drive, but I never found it to be actually enjoyable.

Re:Is this a poor mans self driving car?

[RandyOo]

...your system disables when you need it the most, when you're building up speed on a straightaway while you're asleep?

Uh, yeah. I didn't find that out until I'd already bought the car... I'd change it myself, but I'm just a bit leery of trying to hack this sort of system. I'm assuming that the problem the auto-shutoff was supposed to solve was people simply relinquishing control completely, and reading a book, texting, or otherwise intentionally diverting their attention from the road. While I'm disappointed, I have to say that the system is still nice. While driving on the highway, it gives a feeling of "tracks" on the highway, so it feels like the road is guiding you, yet it's very easy to overcome, if necessary. And again, crossing a lane marker OR the disabling of the system is accompanied by chimes and blinky-lights, so hopefully that would be enough to rouse a dozing driver. Then again, you don't really belong on the road if you're drowsy, lane-keeping system or not.

I have the Accord Tourer, the closest US model is the Acura TSX Sport Wagon. (bought it mainly for safety for the wife and kids) Mine is diesel, though, and there are quite a few differences in the feature packages. Coming from a pair of '98 Accords (Coupe and Sedan), I'd call this wagon "sportier" than the Coupe: tight steering, stiff suspension... it's lacking in HP, but it handles curves quite nicely.

Re:Is this a poor mans self driving car?

[cojsl]

Car and Driver recently tested several different cars with lane assist and adaptive cruise to see how far they could drive hands free. None went very far without leaving the lane.

Other people controlling your car?

[assertation]

I wonder what some of the sci-fi/big brother application of this technology might be.

Hackers/terrorists taking over cars on a major freeway to guide people to their deaths?

The police/government deciding they have a problem with you and then seizing control of your car while you are driving it?

Re:Other people controlling your car?

[dr2chase]

Forest for the trees. We tolerate far worse already, and think that it's wonderful.

Do you have any idea how bad it is for us, that so many of us use cars when we could instead be walking or riding bicycles? There was a large, multi-year study in Denmark, and (as they phrased it) non-bicycle commuters had a 38% higher mortality rate (from the US POV, 29% lower mortality rate if you get serious amounts of regular exercise (*)). Follow-on to that study found that bicycle-commuting increased lifespan by 2-5 years.

(*) 29% lower = 38% higher; study found this associated with bicycle commuting, not "exercise", presumably because commuting is daily and non-trivial, unlike some forms of "exercise".

Hmmm

[smpoole7]

It's going to go hoarse here in Alabama.

When I first moved here and experienced my first traffic jam, I watched in amazement as the people drove over the median, onto sidewalks, around light poles and right on the edge of ditches.

Re:Hmmm

[Larryish]

True dat.

Here is Calhoun County, the state/county seems to think that "repaving the roads" means patching the potholes.

The little town I live in can afford to buy the cops brand new Dodge Chargers with all the fruit, but can't seem to repave the roads more often than once every 10 years.

Of course there is a mason lodge on every streetcorner, so what else can you expect?

Re:Hmmm

[Gabrill]

You say this like you've been to the county budget meetings.

Re:Hmmm

[jtownatpunk.net]

If it's done right in the first place, 10 years would be a very short life for a road.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

"go hoarse"

Mmmm. OK, does this mean the car will lose its voice from all the excess beeping? Or is this some regionalism unfamiliar to those of us in the parts of the US that don't have brutal humidity?
 

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

In areas with a lot of freezing and thawing major highways last about 3 years before the top layer of ashphalt must be scraped off and replaced. Maybe in the southern states 10 years is possible, but not in the north.

Re:Hmmm

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Especially down south, 10 years is even short up here in Minnesota where the freeze thaw cycle just destroys roads. The major roads nearest my house are all over 10 years old and haven't been repaved yet. Some of them have been patched in spots and are probably going to be repaved in the next few years. The most major road work that was done near me was this spring when a section of road was replaced when the water main under it burst last winter in a bad cold spell and made a sink hole. The hole will filled and quickly patched in January as a temporary fix and properly repaired in the spring when the weather permitted.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

In Alabama's climate, once every 10 years would be fairly frequent, I would think, except for within a couple miles of the Gulf. Here in Ontario, with a much colder climate, the standard is 14 years for most provincial highways, although it varies by AADT. The busiest freeways with AADTs above 30,000 per lane are resurfaced after 7 to 12 years.

The salt used during winter in colder climates shortens the life of asphalt and especially concrete.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Freemason I'm slightly confused by the closing line of your post. Are Alabama Masons secretly diverting taxpayer funds out of the highway fund to perform building maintenance? I live in a city of 150,000 in Canada with a sizable Masonic Centre housing multiple lodges and appendant bodies, but the roads still get repaved with annoying regularity. It's like the old joke about only having two seasons, winter and road work.

If your local officials aren't doing their jobs, then run for office and do better. You should at least check first though and make sure the roads you're complaining about aren't state owned and maintained. Just because a road runs through your city or county, that doesn't mean the city or county is responsible for upkeep.

Buick

[Fnord666]

You would think Buick would be the first to come out with this in the US, given their customer demographic.

Re:Buick

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no. You almost never see an accident where an elderly person fell asleep at the wheel. That is almost exclusively reserved for stupid 'as long as I drink Red Bull I can stay awake all night safely' types.

Too many qualifiers

[Macman408]

My Prius already does this. But I guess maybe that's a "hatchback", not a "sedan". And admittedly, it's an option available only on the premium configuration, so there might be an argument to be made of whether it's "mainstream" or not. Or maybe they don't consider it a "midsize" vehicle; I hear it has the interior volume of a midsize, but a smaller wheelbase than many midsize cars. It is, at least, "North American", though.

Point being, every one of those qualifiers is there because somebody else really did it first. Not that I'm claiming the Prius did it first, mind you.

It is a nice feature though, and I hope a baby step towards self-driving cars.

Re:Too many qualifiers

[Trepidity]

Does the Prius actually keep you in the lane, or just warn if the car's drifting? If so, how close is it to a self-driving car, assuming freeway travel and no intersections; can you just take your hands off the wheel and let it auto-follow the lane?

Re:Too many qualifiers

[benjamin_scarlet]

The Prius Lane Keep Assist feature does steer a bit, gently - the wheel tends to drift toward it's best guess of the center of the lane. It won't drive for you, though: if you take your hands off the wheel it notices (I think it notices the absence of any applied torque over some reasonably short interval), sounds an alarm and turns off the feature.

Re:Too many qualifiers

[The Master Control P]

Legal CYA. In nominal conditions, it's been possible to build a lane-feedback PID steer-er for a long time. But if it did continue to steer you under automatic control, any accident you're involved in someone will try to sue Ford claiming it's their fault their system steered you into an accident. Because true or not Ford has much deeper pockets than your insurance policy...

Re:Too many qualifiers

[Macman408]

It actually has two systems. One is the Lane Departure Warning that will beep and torque the steering wheel when you leave your lane. The other, Lane Keep Assist, is active when you turn on both LDW and the radar cruise control. It will keep you more towards the center of the lane, and is perhaps most noticeable when you are in a long curve, as the car will hold the steering wheel for you; no effort is required to hold the turn. However, it's obviously not trying to be anything more than a safety system and fatigue reducer; if you let it steer itself, you will bobble annoyingly back and forth within the lane, rather than stay perfectly in the middle. A big downside is that gradual exit ramps, shadows from overpasses, poor lane markings, and many other things cause it to lose sight of the lanes (it beeps twice and stops running for at least 3 seconds or so, or until it can find the lane again). Also, it only has enough torque to steer a very gentle turn, though it can hold a much steeper turn by itself.

With the radar cruise control, it's fairly effortless. It slows down for traffic, and points you in the right-ish direction. It needs a lot of improvement before it could ever be self-driving, and it was obviously designed to assist, not replace, the driver.

Re:Too many qualifiers

[Anonymous Coward]

And if I'm on the jury, I'll find in favor of the driver because this is an accident waiting to happen.

smart cars lead to dumb drivers

[pbjones]

smart cars lead to dumb drivers. On good roads people drive faster, not better. In smart cars people will drive thinking they are safer and will take more risks. As nice as the idea is, the people that this system targets should not be driving.

Re:smart cars lead to dumb drivers

[ewieling]

Drivers are already dumb. This simply helps reduce the number of people they kill.

Re:smart cars lead to dumb drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, not. When airbags were introduced, negligent drivers experienced fewer fatalities. But they caused more.

Re:smart cars lead to dumb drivers

[dr2chase]

Citation? It's hard to imagine risk compensation for airbags; it's not like it's constantly reminding you of its presence (like a seatbelt, or traction control, or helmet), and it's not exactly sweetness and light when it deploys. An airbag broke my sister-in-law's arm, badly.

Re:smart cars lead to dumb drivers

[Pentium100]

But when the airbags were introduced, the negligent drivers most likely did not know that it's not fun when the airbag deploys.

Re:smart cars lead to dumb drivers

[arkane1234]

Proof is in the pudding.
Show is the pudding.

Re:smart cars lead to dumb drivers

[houghi]

So that is the reason those Volvo Station Cars are holding drag races all the time in our street?

Re:smart cars lead to dumb drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's why with all those airbags, seat belts, abs, etc. the death rate has gone up massively. Except the opposite is true.

Re:smart cars lead to dumb drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

Smart phones make dumb people, too...

Re:smart cars lead to dumb drivers

[meta-monkey]

Oh no!!! What will become of the smart, safe, fully aware and competent drivers like the ones who fill the roadways of today?!

Re:smart cars lead to dumb drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

A bad driver can only die once. If the airbag saves him, he can kill again later.

Detecting intentional changes? Simple.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd just like to know how hard the AI will fight if it misinterprets a driver's intentional lane change.

Obviously if you're changing lanes intentionally you should indicate - always. So presumably the system has a simple "if indicating, ignore movement" check somewhere. So this should also prompt people to indicate when they're driving/overtaking, which is an added bonus.

More stuff to go wrong

[SuperTechnoNerd]

Just give me an engine, 4 tires and a steering wheel.
Thanks

Re:More stuff to go wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I like brakes as well.

Re:More stuff to go wrong

[jjjhs]

Amen. More stuff to go wrong, more stuff to fix, higher price tags all around.

Re:More stuff to go wrong

[Zcar]

And a transmission.

Re:More stuff to go wrong

[AJWM]

Heck, something to mount those tires on would be kinda nice, too. And somewhere to sit.

Re:More stuff to go wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Could be direct drive... don't really need the trans. A clutch would be nice to let it idle without moving though..

Re:More stuff to go wrong

[arkane1234]

Are you one of the Squidbillies?

Re:More stuff to go wrong

[Pahroza]

I'll still need my heat and A/C.

$125,000/Accident

[Anonymous Coward]

That seems a little steep. Porches must make their drivers very drowsy.

Re:$125,000/Accident

[rrossman2]

Damage to other property, vehicles, medical bills etc. It all adds up rather quick. (Not to mention increased insurance rates etc)

This isn't new

[comrade1]

This was an offer in an Audi Q5 we had built-to-order here in Switzerland. We put the order through three or four months ago for delivery in March. I put every safety feature possible in the car but the dealer told me not to keep this one because everyone ends up eventually turning it off.

Re:This isn't new

[comrade1]

Oh, wait. I just read that it will steer you back into the lane. Holy crap does that seem like a bad idea.

Re:This isn't new

[maxdread]

Seems like there might be times it simply freaks the driver out and makes them over correct the wrong direction.

No effing way I'm trusting my life to this...

[EmagGeek]

How long will it be before someone dies because a bug in the software caused their car to steer unexpectedly into something, or causing the driver to overcompensate (telling the computer "NO!"), causing a crash?

This has disaster written all over it.

Re:No effing way I'm trusting my life to this...

[Anonymous Coward]

I know a little bit about the systems in the Infinity cars. Any input from the steering wheel overrides the computer. The system is able to monitor how well it is tracking the lanes. There is no auto correction when the system is not tracking well. There are some conditions that cause tracking difficulties so you can't depend completely upon the computer.

Re:No effing way I'm trusting my life to this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you're arrogant, stupid, and dangerous, and I hope that if you die in a car crash because you fell asleep that you take no one else with you.

Really, I'd rather have you simply give up driving altogether, and leave that task to people who realistically understand that NOBODY is a 100% perfect driver. The roads would be safer as a result.

Re:No effing way I'm trusting my life to this...

[Belial6]

A little bit longer than it will take for someone to die because they don't have the feature.

Re:No effing way I'm trusting my life to this...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're obviously an uber-automotive engineer and the idiots in Japan^H^H^H^H^HDetroit never thought of that.

Re:No effing way I'm trusting my life to this...

[EmagGeek]

The definition of "bug" is "an error in the code that causes undesired or unintentional behavior of the system."

I'm talking about the software case where the system does NOT do what it is supposed to do, like the toyota software bug that caused unintentional acceleration in their vehicles equipped with throttle-by-wire.

If there is a servo connected to the steering wheel that can cause it to move, there is potential for a bug in the software to cause that servo to move when it is not supposed to. Uncommanded movement of the steering wheel is very bad.

The infiniti system uses only the brakes, which can also cause change in direction, but not as quickly and significantly as turning the steering wheel. Turning the steering wheel a small amount causes a large departure from intended direction, and very quickly, probably before many drivers could react to it (especially elderly drivers with poor reflxes).

Re:No effing way I'm trusting my life to this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably a lot less often than a failure in the software of the person driving.

Yes computers have bugs - but they are still more reliable and able to make quicker decisions than humans.

Re:No effing way I'm trusting my life to this...

[Dahan]

the toyota software bug that caused unintentional acceleration in their vehicles equipped with throttle-by-wire.

Which bug would that be? The investigation found no evidence of any bug--the causes of the unintended acceleration were found to be "improperly installed floor mats, sticky pedals, and driver error."

Won't stop the Al Gores, but it reduces choice.

[sethstorm]

It won't stop the Al Gores from driving even more offensive vehicles which have the proper-sized engine blocks. It reduces choice for the rest of us that live with environmentalists' overkill demands.

Re:Won't stop the Al Gores, but it reduces choice.

[ryanov]

Who the hell cares what Al Gore is driving? One's sense of right and wrong should not come from whether or not they can find someone else on earth doing the wrong thing anyhow. Incidentally, it appears Gore drives a Lexus Hybrid from a little bit of Googling. Yes, I know, his house, etc., etc. but again, he's not my teen idol and I don't see why it's relevant.

I've known two people killed by sleeping drivers.

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

Maybe this kind of technology can save a few lives.

What about roads with no lanes?

[Anonymous Coward]

About 70% of the roads here in Puerto Rico have no lane marks due to lack of maintenance. How would that system work? Or will it indicate it cannot engage in such conditions?

Re:What about roads with no lanes?

[Dripdry]

Puerto Rico!? Listen, buddy, I do sympathize but have you BEEN to the states lately, because that's what about half the roads here are looking like too.

exactly how far behind are they?

[Anonymous Coward]

from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_departure_warning_system

snippets:

In 2007 Infiniti offered a newer version of this feature, which it called the Lane Departure Prevention (LDP) system. This feature utilizes the vehicle stability control system to help assist the driver maintain lane position by applying gentle brake pressure on the appropriate wheels.

In 2004, Toyota added a Lane Keeping Assist feature to the Crown Majesta which can apply a small counter-steering force to aid in keeping the vehicle in its lane.

2003: Honda launched its Lane Keep Assist System (LKAS) on the Inspire.[13][14] It provides up to 80% of steering torque to keep the car in its lane on the highway.

Re:exactly how far behind are they?

[rrossman2]

Infinity isn't in the same class, crown is a Toyota brand not found in the US, and as far as I'm aware the Honda system is available in Europe, not the US yet

Re:exactly how far behind are they?

[arkane1234]

Infiniti (with an i) is owned by Nissan. These technologies can easily traverse between an entire companies product base.

Goodbye Ford. We knew you well...

[Anonymous Coward]

One accident, one BIG lawsuit. No more Ford Motor Company.

Re:Goodbye Ford. We knew you well...

[rrossman2]

They aren't the first company to implement this.... its a fairly tested setup outside of the US

Sounds good

[Anonymous Coward]

"it will also steer the car back into the right lane"... Finally, I can catch a nap on those long drives.

US-sized in that you get more car for the dollar.

[sethstorm]

Versus Europe and Asia, you get more car in the US, and it is built for the wide open spaces that frustrate golfcarts.

What is it with Europe and their hate on ordinary people having Detroit-like power under the hood, up to the point where people let V8 behemoths rot in garages for fear of taxes?

US cars are hardly inelegant or antiquated - they just weren't built with austerity, but built with pride. You don't see General Motors/Chrysler/Ford cars being blown up by terrorists; you see them use cheap-as-shit Toyotas, Hyundais, Mitsubishis, Peugeots, and other non-US cars that are made with no attention to quality or design.

The US made the mistake of allowing transplants in the door during the days of import quotas in the 1980's. That, and we haven't protected our manufacturers enough to keep US cars that are truly built with only a US audience in mind.

Another feature

[McDrewbie]

How about after say 3 times the car has to enable this feature, it removes all control from the driver, keeps their belt buckled, and drives them to the nearest 12-hr Driving Course for a re-upper.

Re:Another feature

[coredog64]

Wasn't it George Carlin that had the bit about adding dart guns to cars? When some guy did something wrong, you'd shoot a dart at his car, and when he got to 3 darts, the cops would pull him over for being an asshole.

Oh crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Now people can drive drunk and the car will offer a good disguise! AWESOME?!

Nah.

What does it do if you miss the Ford dealership?

[rcpitt]

At oil change time when you go to turn into the Mr. Lube the steering wheel resists, the doors and windows lock, the radio turns to a Ford oil change commercial and you're driven to the nearest Ford dealership

AI ... fight!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd just like to know how hard the AI will fight if it misinterprets a driver's intentional lane change.

To the death !!

again, not solving the problem makes it worse

[holophrastic]

it's not difficult to change lanes, nor to stay in one lane. that's, quite frankly, the easiest part of driving. I don't need help. And keeping me between lines when the road ignores the lines -- construction zones, test paint strips, icons, etc. -- is a terrible idea.

but more than anything else, why should I avoid driving drowsy when my car can help me out? you'll get more drowsy drivers, and more drunk drivers, than ever before.

you'll also have a whole host of drivers blaming a crash on this feature, whether or not it's true.

you've just taken both responsibilty and accountability away from the driver, and put it into something that can't be held accountable, and doesn't have a drivers licence. congrats.

but hey, here's the truth. this is EXACTLY like letting your 8-year old child steer from the passenger seat, while on a long highway drive. it's very dangerous and very illegal. not because your child can't stay between the lines. because the driver is the driver.

Re:again, not solving the problem makes it worse

[jamesh]

And keeping me between lines when the road ignores the lines -- construction zones, test paint strips, icons, etc. -- is a terrible idea.

What part of your brain stops you thinking that they've already considered this???

but more than anything else, why should I avoid driving drowsy when my car can help me out? you'll get more drowsy drivers, and more drunk drivers, than ever before.

Because you're a sensible and responsible driver? Other people aren't, but I doubt they are going to be any less responsible just because a car exists with this feature. And i'd prefer that other people have cars with this feature because they are less likely to drift across the road and suddenly be driving the wrong way in my lane.

you'll also have a whole host of drivers blaming a crash on this feature, whether or not it's true.

And this is new how? People will try and blame everything else first before accepting responsibility themselves. This is just one more thing to blame it on, but that's not a particularly big deal.

you've just taken both responsibilty and accountability away from the driver, and put it into something that can't be held accountable, and doesn't have a drivers licence. congrats.

As long as it saves more people than it kills, and i'm pretty sure it will by a large amount, then what is your problem?

but hey, here's the truth. this is EXACTLY like letting your 8-year old child steer from the passenger seat, while on a long highway drive. it's very dangerous and very illegal. not because your child can't stay between the lines. because the driver is the driver.

I'm all for car analogies, but that one is stupid.

Re:again, not solving the problem makes it worse

[holophrastic]

the part of my brain that's very familiar with the false positives associated with computer decision-making algorithms.

people started driving faster when they got airbags. welcome to humans. there will be more drowsy drivers as a result of this. look up humans in a book and start to learn about them.

there are very few things that you can blame for a drowsy crash now. after weather and an actually broken car, you're down to minutia. by car crashed by itself will now become a legitimate reason -- whereas today, it doesn't hold up at all.

I don't think it'll save more people. I think it'll produce poorer drivers, and ultimately there will be more crashes. they won't be attributed to this feature, because the drivers won't be drowsy, they'll just be inexperienced -- because they never needed to cope with they own deficiencies. so crashes will go up because drivers won't have skills.

it's not a car analogy, we're talking about cars. and having your passenger turn your wheel is exactly the same as having anything else turn your wheel -- in this case, a webcam on the windshield.

Re:again, not solving the problem makes it worse

[pehrs]

I sincerely hate this zombie argument, because it is trivial to disprove it, and it has been disproved so many times.

What you are claiming is that investment in safety is pointless, because drivers will compensate for the added safety by driving more recklessly.

But people are not robots with some magical calculation that balances risk vs speed/tiredness/etc and constantly trying to find the optimal point. They drive the car more or less the same regardless of the safety features in it. They drive their top modern car and their t-ford the same way. If they get to choose they drive the car at a bit over the speed limit regardless of the weather and circumstances.

Passive car safety systems (like airbags) does not have any significant impact on accident frequency when you correct for related factors (age of car, driver experience etc). And, no, people in cars with airbags does not drive faster than other people (if you control for the same factors). However, passive systems do reduce the injuries suffered in accidents significantly. Active car safety (ABS, ESP, Lane Departure Protection etc) systems significantly reduces the accident frequency. The effect is so large that insurance companies have lower premiums for cars with active systems.

The only significant compensating effect I know about is added accident risk on roads that are made safer and then graded for a higher speed limit.

So, please stop this silly argument. It might sound reasonable, but there is no good statistics to back it up.

Re:again, not solving the problem makes it worse

[holophrastic]

you're very much incorrect. I'm for all sorts of safety systems that allow the driver to drive safer. put more tools in the hands of the operator, always, and things will be better. but in this case, you're taking skills away from the operator. it doesn't matter why. if a driver chooses to drift across lanes, the car won't. there is now no way to instruct the car to drift. you just can't.

traction control is fantastic -- as long as you have the button to disable it when you need to. same with air bags, by the way. there are a great many times when airbags and seatbelts and traction control are more dangerous. but all of these things tend to become enforced upon the driver, who really should be able to control his own vehicle.

for example, in this case, I'd be fine with a system that occasionally notices that the driver is doing very little driving, and asks the driver to respond. if the driver doesn't, then by all means take over. but when I'm enjoying a mountain road, at full speed-limit speeds, on twisties typically taken at half-speed, you'd better believe that I drift across the line. very much intentionally. in those cases, fightitng even a minor change in my steering wheel dynamics could be lethal, causing me to crash into the mountain-side, or to fly off of the mountain itself.

Re:again, not solving the problem makes it worse

[Anonymous Coward]

do you have any studies on the correlation between airbags and driving speed? I feel like it's not entirely about airbags.

Re:US-sized in that you get more car for the dolla

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you actually posted that utter crap not as an AC?

Every. Single. Word you posted is trash. But if you are that dumb then an American shit pile IS for you!

At the expense of US specializations.

[sethstorm]

What is supposedly gained in the part sharing is lost in the cars becoming bland and un-American - where you get told that you are not worthy of a car from your own country.

It'd be fine if you could just order a foreign market car, while the US keeps its home market vehicles large, US-sized, powered and priced for the masses.

Re:At the expense of US specializations.

[Mad Merlin]

It'd be fine if you could just order a foreign market car, while the US keeps its home market vehicles large, US-sized, powered and priced for the masses.

You realize that your own government is eviscerating the chances of "US-sized, powered and priced" cars ever coming back, right? See the new CAFE requirements for mileage.

Will it wake me when my exit's coming up?

[outsider007]

Also I'd like to request a 'snooze bar' feature, sometimes I like to get a few more minutes sleep before getting off the highway.

Re:Will it wake me when my exit's coming up?

[youn]

ROFL.. You get off the highway? lol, niiice :p

You mean Opel.

[sethstorm]

Buick has been hollowed out and made into something un-American.

Re:You mean Opel.

[Anonymous Coward]

good. the new buick regal is an aweseome car. I almost got it instead of the benz, but the missus didn't like the american cloud suspension.

Re:You mean Opel.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Just because the average age of a new Buick owner is dead doesn't mean they are un-American. Even the dead still fulfill their patriotic duty in Chicago and vote.

Re:US-sized in that you get more car for the dolla

[Anonymous Coward]

US automakers, set to their own devices, produced SUVs and muscle cars, and pretty much crap otherwise.

When oil was suddenly $100 per barrell, they couldn't sell them. Not very far sighted.

Your "Everything's bigger in Texas" attitude is just a bunch of "rah rah rah" and very little pragmatism or business sense (nor general empathy or social awareness).

While I do enjoy my sporty car, it's 2.0L flat-4 and the new models produce almost 240hp. It's not exactly a gas hog, and can accelerate at almost uncomfortable speed. I just don't understand why your average commuter even wants 300-500hp under the hood. That seems both dangerous and wasteful.

It's not that I don't agree that it's your right to be both dangerous and wasteful, but I believe you should pay dearly for doing so, so that the rest of us who are sensible don't have to clean up after you.

interfering with evolution

[Mister Liberty]

Personally, I'd prefer the drowsy types and the like to be evolutionary selected away.

bjd

Re:interfering with evolution

[tftp]

Personally, I'd prefer the drowsy types and the like to be evolutionary selected away.

A tired driver is likely tired because he was working long and hard. Selecting them away will leave you with people who do nothing and therefore are always driving in their top notch condition. Be careful what you wish for.

Re:interfering with evolution

[WrecklessSandwich]

Personally, I'd prefer the drowsy types and the like to be evolutionary selected away.

bjd

What about the people they crash into? Think about this in terms of drunk drivers for a moment. When drunk drivers crash, they quite frequently kill people who committed no crime other than being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Does that qualify them for being evolutionarily selected?

Re:US-sized in that you get more car for the dolla

[sethstorm]

Might be grating for your ears to hear that, Anonymous Coward, but if someone is willing to rig a car to blow up, the car isn't something that has any value to it. This usually means you have cars like those made from Japanese, Korean and austerity-minded European designs. Who's going to miss that golfcart when there are tons of others just as bad?

On the other hand, US cars don't have such affliction for having some actual quality and attention to detail not given to cars for developing nation markets.

Japan had its chance in the 1980's to overtake the US in large-car production. Once it went in the keicar/speed-limiter-by-gentleman's-agreement direction, it was forever lost.

Korea just chops up whatever designs are trendy and puts them in a legally-friendly-but-blatant copy of a package.

China just takes your designs.

Re:US-sized in that you get more car for the dolla

[Dripdry]

You, sir, have trolled handsomely. Well done! They actually went for it!

Disengage warning

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as the system also alerts you when the system is OFF. Otherwise you may think no alarm and no correction means you are fine when in fact the system has disengaged for some reason (faded lane markings, snow, etc.)

Lovely.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd just like to know how hard the AI will fight if it misinterprets a driver's intentional lane change.

You suck at driving. You're absolutely nowhere near the level of driving skill that you think you're at. Not even close.

I, for one, welcome the day when cars drive themselves, because the vast majority of drivers are idiots. Idiots who think they know better, which is the worst kind of idiot.

Risk compensation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Risk compensation? Might not solve much.

That wasn't trolling.

[Anonymous Coward]

I just don't care for Eurotrash that's built on the assumption that people don't drive.

Phrasing...

[fahrbot-bot]

...it will also steer the car back into the right lane...

I hope they mean "correct" (or "current") lane.

Great for drunk driving

[Anonymous Coward]

Is a drunk drivers wish come true.

It'll help ...

[PPH]

... when I'm texting someone. Its a real aggravation to have to look up at the road so often.

Dumbing down = a race to the bottom.

[Anonymous Coward]

This has been done before, in aviation. Commercial aircraft use
a "stick shaker" which forcibly shakes the controls to warn the
pilots of an impending stall.

Despite this, planes have crashed in classic stall / spin accidents.

Installing such warning devices in cars might prevent a few accidents,
but the overwhelming effect of such devices will be to encourage drivers
to pay even less attention than they pay now, because they will expect
the car to "warn" them.

The scenario depicted in "Idicracy" ( the basic plot of which was derived
from a short story called "The Marching Morons" ) is coming true.

Re:Dumbing down = a race to the bottom.

[0123456]

Despite this, planes have crashed in classic stall / spin accidents.

It's quite possible that AF447 crashed _because_ of such a system, as the stall warning apparently turns off when the airspeed is too low, so when the pilot stalled and then pushed the stick forward, airspeed increased until the stall warning came on and he then pulled the stick back again so it went off, ensuring that they were going to die. Any pilot in such a situation without a stall warning should have figured out that the plane was stalled and pushed forward until it recovered.

Automation has made 'easy' flying safer at the risk of making complex flying more dangerous.

Re:Dumbing down = a race to the bottom.

[Ksevio]

In the AF447 flight, the stall warning was going off for almost a minute. The correct thing to do in such a situation is to descend out of the stall, which is what an autopilot would have done if such system existed for emergency situations.

Re:US-sized in that you get more car for the dolla

[Gaygirlie]

US cars are hardly inelegant or antiquated - they just weren't built with austerity, but built with pride.

Aye, I suppose it's a matter of taste: some people value their lives, others like driving around in four-wheeled coffins and call that pride.. ;)

Drowsy drivers? More inTexticated than anything!

[X!0mbarg]

It's going to have a more important function: Keeping drivers that are Texting (or otherwise distracted with their hand-held electronic devices) from wandering too much.

The use of hand-held devices by a driver has been made illegal in so many states already, and yet, people will simply keep their device in their lap, or lower than the dash, so as to keep it out of sight of the police.The thinking is: so long as the cops don't see the device in use, they can still get away with it.

Lane-wandering, and erratic driving are what universally alerts police to such use. The call logs and text history is more than enough to issue a ticket for the device usage in such cases. If the logs and history are blank, they can still issue a 'careless driving' ticket.

All in all, the lane departure warning system is aimed more at distracted drivers than drowsy ones. Just another crutch to allow already unsafe drivers to think they are more in control, and open a margin even wider for them to abuse their Privilege of sharing the highways with the rest of us ;)

Keeping Dangerous Drivers on the Road

[guttentag]

Normally a drunk or drowsy person would run off the road and either be jolted awake by the rumble strips or hit a tree/guardrail/ditch/etc. It sounds morbid, but they are the only ones injured or killed.

This new system defeats the purpose of the rumble strips by preventing your from getting to them and keeps you on the road until you hit someone else. It turns a dangerous, incapacitated driver's vehicle into a guided missile. This is a very bad thing. I'm not at all convinced the a vibrating steering wheel will wake them up... Rumble strips violently rock the whole car and make a loud, disturbing noise.

Re:Keeping Dangerous Drivers on the Road

[swonkdog]

... Rumble strips violently rock the whole car and make a loud, disturbing noise.

That sound may be disturbing if you are a responsible driver who may for one reason or another have momentarily lapsed in control of your vehicle. Out in Las Vegas the sun destroys painted lines so quickly that they have more or less given up repainting them and now delineate lanes with little round plastic domes. I've seen many times where a drunk driver will use that 'loud, disturbing noise' to navigate. They call it driving by Braille. You and I consider that noise to be disturbing, they consider it to be reassuring. It's one of the reasons that I will absolutely not be out on the roads tonight (New Years Eve).

Re:Keeping Dangerous Drivers on the Road

[Anonymous Coward]

On a road without a median, drifting into the oncoming lane tends to hurt more than the drowsy driver. In fact, the drowsy driver is looser and more likely to walk away than the alert driver they slam into.

Centre-lane rumble strips aren't everywhere, nor even practical everywhere.

Re:US-sized in that you get more car for the dolla

[sethstorm]

US automakers, set to their own devices, produced SUVs and muscle cars, and pretty much crap otherwise.

That says US automakers specialize in large cars meant for the mass market - and should be allowed to make them as such without environmental restrictions. That's why they're not doing so well - they're being forced by regulation to do something that is not part of Detroit's DNA.

It'd just be fine if one did not have to raid the luxury tier just to get anything greater than 4+turbo. I'm not asking for an exotic V10 or V12.

As for what I have, it's a 215HP Short North V6 on a 3600lb body. No turbocharger present - it'd do more harm than good on the already-underpowered 4T65-E that it is mated to.

All I'm wanting to see is that US-sized/powered vehicles remain available to the masses, not something reserved for the nomenklatura.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing - Negatory!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a Ron Paul devotee of individual liberty, and as far as I'm concerned that shd start the moment I leave my house!

I have to wonder whether he will join me in denouncing traffic laws in the name of individual liberties.

Like, there's nothing in the Constitution (or Bible, come to think of it) about stuff like stop signs, traffic lights, driving lanes, signaling, etc.

Shouldn't we all have the right to go out and drive any way, wherever, and whenever we want? (Acknowledged that some of us already seem to do that!)

I mean, it's our liberties at stake here, and that should start as soon as we get out of the house! This is fundamental.

No?

A

Re:I've known two people killed by sleeping driver

[the eric conspiracy]

Nah, it will just encourage people to perform non-driving tasks while behind the wheel, such as apply eye makeup, shave, eat breakfast, text, look at other people in car while talking, sleep, and so forth.

Awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

Another 10 years and we won't even have to know HOW to drive! Unless, you know.. an accident happens. But at least we can sue the auto manufacturers for that then.

How about this modicfication?

[fizzer06]

I would like to see the car makers install a mechanical arm that, when drifting across lanes, would snatch the cell phone from the drivers hands and shove it up their asses.

Re:How about this modicfication?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

My only question is how far up as there are different ass depths? I mean have you see some of the people in this country, I have seen rolls of fat going over elbows so that their forearm looks like a pendulum hanging out of a bell. On someone like that it would have to go a good 18 inches to even make it in their ass.

Re:How about this modicfication?

[hb253]

My hero!

Also, the robo-hand/arm would twist your nipples off if it catches you sleeping.

A US car is the coffin-maker, not the coffin.

[sethstorm]

I value mine enough to put plenty of Detroit metal between me and the next person - and have enough engine to not need to use it. If anything, it's the austerity-minded compact that's likely to become a coffin - whether it gets blown off a bridge by a strong breeze or compacted by collision.

Re:A US car is the coffin-maker, not the coffin.

[Gaygirlie]

That's like driving a needlessly weighty, large, gas-guzzling device just for the sake of being able to wave imaginary penis around.

Oh, wait, now I get it.

Re:A US car is the coffin-maker, not the coffin.

[arkane1234]

I like the fact that my car doesn't need that extra weight or complexity because I have protection mechanisms thorughout the vehicle. I'm not even going to think about using the coffin metaphor.

You speak like an uneducated individual who fails to realize that each vehicle is tested for it's collision breakdown, etc.
This includes American vehicles... you know, the ones from Mexico. You should check out the ratings LOL

Re:A US car is the coffin-maker, not the coffin.

[drunkennewfiemidget]

Ugh. I thought people on /. were smarter than this pig-headed bullshit.

And now I'm realising I've responded to two of your posts. Depressing.

Unneeded worry in submitter's summary...

[jo7hs2]

The submitter injected unneeded worry. According to Ford via USAToday: "The driver can overcome assistance and vibration at any time by turning the steering wheel, accelerating or braking" The article also uses the word "nudge" in reference to the control input, so I read all this to mean the system won't be fighting drivers. See: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/12/ford-says-fusion-sedan-will-get-lane-departure-system/1

No Camping Mode, Please!

[tunapez]

How about a routine that vibrates the steering wheel until you get out of the passing lane?

The single best law that could be enforced....

[wealthychef]

is to force people to always leave at least 3 car lengths between themselves and the car in front of them on the freeway, including onramps and exits. (metering lights effectively create this situation, and they do work). This way, people could always merge, change lanes, etc. Once a merge or lane change was accomplished, another merge or lane change by the same car should not be allowed until proper distance is established from the car in front again. If the police would simply enforce this one law ruthlessly, road conditions would improve dramatically. The preponderant reason for traffic jams is people not letting others merge or execute needed maneuvers, and people making sudden lane changes, both of which cause sudden braking, which is amplified backwards through traffic. Smooth driving, even under severely packed conditions, would alleviate almost all traffic jams.

Re:The single best law that could be enforced....

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm - no. You are talking about stationary waves in traffic, not traffic jams. Traffic jams occur when the number of vehicles on the road exceeds the roads capacity to carry (including choke points at intersections and exits). And while smooth driving can delay reaching this saturation point it is a matter of physics that you get there eventually.

And 3 car lengths is not enough following distance - frightening if you don't have at least that (say 45 feet) which at 60mph equates to about 0.5 seconds following distance. In general a following distance of 2-3 seconds (so 180-270 feet) is recommended.

Re:The single best law that could be enforced....

[wealthychef]

Two points: first, the road's capacity is not set by a law of physics. It is a heuristic reached by observation, which is to say, which assumes nobody changes their behavior at all. In fact, if you increase the number of vehicles beyond what's possible to move through at a given speed, physics requires that everyone INCREASE their speed. Imagine a line of stopped cars with adequate space between them. It's not possible. They will be moving.
Next, there is a difference between an ideal recommendation (which I agree is safest) and a law. The law should be the legal minimum. 2-3 seconds is probably too large for such a legal limit, but I'd be happy with any law that ENFORCED a cushion between cars. Sorry for the screaming caps.

hum

[Anonymous Coward]

So instead of scraping against the median or drifting off the road when you’re drowsy, you and your car will keep driving in the lane until a sharp bend and have a worse crash?

Re:Turn signals are a good thing - Negatory!

[errhuman]

This is a joke right? I accept the inevitable whooshes if it is. Please say it is.

What couldn't possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Until the car's systems are ready and COMPETENT to take full control of my car, and 100% of driving responsibilities, in short, until it's a better driver than I AM, (which won't be for an awfully long goddamned time, the way things look now,) I don't want or need, (nor will I accept) a car of any kind that has the ability to seize control of the FUCKING STEERING. No, thank you. You can keep that shit.

What if you're driving somewhere where lane lines have been drawn erroneously, or where an old traffic configuration (due to roadwork in one set of lanes) would divert (and did, say... last week) divert traffic off the freeway and across a median? This week, work done, there are concrete barriers there.

I've seen this myself, where a set of lane lines crudely (and incompletely) painted over would have taken anyone dumb enough to follow them right into some giant slabs of concrete.

I welcome the idea of self-driving cars, but the computer still has a LONG way to go before it can do MY job. If the world were ideal, with no possible unexpected situations, then sure... but the world is not ideal, stuff comes up every now and then, and I still haven't seen anything indicating computers can drive. Autopilot is a far cry from auto-driver.

Re:What couldn't possibly go wrong?

[shentino]

I also don't trust the car.

Who is to say that the gubbermint will keep its paws off of it?

Thing is I don't trust anything that can think for me. My enemy might have programmed it.

Re:US-sized in that you get more car for the dolla

[dr2chase]

I've never owned an American car, and I've happily driven my various dinky little cars the full length of I-10 and most of I-5. I really don't get this love of the giant cars. A car is just transportation, for those trips in the range where bicycles and airplanes don't work so well.

Ford died when they went Eurotrash.

[sethstorm]

They're already dead as a US car company.

How can they die again?

Re:Ford died when they went Eurotrash.

[arkane1234]

Both Ford & GM are zombies right now. I'd consider Tesla more of an American company.

Re:Ford died when they went Eurotrash.

[Cosgrach]

Ford as a company died when Henry Ford died. It has just taken a really, really long time.

more C/D lanes more flyover help as well

[Joe_Dragon]

some cloverleafs even with C/D lanes back up bad at times at least the C/D keep the backup off of the main lanes. But flyovers get rid of cross traffic slowing stuff down.

Gets scarier by the minute

[garyoa1]

Sorry but I find all this computer controlled garbage kinda dangerous. One glitch and you die. It's gotten to the point where you no longer have to learn how to drive, you just learn how to point it.

Re:Gets scarier by the minute

[arkane1234]

You say that last sentence as if it's a bad thing.
I expect by the time I retire or die that technology will be to the point that I can tell the computer in the car the address to my doctors office, and it will drive me there. Not a far stretch, with the advancements we've made and will be making. Just in 10 years, we've increased immensely in tracking along with mobile computing technologies. I wasn't expecting electric vehicle tech to be so mainstream until 2020 or so, and you see where we are with that.

Re:Gets scarier by the minute

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I would rather trust a computer than most of the drivers I see on the road. I can't count the number of people I have seen driving too fast for the conditions and end up in the ditches and accidents.

Re:Gets scarier by the minute

[garyoa1]

Just saying it can be a bad thing. FWIW, this is from someone who drove heavy truck for over 20 years and also been building his own computers for just as long.

Really depends on what you computerize. This feature can be handy. Unless there's a glitch and the vibration doesn't stop. Or a feature that should turn on your lights at dusk... but doesn't.

It actually took me quite some time to get used to anti-lock brakes. And I still hate them. There is simply not the full control most experienced drivers are used to. But they had to learn how to brake. It ain't just stepping on the pedal. It's how you do it. And that system doesn't always get it right.

As far as computer controlled gas pedal? Wow. A simple cable worked for 100 years and pretty much failsafe. I still scratch my head over the Toyota fiasco. They never really explained it. Said the computer didn't cause it. But was it another case of a company "too big to fail"? I suppose we'll never know.

At any rate, we just have to learn to point and shoot.

And while I'm on the rant, I still miss vent windows. :)

Bad idea!

[ilovegeorgebush]

Am I the only one that thinks this is a really fucking bad idea?!

Re:Bad idea!

[ZigMonty]

Yes. Well, no, but you could at least point out *why* you think it's a bad idea. Do you have a problem with cruise control too? You do realise that this is meant for long freeway drives, not complicated manoeuvring in urban areas, right?

Re:Bad idea!

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Probably not, but have you seen the quality of most drivers. I see far too many who can't keep their vehicle in their damn lane. What we really need is driver training like the Germans have where getting a driving licence isn't just handed out like candy.

Lawsuits

[p51d007]

The first time it fails to automatically correct, or for whatever reason there is a car crash, you can expect lawsuits plenty. Instead of taking PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, we rely on technology, or try to LOL.

Re:Turn signals are a good thing - Negatory!

[Anonymous Coward]

...Like, there's nothing in the Constitution (or Bible, come to think of it) about stuff like stop signs, traffic lights, driving lanes, signaling, etc...

Most, if not all, of these laws are created by states and local communities. The Federal government has little to do with traffic laws.

Annoying in construction zones

[Anonymous Coward]

This would, no doubt, be quite annoying to put up with in the many "relaned" construction zones that pop up here in Maine every Spring.

Re:Annoying in construction zones

[arkane1234]

It's okay, we'll just omit Maine then.

Surprising statistics

[Vrtigo1]

100,000 crashes every year, leading to 1,500 deaths, and 71,000 injuries.

Call me crazy but those numbers seem pretty good in terms of a significant number of crashes with no injuries. Out of the 100,000 crashes, say 50% involve at least two cars (the others 50,000 drivers are running into non-car objects such as trees, guard rails, etc), so that would mean that there are at least 150,000 cars involved in the 100,000 crashes they report. Out of 150,000 crashes, you have 72,500 injuries (i'm counting death as a form of injury), so that means that you have a better than 50% chance of coming out of this type of accident injury free, which I found pretty surprising.

The RISKS Digest covered this in 2006

[Cerlyn]

I'm surprised that I do not see a link to the RISKS article about how a motorist was trapped in a traffic circle for 14 hours yet.

The technology in the RISKS entry was a bit more advanced (lane occupation detection) than what seems to be described in this article.

(And if someone cannot it figure out from the date, the RISKS entry was an April fool's joke; but a lot of people took it seriously at the time.)

Go away, you're not 21

[tepples]

The Federal government has little to do with traffic laws.

If you think the Congress's post roads power doesn't affect local traffic laws, then explain why local restaurants that host live bands and serve alcohol won't let in 18 to 20 year olds.

Lane Departure System (LDS)

[dugn]

Kirk: [Explaining Spock's odd behavior] Oh, him? He's harmless. Part of the free speech movement at Berkeley in the sixties. I think he did a little too much LDS.

Watch out Mormons. A new LDS is in town.

Re:US-sized in that you get more car for the dolla

[Sponge Bath]

I really don't get this love of the giant cars.

It is based on visions of un-congested roads, plentiful parking and cheap gas. That is not reality for most drivers who find driving an unwieldy gas guzzling behemoth is an unhappy burden.

Re:US-sized in that you get more car for the dolla

[arkane1234]

I'm sorry, i was deafened by your ignorance towards reality. I'll ignore your first paragraph since it just seemed like some kind of attempted patriotism or something. The others are just in-your-face wrong. Japanese cars DID overtake american "large car" production, considering there's little to no large cars sold in todays market outside of midsize sedans in the $50K+ range such as Infinity, Lexus, BMW, etc.
The rest just seems like you're attempting to simplify everything into country status when everything is company-based. The sad thing is, Korean cars are better in quality than the American cars of the same variety :(

Oh boy..

[drunkennewfiemidget]

More shitty technology that can break and will cost hundreds (thousands?) to repair that are put in cars to save idiotic drivers from themselves.

How about we just make getting a fucking driver's license harder than not shitting yourself so we can get these fucking gremlins off the road in the first place?

Re:I've known two people killed by sleeping driver

[arkane1234]

No encouragement is necessary with that. Whether or not this is put into implementation, it occurs readily.
It's not like someone is going to be like "oh gee, I can just take my hands off the wheel as the car bounces like a ping pong ball in my lane.".

Sensing on the weak side

[Animats]

I have misgivings about these intermediate stops between manual driving and automatic driving. Fully automatic driving is starting to work well. But the vehicles which do that, from the DARPA Grand Challenge and later, have enough sensing to have a clear model of obstacles around them. Those have vision, LIDAR, and radar systems, and dynamic planners working out a path with good road surface and clear of obstacles.

One camera looking forward can't do that. Just sensing lane departure isn't enough to stay in lane, especially when lane markings are ambiguous. Any car with this should have millimeter radar anti-collision as well.

Re: AI fighting intentional lane changes

[rnturn]

That's the first thing that I thought of. If traffic permits, I tend to make slow almost leisurely lane changes, especially if the weather is dicey or if I see something far enough ahead that I need to avoid without having to swerve making some zipping into another lane. How quickly am I going to have to change lanes to avoid fighting some computer alogorithm? Frankly, this sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen the first time the onboard computer steers the car back into a lane only to have it rear-end a slow moving car -- that the driver was slowly changing lanes to avoid -- and someone gets killed. Yeah, the article says that the computer doesn't get involved if the driver uses a signal when changing lanes but that ignores the fact that a lot of drivers don't use the signals if there's no one nearby that would notice the signal. It might be the law but that doesn't mean we need the car enforcing it.

*Everyone* except Ford has this already!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bitch please, Nissan did this nearly 12 (yes twelve) years ago!

And Ford is basically the last one left without it.

Of course, if you act all Microsoftey "not invented here"-like, then this is totally new and revolutionary!

It's all in the angle.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are three dimensions when driving - forward, sideways and time.

You just move sideways 1/2 a car length immediately, and 1/2 a car length later. Hopefully the other guy will have backed off, or you may both wind up dead.

Welcome to the jungle.

Re:It's all in the angle.

[LordLimecat]

You forgot the vertical axis. All you do is drop from above onto the hood of the tailgaiting punk and hit the accelerator.

Noone expects it, but it works wonders at those tricky merges.

Seems like a really bad idea

[KingTank]

This will only further encourage drivers to fiddle with the radio, text, eat messy food, window shop etc etc.

Yeah, sure.

[Cosgrach]

It will be a cold day in hell before I drive a car that would automatically correct for lane drift. I really hate any fucking machine that thinks it knows my intention. If I ever bought a car that had that feature, you can be assured that it would be disconnected or disabled before I drove it more than the distance from the dealer to my house.

No technology will prevent idiotic drivers

[NSN A392-99-964-5927]

Or for that matter car companies like Ford trying to sell cars to "Help! my wife/husband cannot drive dept". Here is an example just two days ago a friend bought a brand new Lexus with auto-parking and his wife crashed it!

Low grade AI has control of the wheel?

[Karmashock]

What could possibly go wrong?

I have no problem with it beeping at people but I wouldn't feel comfortable with it grabbing the wheel. On a fast freeway with heavy traffic I really don't need some stupid computer second guessing my decisions. If I'm so drowsy that that is an issue then I really shouldn't be on the road. So instead, if they have the stones... I'd rather have the car beep at me then inform me the engine will be turned off in X minutes/seconds and then allow me to pull over while I take a nap for 30 minutes. Where upon the car will let me drive again.

Will they do that? No... because drivers wouldn't put up with it. But I see no difference really. No AI is touching the wheel without my permission. And no, buying a car with this feature does not constitute unrestricted authorization to second guess my driving.

Let's do some math...

[bradley13]

You just know that these figures have been massively inflates, but let's take them at face value and do some some math:

In the USA people drive 3 trillion miles per year, 100,000 accidents, so there is one relevant accident per 30 million miles driven. One accident for every 10,000 times you drive across the entire country. Here, we clearly have a serious problem.

There are 135 million vehicles on the road, and these accidents supposedly cost $12.5 billion per year, so it would be worth spending as much as $92 per vehicle. If these systems prevent all such accidents and create no new ones.

As an earlier poster mentions, this system is likely to cause accidents all its own - for example, when you are deliberately making a gentle lane change, the system fights you for it, and you (or the system) overreact.

Its pretty easy to detect a forceful line change

[drolli]

Just limit the force feedback to the steering wheel to a power which can be easily overcome by a willing driver. There is a significant difference in force which you can - and will - apply in a stress situation in comparison to falling asleep

best security technology for a car

[azery]

I once followed a course on safety in aviation, where the teacher suggested a technical measure to improve road safety: put a sharp rod on the steering wheel, pointing directly at the chest of the driver. Simple, cheap and depending on your exact goal, probably very efficient....

I guess that means

[macaroo]

I can text with both hands off the wheel and steer with my feet.

Ripple Strips

[Antarell]

You could do what we do here in Oz. They paint ripple strips down the side and middle of the roads. If your car wheel drifts onto it you get a bum tingling vibration through the vehicle to get your attention. Works a treat, annoys the wife and makes the kids laugh to boot!

Is Microsoft in There Somewhere?

[Wingsy]

I suspect the same people that had their hand in Ford Sync (Microsoft & their bedfellows) also contributed to this scary new feature. So now that's TWO reasons why I won't sit in a Ford with the engine running.

Re:I've known two people killed by sleeping driver

[shentino]

Come to think of it, why do we as a society have so much pressure on people that they even NEED to try doing this crap while driving?

Has the rat race of one upping our fellow citizens driven us to this extreme?

Re:What does it do if you miss the Ford dealership

[shentino]

Sadly this doesn't sound all that humorous.

Next companies will start requiring this on their employee's cars to keep them from moonlighting.

Congratulations, Ford! Welcome to 2005!

[Gordonjcp]

It's great that you're making such huge advances in automotive technology. Incidentally, have you seen the the Citroen C5 from seven years ago that had this as part of the standard base-level fit?

I wonder what amazing things Ford will introduce in 2012? Suspension that works? Engines that deliver enough power to pull you out of bed?

This feature is already available in german Fords

[Anonymous Coward]

You can already buy this system with a 2011 Ford Focus here in Germany. Strange that Ford has this on the european market, yet only announces the availability for it's home market for this year.

Either drive or get out of the way

[russotto]

Either have the automation drive the car itself, or get it out of the way. If I wanted a goddamn backseat driver, I'd volunteer to drive senior citizens around.

Bullocks FORD F-Up

[ElitistWhiner]

Assistive control is BigBrotha... Active control would keep the vehicle in a lane like cruise control keeps a vehicle at a speed.

Re:US-sized in that you get more car for the dolla

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir, just got trolled.

Prius already had this.

[NeoMorphy]

The Prius already has "Lane Assist", and I know the 2011 model is a mid-sized car, because I'm 6'2" and there is plenty of headroom, it seats five, and I was able to fit an over 6 foot tall Christmas tree in it and close the back door(not the at same same time as seating five, obviously I had to fold the back seat down). Plus, the insurance company lists it as a mid-size car.

So, unless they are saying the Prius is a luxury car, the Fusion is not the first.

Snow

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to see how this works on a snow-covered road. Or for that matter a road that's perpetually damaged from ice and the harsh winters. It's really difficult for me (and other drivers) to see the lines on some of the roads. There's one spot on the interstate near where I live where it's extremely common for people unfamiliar with the area to pick the wrong line to follow and force cars off the road. I'd imagine the steering will would just vibrate constantly...

Many lane drifts do not require indicator in UK

[Builder]

Many slight changes from one lane to another in the UK are not supposed to be signalled according to my driving and IAM instructors. Moving out to pass a bus that is offloading / loading should not be signalled as an example. How would this car deal with that ?

Useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonder how this technology will work during à major snowstorm with high winds and driving on 6 inches on snow here in Québec.

Hypothetical situation - Deer jumps in your lane!

[Lohrno]

Imagine you are driving down the highway with this thing and a deer jumps into your lane. The lane next to you is empty. You have to veer around it and don't exactly have time for a turn signal. Will this thing actually stop you from changing lanes and force you to hit the deer in this case?

Uh, why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

This feature has been available for years in mid-priced cars. I bought an inexpensive Prius two years ago with Toyota's "Lane Keep Assist" option -- pretty much the same thing. A camera mounted to the rear-view mirror monitors the white lines on the road & if the car drifts across a line (unless a turn signal is use or the lane switch is fast enough to suggest a deliberate act), an alarm sounds and the car nudges itself back into the original lane. Is this yet another example of Slashdot allowing an ignorant posting through because the editors know less about a technology than the poster (whose question is pretty clueless btw -- anybody who's bought a car with feature can tell you that the driver can always override the automated steering)? Or does the newsworthines derive from the fact that Ford has adopted this feature? In either case, thank you Slashdot for wasting everybody's time.

Interesting side note: there's been talk in Congress (as reported in even, um, the AARP Journal) for the last year about making this a mandatory feature of all new cars starting mid-decade. That's how old this news is, guys.

Mercedes Benz tech anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mercedes Benz have vehicles which do this already, so... this begs the question as to what exactly is so revolutionary about this?

But officer...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your honor, I have the (*&^ vendor spiffy Lane departure system and it
would be impossible for the officer to follow me and make
any assertion about my lane tracking ability following as I just let it
keep me between the lines. I also use cruse control so speed changes
are also a non issue for any officer following me.

I move to dismiss this arrest because there is no justified reason
to pull me over and search my person and vehicle. Further I am
a bodacious beautiful blond and have been pulled over by this
bad boy a number of times just so he can stare down my shirt.

Technology to the rescue...

[niftymitch]

With all the cameras and sensors for parking it is
a simple matter of software to trigger some insane
driver cut me off logic.

Turn on the turn signal the trailing speed delta and location
for the previous 30 seconds (800 yards) would be logged
and merged with additional data to the point where the
signal was turned off or the lane change completed.

The department of homeland safety would download the
data from all vehicles involved in accidents and the
abusers prosecuted as terrorists. Since 32,000 auto
deaths were recorded in 2010 this is clearly a threat
with a magnitude fully justifying the attention. Especially
given the large percentage of women and children involved.

The root cause of course is building codes that drive families
far from industrial and office work places.

Ford Lane Keeping System

[raineB]

Having learned its lesson early on, Ford has continued to innovate and respond to the needs of its customers. In 1993, the company made it first foray into a more environmentally friendly ethanol-burning vehicle. In 1997 it started making taxicabs that run on natural gas. Recently a survey by the Automobile Association of America approximated that 32 percent of drivers have driven when they were too tired to keep their eyes open. A previous study estimates that 16.5 percent of deadly accidents are the result of tired drivers. A brand new security system from Ford hopes to address these surprising statistics. Ford Lane Keeping System to debut on 2013 Fusion. Now it remains competitive in the electric-powered vehicle market, as well as offering consumers an impressive, competitive and popular array of internal combustion cars and trucks.