Slashdot Mirror
Nissan Develops Emergency Auto-Steering System
AmiMoJo writes "Japanese automaker Nissan Motor says it has developed a new technology to help drivers avoid collisions. A new computer system automatically steers the car to avoid colliding with objects in the road. The system relies on radar and laser scanners. It also uses a front-mounted camera to provide information on what's happening outside the car. The system first alerts the driver to turn in a certain direction. If the driver cannot immediately turn in that direction, the system takes over the steering to help avoid a collision."
I hope that there will be plenty of logs, just in case that when your car avoids a dog and kills a kid you can go to cort and blame Nissan for it
"Worse will be when a false positive will induce an accident"
That was my first thought too. Car sees a monster tumbleweed coming and swerves me into the other lane (boom) or the ditch trying to dodge it, not realizing that Ramming Speed is fully authorized with tumbleweeds.
Even worse would be the car dodging a big dog and hitting a small kid instead.
I've actually met several ambulance drivers around here who say the same thing -- these days they simply outright refuse to even consider cars where you can't turn such crap off. Those things are just a major disaster waiting to happen.
Hm. Depends, really. If they "fail" and cause fewer deaths or injuries than they save, isn't it a net gain?
Seatbelts have killed people. But they're still a net gain. Isn't that what matters? Or do we demand that safety mechanisms *never* cause problems? If so, their design would require that the benefits be considerably diluted.
My understanding is that static friction is greater than kinetic friction. For instance when you push say a sofa across the floor a greater force is needed to move it from rest (static friction) than to keep it sliding (kinetic friction). If you're tires are rolling they essentially keep static friction because the surface of the tire is static relative to the ground at any given point. Once the tires lock, kinetic friction takes over and your friction coefficient goes down and the tires slide. I believe engine braking would keep the tires rolling somewhat to maintain some level of static friction. ABS does the same by 'pumping' the brakes quickly over and over in an effort to maintain as much static versus kinetic friction as possible.
While I believe I grasp the idea, my terminology may be off so someone else may be able to provide a clearer answer.
Yes, the first generations of traction control systems were rather crude and didn't work well on ice. However, some manufacturers actually evolve their product and modern TC systems are doing a whole lot better than the ones that caused all the urban myths. That doesn't mean that every car you buy now has a capable TCS on it, but if you steer away from "We sold this model for the last 100 years, why change?" or "Our car is cheaper because we copy old Euro tech" style manufacturers, you will probably find capable electronics that actually help prevent accidents. However, there is no recipe against a driver that chooses to drive way too fast under circumstances that will most likely cause ice on the roads. Once you go 50 mph in a certain direction and hit ice, there is no amount of electronics or steering that will stop you sliding straight ahead in the direction you were going. It often takes a tree, house, rock, car or other large object to stop you, or you'll roll over once you gain grip again or hit a ditch. Physics can be a bitch sometimes and there will always be people that fail to realize that in time.
This new technology isn't about traction control, it's about not hitting that pothole or lost cargo on the road. This will mean that your car will suddenly swerve hard, slamming the steering wheel out of your hands, breaking your thumb or fingers and making you spill your hot coffee on your lap. People will blame that on their car, but they fail to realize that you shouldn't be holding the wheel with just one hand, or with your thumbs hooked, or drinking hot coffee while driving. It's the same as with driving under icy conditions; these mechanisms are put on cars to help good drivers deal with situations the human brain can't cope with, not to substitute the driver. If you want that, go talk to Google.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
For what it's worth, the NHTSA (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811206.pdf) continues to find (every time they repeat the study) that seatbelts are saving thousands of lives a year in the US alone. I would love to know how you've arrived at the conclusion that safety gains in cars are solely attributable to design improvements. And, while 20% may seem modest, you are failing to account for the steady increase in driver speed over that same time period. As for ABS, I'm not familiar with the literature, but I would submit that insurance companies probably don't give discounts for cars with ABS (a common practice, at least in my area) because they fail to improve driver safety. Strictly speaking, that strongly suggests only that ABS reduces the total economic costs to insurers, but I think it is pretty safe to use that as a proxy for the severity/incidence of crashes. And seat belts don't require roll cages to be effective. Are you under the impression that every accident is a gruesome scene involving a semi-truck side-swiping a VW bug? What percentage of accidents do you really think involves the roof crushing the driver during a violent rollover? And in what percentage of those do you think the driver was better off without a seatbelt?