Slashdot Mirror
GM Working On Wi-Fi Direct-Equipped Cars To Detect Pedestrians and Cyclists
cylonlover writes "General Motors is working to expand upon its vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) and vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication systems that allow information to be shared between vehicles and infrastructure to provide advance warning of potential road hazards, such as stalled vehicles, slippery roads, road works, intersections, stop signs and the like. The automaker is now looking to add pedestrians and cyclists to the mix using Wi-Fi Direct technology so a car can detect them in low visibility conditions before the driver does."
If you need your car to detect obstacles for you, you're driving too fast. Because there's no way this is going to work 100% - not every pedestrian is carrying a device with Wi-Fi eneabled - so what do you do when you're relying on it and it fails?
Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
As a motorcyclist, hell, I'd trust a TI-85 with a camera to steer, over the uncomfortably large percentage of SUV drivers that occasionally interrupt their texting sessions by glancing up at the road. Anything that improves the technology to prevent careless accidents is good in my book, and I would think the most beneficial application would be in respects to the self-driven cars, like the ones Google is developing, no?
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
Why not use heat sensors?
Heat sensors are the wrong technology to use for this. Radar works much better because it can detect cold objects as well, penetrates fog/smoke, and can use the doppler effect to detect if an object is moving. Radar is what the Google Driverless Car uses, and is what most other autonomous vehicles use as well. It is also what most automatic cruise control systems use.
Send message to that slug in front of me. Road construction ahead. Take next right for detour. Drive on by after he turns into driveway.
You mean like this?
Phone: Beep beep!
(Pedestrian stops to look at phone)
Phone: New wireless network found: "You'll be dead in 3 seconds"
(Pedestrian gets hit)
Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
The funny thing is that almost none of this will matter at all. Over the last 4 decades we've employed a variety of engineering improvements like air bags, anti lock brakes, better tires and suspensions, backup cameras, crush zones and so forth. This reduced the accident and death rates through around 1990-1995. Since 1990, those rates have remained almost exactly the same, year on year.
This means a couple of things. One is that cell phones had no effect on accident rates, because they've remained the same from 1990-2010. It also means that the crusade on drunk driving had no results as far as reported accidents. It also means that this system will have no beneficial effect until the driver is removed from the equation and the technology is perfected to a level where its significantly better than the driver it replaces.
Driving is boring to most people that have been doing it for a while, so they seek distractions from the boredom. Doesn't matter what distraction or tool you add to or remove from the equation, we'll fix our boredom somehow. In the 70's when I almost got run over by someone in a parking lot, you couldn't scream "Put down the %$@#ing phone!", it was "Damn woman driver!" or some such.
Further most people are simply unaware of the simplest rules of the road like right of way, proper turning, safe following distance and so forth.
So if you don't know what you're really supposed to be doing and you're actively looking for escape from the primary activity, adding some iffy technology that can't do much better than 70-80% in effectiveness will simply further reduce our interest in paying attention to driving.
And $10 says we'll get the same exact accident rate if and when this technology is deployed.
It should probably use a variety of sensors so that it can decide what to hit, too. Radar plus infrared might be a good way to go. Better to run over a bush than a crouching pedestrian. That combo would let you get an idea of the density (well, with THz sensors anyway) and the temperature of your potential targets...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Over the last 4 decades we've employed a variety of engineering improvements like air bags, anti lock brakes, better tires and suspensions, backup cameras, crush zones and so forth. This reduced the accident and death rates through around 1990-1995. Since 1990, those rates have remained almost exactly the same, year on year.
Meanwhile, pedestrian and cyclist deaths have gone up because US road safety consists of "make crashes as survivable as we can for the people in the cars, because we've felt they are inevitable." As a result, the death rates for peds and cyclists is 5-10x that of countries where there are vulnerable user laws. Basically: if you hit a pedestrian or cyclist - you have to prove it was their fault, and if you can't, YOU are assumed at fault. Not the other way around, where we assume it was the fault of the pedestrian or cyclist. Such an injury or death is also a criminal matter.
Please help metamoderate.