Ford Showcases Self-Parking Car Technology

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ford Showcases Self-Parking Car Technology

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday October 9, 2013 @06:59PM from the look-ma-no-hands dept.

MojoKid writes "Although the dream of roads full of driverless cars is a ways off, several companies such as Tesla and Google are taking steps toward that goal by developing self-driving car technology. Ford is now also demonstrating self-parking technology called Fully Assisted Parking Aid that will actually help a driver locate a spot and then make the car automatically park itself--without the driver inside. Indeed, you'll be able to hop out of the car and use a smartphone app to tell your car to park itself. This is ideal for both parking in tight spaces (i.e., you don't have to squeeze your way out of your vehicle while trying not to bang the next car's door) and for those who are just terrible at parking to begin with."

233 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Fully Asisted Parkin Aid by CurryCamel · 2013-10-09 19:06 · Score: 4, Funny

or FAP-Aid for short?
1. Re:Fully Asisted Parkin Aid by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 01:26 · Score: 0
  
  Redundant? FAP-Aid...that's funny.
2. Re:Fully Asisted Parkin Aid by mcgrew · 2013-10-10 04:37 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  This is just an incrimental improvement; Ford has had self-parking cars for years. I know a guy who has one. What's new is you can get out and tell it to park with your phone. I guess what Bill has is partially assisted parking? But he doesn't touch the wheel or pedals when it's parking itself.
  Much more interesting is the object avoidance, which is afaik is completely new. It warns you if you're going to hit something, and if you ignore it it will brake and take over steering. Too bad this lady didn't have it. Or this guy (does Ford make semis?)
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
Dumber and dumber by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 19:07 · Score: 0, Insightful

Aren't we just encouraging people to become less skilled and overall less intelligent when we remove the necessity to actually learn skills like driving? How long will it be before you can skate through life without having to learn anything at all?
1. Re:Dumber and dumber by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 19:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yes, it all started downhill when we let others figure out what plants were edible, dispatch animals to provide our meat, and where to shit w/o contaminating the water we drink....
  Then they invented the syncro-mesh so we didn't have to learn how to double clutch to avoid crashing the gears...
  Did I miss anything else?
2. Re:Dumber and dumber by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 19:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, for almost a million years mankind has had to learn how to park their cars. Now without this, we'll devolve into macaques.
3. Re:Dumber and dumber by viperidaenz · 2013-10-09 19:42 · Score: 1
  
  Not quite, more like a few hundred thousand years. Before then, modern homo-sapiens didn't exist.
4. Re:Dumber and dumber by Tailhook · 2013-10-09 19:42 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Did I miss anything else?
  That whole fire thing.
  Should have secured the IP on that before we let it get away from us.
  
  --
  Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
5. Re:Dumber and dumber by SethJohnson · 2013-10-09 19:49 · Score: 2
  
  I would assume the same was said when our society developed the internal combustion engine and relegated horses out to pasture.
  
  --
  $5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
6. Re:Dumber and dumber by CadentOrange · 2013-10-09 19:51 · Score: 1
  
  More like a few decades. Before then, modern homo-sapiens didn't have easy access to cars.
7. Re:Dumber and dumber by LordLimecat · 2013-10-09 21:18 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I agree, and dont get me started on computers. Smart folk post our slashdot comments by encoding an HTTP response directly onto a ethernet cable with a steady hand, some copper wire, and a pair of AA batteries in series. Honestly, the shortcuts kids take these days with their "operating systems" and "networking stacks".
8. Re:Dumber and dumber by stenvar · 2013-10-09 21:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And obvious response, but not quite right. Arguably, if you lack the skills to park, you shouldn't be driving in the first place. In different words, self-parking is fine when it goes with self-driving cars, but it isn't fine when it goes with drivers that are expected to be able to drive in complex and tight situations.
9. Re:Dumber and dumber by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-10-09 22:00 · Score: 1
  
  Aren't we just encouraging people to become less skilled and overall less intelligent when we remove the necessity to actually learn skills like driving?
  Ever since lathes were invented, craftsmen have been hopelessly lame at carving proper cylinders by hand. Our civilization is surely going downhill!
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
10. Re:Dumber and dumber by profplump · 2013-10-09 22:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  While I agree that more driver skill is generally desirable it's a question of balance -- there are all sorts of potentially useful driving skills that we don't even teach let alone require for the typical driver, instead relying on vehicle, roadway, and traffic engineering to provide the desired outcomes. We try pretty hard to design public roads to not require complex or tight maneuvering specifically because many drivers lack those skills (and more generally because it improves safety even among drivers who have those skills, as accidents *do* happen even among highly skilled drivers).
  I also object to the idea that there's an externally-relevant distinction between a driver using technology in place of manual skill. We only really care about the effective skill of the combined vehicle-driver system; I couldn't care less if a bus doesn't crush me because the driver has super-human skills or because the computer stopped on behalf of a sub-par driver -- in both cases I avoided potential injury. If you want recognition for your driving skills enter a race; the rest of us only care that your vehicle doesn't do something harmful.
11. Re:Dumber and dumber by Joce640k · 2013-10-09 22:30 · Score: 2
  
  Arguably, if you lack the skills to park, you shouldn't be driving in the first place
  That utopia hasn't worked out too well. They figured out how to get licenses anyway. The best we can do now is sell these to the idiots so they don't bang *our* cars up in car parks.
  (Seriously, has anybody ever failed to get a license given enough attempts? Did they ever tell anybody, "Sorry, driving isn't for you..."?)
  
  --
  No sig today...
12. Re:Dumber and dumber by Joce640k · 2013-10-09 22:34 · Score: 1
  
  Aren't we just encouraging people to become less skilled and overall less intelligent when we remove the necessity to actually learn skills like driving?
  That cat's already out of the bag.
  Might as well use all available technology to stop them destroying our cars/property.
  
  --
  No sig today...
13. Re:Dumber and dumber by m.alessandrini · 2013-10-09 23:34 · Score: 1
  
  That's true, but maybe in dangerous things like cars I would prefer people have good skills in every aspects of the machine, so they know how it will behave in every moment. And these skills are usualy proportional to the accumulated driving hours, and so to the general driving skills.
14. Re:Dumber and dumber by toshikodo · 2013-10-09 23:46 · Score: 2
  
  The big pain is when you have to go back to old tech. My own car has cruise control, but on a recent trip to the USA I ended up renting what was probably the only vehicle in the whole state of Nevada that didn't have this. I then spent the next 2 weeks driving over 2000 miles along straight, empty roads. Constantly having to check the speedo was tiresome.
  
  --
  No volcanos here
15. Re:Dumber and dumber by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 23:54 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  >> in every aspects of the machine
  how technically competent are you? can you change your oil? how about pulling the transmission? when was the last time you personally made sure that the emergency hood-latch on your car is functioning?
  you might think I'm trolling, but talk to a mechanic -- they have a really good understanding of what will happen to you and your car if, say, a tie-rod fails.
  Quick -- if you've been driving for a long time and have a great feel for your car -- how will your car behave if a tie-rod breaks? If your immediate answer wasn't "one of my front wheels will not be under my control" then you don't know "how it will behave in every moment".
  what's the proper way to steer out of a potential sideways roll down a hill? Have you practiced lately?
  You're ascribing a lot of competence to Everyone, and you are going to be disappointed every day of your life.
16. Re:Dumber and dumber by mrvan · 2013-10-10 00:00 · Score: 2
  
  Arguably, if you lack the skills to park, you shouldn't be driving in the first place
  This is nonsense. Parking, especially parallel parking, is a skill that has very little to do with normal driving. You don't need to know mechanics of the car very well, you don't need to know how it reacts to weather conditions; you don't need to understand traffic flow and rules and make quick and safe decisions, etc. Parking is about undestanding how the car moves at low speeds and especially in reverse and how to combine a number of moves to move the car sideways.
  In the Dutch lesson system, parallel parking is a component that is always tested and that takes a chunk of time from the instruction package, which could otherwise have been spent learning more valuable things (the same way shifting is easier now than 50 years ago as noted by GP)
  
  (Seriously, has anybody ever failed to get a license given enough attempts? Did they ever tell anybody, "Sorry, driving isn't for you..."?)
  In the US I have no idea.
  In the Netherlands driving tests are quite difficult, and there are certainly people who give up at some point. It is pretty normal to have 30 to 40 hours of instruction before attempting the first test, so it also gets expensive pretty quickly for young people.
17. Re:Dumber and dumber by T-Bone-T · 2013-10-10 00:28 · Score: 1
  
  I wish they would teach it better in the US. I encounter a situation every morning that is perfect for parallel parking yet most people fail at it. I've taken parking spaces in bigger vehicles that people in small cars passed up. What's even worse is that people can park in this area much more compactly because there are no marked spaces yet they continue to leave almost enough space for a car to park between them.
18. Re:Dumber and dumber by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 00:30 · Score: 0
  
  without having to learn anything at all?
  And why is that a bad thing? Do you think something only has value if you are forced to do it? Adults should learn because they want to learn.
19. Re:Dumber and dumber by TheCycoONE · 2013-10-10 00:32 · Score: 1
  
  My dad installed aftermarket cruise control for the first time because a drive that should have taken 5 hours took 3. It just use to be hard to maintain speed for a long time: some people always followed others, some people checked the speedometer all the time, some people drifted faster or slower, and maybe a tiny number actually managed to keep a more or less constant speed; but it certainly wasn't some skill that everyone use to have and now no one has. It was invented to overcome a shortcoming.
20. Re:Dumber and dumber by ShanghaiBill · 2013-10-10 00:34 · Score: 2
  
  This is nonsense. Parking, especially parallel parking, is a skill that has very little to do with normal driving.
  I agree. I can parallel park easily. But on the highway, I tend to daydream instead of watching traffic conditions. My wife is the opposite. Her driving is perfect, but she was never able to parallel park, until we got a new car with a backup camera.
  
  In the Netherlands driving tests are quite difficult, and there are certainly people who give up at some point.
  In Europe, it is possible to live a normal life without driving. In America, it is not.
21. Re:Dumber and dumber by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, and dont get me started on computers. Smart folk post our slashdot comments by encoding an HTTP response directly onto a ethernet cable with a steady hand, some copper wire, and a pair of AA batteries in series. Honestly, the shortcuts kids take these days with their "operating systems" and "networking stacks".
  Ahem....did you say AA battery? As in, someone else made that battery for you? For shame.
22. Re:Dumber and dumber by BrokenHalo · 2013-10-10 00:47 · Score: 2
  
  but maybe in dangerous things like cars I would prefer people have good skills in every aspects of the machine
  I'm not sure I would expect a driver to be able to assemble a gearbox or isolate an electrical fault in a car. But I emphatically DO expect a driver to have the requisite knowledge and coordination to park his/her vehicle.
  
  If they do not completely satisfy this requirement, they should not be permitted to pass the test. Simple.
  
  For some reason, many people seem to have an expectation that being permitted to drive a vehicle is a right, as opposed to a privilege. There are far too many drivers on the roads who manifestly have only the sketchiest knowledge of the rules, and who are totally incompetent at handling their machine. I don't really give a damn if they kill or injure themselves, but they don't have a right to take anyone else with them.
23. Re:Dumber and dumber by h4rr4r · 2013-10-10 00:48 · Score: 2
  
  Most folks can do any of those repairs. They might lack the tools, but with a chiltons book just about any car repair is doable. None of it is any more complex than putting a computer together. It might be dirtier and more dangerous, but none of it requires more skill.
24. Re:Dumber and dumber by goose-incarnated · 2013-10-10 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  Did I miss anything else?
  That whole fire thing.
  Should have secured the IP on that before we let it get away from us.
  I hear that some real legal-eagle is on that one.
  
  --
  I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
25. Re:Dumber and dumber by P-niiice · 2013-10-10 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  Presumably every driver has the skills to park because they passed a driving test. Maintaining those skills is a different matter, but that's an issue for all drivers, not just ones who choose to let their car park for them. I'd love the feature, personally.
26. Re:Dumber and dumber by Vicarius · 2013-10-10 01:16 · Score: 2
  
  Presumably every driver has the skills to park because they passed a driving test. Maintaining those skills is a different matter, but that's an issue for all drivers, not just ones who choose to let their car park for them. I'd love the feature, personally.
  Some states do not require you to park to get your driver's license. In some places just driving on a dirt road for 5 minutes gets you your license, which later can be changed to another state's license without another test.
27. Re:Dumber and dumber by number17 · 2013-10-10 01:24 · Score: 2
  
  there are all sorts of potentially useful driving skills that we don't even teach let alone require for the typical driver
  Exactly. In Canada we give licenses to people who have never seen snow before and expect they know how to drive in it.
28. Re:Dumber and dumber by BrokenHalo · 2013-10-10 01:27 · Score: 2
  
  This is nonsense. Parking, especially parallel parking, is a skill that has very little to do with normal driving.
  No, that's nonsense. you should be able to park your car like this. Don't try this with a heavy truck, it won't work... :-)
29. Re: Dumber and dumber by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 01:33 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Wrong. It is a right and we need to stop letting people with agendas try to redefine it otherwise.
  Having to demonstrate competence with something dangerous that can hurt others and not being permitted to engage in that activity otherwise is not an infringement on a right.
  A privilege, on the other hand, can be regulated for reasons unrelated to the activity. Allowing control freaks to call driving a privilege is what spawns idiot laws like revoking drivers licenses for unrelated stuff like dropping out of school, not paying child support, etc. That sort of thing should never have been allowed to start, but stupid people seem ok with anything that's allegedly for the children or some other good cause.
30. Re:Dumber and dumber by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  well, you are an idiot.
  There a *lots* of cars. And *lots* of crappy drivers. You make one driver better, doesn't
  change the overall safety much - still untold number of bad drivers. You make a *car* safer/better
  and you get a meaningful improvement because *every* bad driver in that model car is now safer
  to others. That's why Ford (or any other big manufature) doing this is a bigger deal than a rare
  high end mercedes. lots more Focuses (focii ?) on the road.
31. Re:Dumber and dumber by smooth+wombat · 2013-10-10 01:37 · Score: 0
  
  Might as well use all available technology to stop them destroying our cars/property.
  
  So you agree we should continue the dumbing down of society? How about we penalize people who hit your car instead? Money talks and if someone keeps getting dinged for several hundred dollars every time they hit a car they will change. They'll whine and scream and rant and rave, but they will change.
  
  If we'd do the same to the smokers, the obese, alcoholics and drug users, health care wouldn't be so expensive, but that's another story.
  
  --
  We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
32. Re:Dumber and dumber by JTsyo · 2013-10-10 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget when they replaced shoelaces with Velcro. Now on one knows how to tie shoes, the great art has been lost forever.
33. Re:Dumber and dumber by Kjella · 2013-10-10 01:50 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  My dad installed aftermarket cruise control for the first time because a drive that should have taken 5 hours took 3.
  If cruise control is the difference between 3 hours at 50 mph average and 5 hours at 30 mph average then there's something very seriously wrong with his driving skills. Yeah some people don't stick to the posted speed limits but the road rage and percieved loss is vasty exaggerated compared to actual time lost. Spending five minutes behind a guy that does 48 mph instead of 60 mph feels like forever but all it means is an hour's drive takes 61 minutes instead of 60. I don't know how it could take two hours longer unless he's practically asleep at the wheel and constantly down to half the posted limit.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
34. Re:Dumber and dumber by operagost · 2013-10-10 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  My cruise control just stopped working, so I've found out just how bad my ability to maintain a steady highway speed has become. Every car I've owned (since 1990) has had a cruise control. Going to have to fix it!
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
35. Re:Dumber and dumber by m.alessandrini · 2013-10-10 02:35 · Score: 2
  
  Ok, I always forget the pedantry of average slashdot readers, let me explain better: let's say that I mean "the aspects of behaviour of the car when it comes to common situations happening with a non-neglectable probability". I don't expect people to be able to control a car if it suddenly breaks in a crucial part, but being able to park a car in a tight place is basic control of the car. For example, how can you estimate if there's room between me and another car to pass between, or estimate how much you can pass near to a pedestrian if the other lane is busy, if you cannot estimate how to place a car in a rectangular place having all the time of the world?
36. Re:Dumber and dumber by Anrego · 2013-10-10 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  My drivers test (Atlantic Canada) consisted of:
  -Pulling out of a parking spot
  -Making a really tight turn into a stop sign (probably the hardest part of the test.. the place was basically at the end of a parking lot, and you had maybe a car and a half length to between the end of the lane and a stop sign, go past the stop sign or have your back wheels over the middle line and it was an instant fail.
  - Drive up one street
  - Make an easy right turn
  - Drive around for maybe 10 minutes
  - Park on a hill
  - Come back to the same parking lot
  - Pull back into the spot (this was another screw it up-instant fail moment, but it's practically a deserted lot with lots of room)
  This to me seems absolutely ridiculous. We get some fairly hazardous weather here, not to mention most people end up driving into cities like Halifax, with crazy tight roads designed for horse and buggy and absolutely no planning (lots of weird 1 way streets, roads that don't line up, places you turn different ways different times of the day, etc).
  Very least they should have something rigged up to simulate the experience of navigating a biker on the left of a parked car with oncoming in the next lane and like half a foot on each side clearance on a road with a slight curve (for the record, I will usually wait till the biker passes the car, but often the bikers will initiate this situation..).
37. Re:Dumber and dumber by stenvar · 2013-10-10 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  If you want recognition for your driving skills enter a race; the rest of us only care that your vehicle doesn't do something harmful.
  That's all I care about too. For example, you may get stuck in a narrow one-way street and have to back out of it. You may need to merge into a slowly moving tight stream of traffic. There are a lot of situations that are enough like parking that if you can't park you can't do them well, and where you end up creating a hassle or a hazard for other people. So, if you automate parking, you give people the illusion that they are prepared for traffic even though they aren't.
  The problem isn't that there is anything wrong with automating parking per se, it's that the ability to park (parallel or otherwise) is one important indicator of your road-readiness.
38. Re:Dumber and dumber by stenvar · 2013-10-10 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  That utopia hasn't worked out too well. They figured out how to get licenses anyway
  You're mistaken about what licenses can and should accomplish. They are not a perfect indicator of people's ability to drive, they are merely a simple check to weed out some fraction of people who obviously shouldn't be on the road right now.
39. Re:Dumber and dumber by stenvar · 2013-10-10 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  This is nonsense. Parking, especially parallel parking, is a skill that has very little to do with normal driving. ... Parking is about undestanding how the car moves at low speeds and especially in reverse and how to combine a number of moves to move the car sideways.
  That's exactly what it's about. And you must know how to do that. Sooner or later, you'll have to back up through a narrow passage to make room for an emergency vehicle or because your way is blocked. It doesn't happen frequently but it does happen. In different words, if you aren't able to easily back out of wherever you drove in, you shouldn't be driving at all. And the skills you require for backing out are pretty much the same skills you require for parallel parking.
40. Re:Dumber and dumber by Unknown1337 · 2013-10-10 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly right! While manual work is required to drive, learning to park is a part of that skill. Planes are capable of practically flying themselves, but would you want to be on a plane knowing the pilot didn't know how to perform a take-off or landing manually in an emergency would you?!
41. Re:Dumber and dumber by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 03:48 · Score: 0
  
  Working on a computer is still a lot easier. Changing some computer hardware part doesn't require banging on it with a large hammer to get it in or out, lifting in excess of 30lbs while trying to line something up with some degree of precision, or reaching into a tight area with razor sharp edges nearby. After doing some of those kind of things yourself, you tend not to mind as much if labor costs $50/hr. (And mechanics not only have experience, but tend to be better equipped and have a more controlled work environment, so they often get it done in less than half the time of the average DIY person.)
42. Re:Dumber and dumber by h4rr4r · 2013-10-10 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  I said it was not more complex. Sure it is dirtier and more dangerous. I would gladly pay $50/hr in labor. around here it tends to be over $100/hr and the guy doing the work is lucky if he can get $15/hr out of it.
43. Re:Dumber and dumber by toshikodo · 2013-10-10 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Its even more absurd in the UK. It is illegal to drive on our motorways unless you have passed your test, not even under the supervision of a qualified instructor, but once you've passed your test, you cam immediately take a 400 bhp sports car for a spin on any road, including motorways, without any further lessons. What is even more absurd, if I were a learner I would be allowed to drive on the A2 road near London. The A2 isn't a motorway, but does a good impersonation of one, albeit one with narrow lanes and shoulders. Why is the A2 OK for learners, but not the M25 motorway that crosses it? Bureaucratic madness!!!!!
  
  --
  No volcanos here
44. Re:Dumber and dumber by yurtinus · 2013-10-10 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  As a mild gearhead and a big fan of driving and cars in general, I gotta say my opinion on this has shifted in recent years. It used to be "oh god nobody's gonna know how to drive anymore!" But, in my time on the road I see that people are not that great at driving as it is - and parking really highlights it. Despite the danger and the laws on the books, people still text, eat, read, or whatever else when they should be focused on the road. We could take away all the nannies modern cars have and it won't change the way people act behind the wheel. Sure, we'd all prefer these inattentive drivers be kept off the roads, but that's not going to happen without some serious rethinking of how American cities are laid out.
  
  I want your grandma to have adaptive cruise control and lane-holding systems to make her less likely to run me over on my motorbike. I want my girlfriend to have a parallel park system so she don't use your bumpers to find out when she's backed up too far. I want you to be able to hop out of your car in the middle of the parking lot so your doors don't fling into mine in the wind, and so your car can go put itself neatly centered in one spot rather than angling across two.
  
  --
  +1 Disagree
45. Re:Dumber and dumber by stenvar · 2013-10-10 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  I want your grandma to have adaptive cruise control and lane-holding systems to make her less likely to run me over on my motorbike. I want my girlfriend to have a parallel park system so she don't use your bumpers to find out when she's backed up too far.
  I'm not so sure about that. People get better through practice. While that lane holding system keeps grandma on track most of the time, without practice, she may then completely fall apart when she can't use it. And your girlfriend may be less likely to harm a bumper when parking, but she may end up blocking the parking garage exit because she can't figure out how to get her car pointed the right direction. The more you automate simple tasks, the more you deprive people of being able to practice in simple situations that they can actually still handle. And while for many skills that may not matter, for driving I think it does.
46. Re:Dumber and dumber by sjames · 2013-10-10 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  In some cities, driving home during 'rush' hour is a lot like parking...
47. Re:Dumber and dumber by yurtinus · 2013-10-10 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  I agree there's risk in becoming reliant on nannies. To me, it all comes down to the implementation. Current lane holding systems make a big fuss when they're engaged. If they are being engaged often, you know there's a problem with that driver. The thing is, we automate simple tasks all the time. I have an electric kettle - put water in, hit the button, and it turns itself off when it's boiling. Saves me from having to turn on and off a burner on the stove. Has that lack of practice impacted my ability to cook a meal? Not at all. If you're in IT (I'm not, so I could just be making this up :P ), I'm sure you use hundreds of scripts every day to automate simple tasks, and I'm sure it doesn't make you any worse at your job.
  
  The practice is still something I'm torn on. I *want* people to take driving seriously and to enjoy it enough to practice regularly. I want people to find it unthinkable to futz with their phones while they drive or hop behind the wheel when they're drunk. I want to drive or ride down the road confident in the feeling that I am surrounded by professionals who pay full attention to their surroundings. But, if wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak, and that's just not the world we live in. The bar for driving competence is absurdedly low for the risks involved, and I'm all for providing tools to make up for that gap.
  
  --
  +1 Disagree
48. Re:Dumber and dumber by nanospook · 2013-10-10 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  The purpose of knowing driving skills is to match the technology we are using (so we don't die or kill something else). As the technology changes, so will the skills we need. Is it a loss? Or is it freedom to do other things. Personally I think if if you think it's a loss, you are simply embracing a "can do " self sufficient mentality for ego's sake.
  
  --
  Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
49. Re:Dumber and dumber by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 06:48 · Score: 0
  
  Why is the A2 OK for learners, but not the M25 motorway that crosses it? Bureaucratic madness!!!!!
  Er, it's the opposite of bureaucracy. Motorways are legally classed as "Special Roads". The law simply says that learners are not permitted to drive on Special Roads. The A2 is not a Special Road so learners can drive on it. How much more simple does that need to be?
50. Re:Dumber and dumber by kheldan · 2013-10-10 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  If we all accept what you're saying, then shouldn't that apply to aircraft and pilots as well as ground vehicles? If so then since autopilot systems have reached a level of complexity and sophistication such that an airliner can fly itself, from departure to arrival, that pilots don't need to be as well trained to handle the aircraft themselves? I find this idea to be absurd. Autopilot systems can fail, and even short of a total failure, they can grossly mishandle a given situation and create a life-threatening situation for both the aircraft and for people on the ground in it's flight path. Regardless of the fact that an automobile isn't going to fall out of the sky, an "autopiloted" automobile can, similarly to the above scenario, fail to properly handle a given set of circumstances to the point where the passengers of the vehicle and other vehicles and/or pedestrians are at risk of injury or death, or at the very least, risk of unnecessary property damage. Having inadequately trained, certified, and practiced drivers behind the wheel of an automobile that is self-parking and (soon enough, it seems) self-driving is, in my opinion, a recipe for disaster, sooner or later. In my opinion, such features on vehicles will only encourage a decline in the overall effectiveness of the 'driver' behind the 'wheel' (whatever form that may end up taking) in non-typical or emergency situations, which will result in damage to property and injury or death to humans. I'd just as soon see the average, non-professional driver not be given access to such systems on their vehicles; the average, non-professional driver is barely adequate to the task at hand in the first place, and making it easier for them will just lower the bar even further.
  
  --
  Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
51. Re:Dumber and dumber by kheldan · 2013-10-10 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  Constantly having to check the speedo was tiresome
  
  Oh poor baby! Actually having to pay attention to what the vehicle you're in control of is doing!
  
  You're possibly a good example of what I was talking about in another comment: Automated systems in your car are making you lazy. Did your speed vary constantly during that 2000 total miles? I'll bet it did, and not having to practice and exercise that skill makes you weaker at it than someone who doesn't have or use cruise control in their car.
  
  --
  Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
52. Re:Dumber and dumber by P-niiice · 2013-10-10 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  For thos efolks, a car that parks for them may be a good thing. Degradation of skills is also a side-issue there. The only downside I see with this tech is malfunctions or idiots who parks too close and blocks people out of their cars.
53. Re:Dumber and dumber by gweilo8888 · 2013-10-10 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Point well made, but you misread. He said the drive *should* have taken five hours, but *actually* took three. In other words, his apparently-completely-incompetent-driver Dad was *averaging* two thirds over the legal limit, ie. 42 in a 25, 50 in a 30, 75 in a 45, 92 in a 55, and 117 in a 70. (I think that hits all the speed limits I see around these parts.)
  
  And that's average, which given that he wasn't able to even remotely judge speed, means he'd likely have been going significantly faster / slower enroute than the average, not managing a consistent margin over the speed limit.
  
  Which I still don't believe for one second. This story is either badly, badly exaggerated, or more likely just completely made up.
54. Re:Dumber and dumber by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 08:35 · Score: 0
  
  Sooner or later, you'll have to back up through a narrow passage to make room for an emergency vehicle or because your way is blocked....and the skills you require for backing out are pretty much the same skills you require for parallel parking.
  As someone who has to do that backing out on a semi-regular basis and does it with no problem, but still struggles with the fiddly bullshit that is parallel parking, I can confirm that you have no idea what you're talking about.
55. Re:Dumber and dumber by Zynder · 2013-10-10 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  For shame indeed! I don't know about you, but I am exhausted from hauling these clay pots filled with wine back and forth to the pyramids. Did you know that somehow the pharoahs have violated physics and made it uphill BOTH ways? Insanity! They won't even let me have any shoes either. And for those uninformed in the alchemical arts, copper is HEAVY. The only thing that could make this job worse is if it were raining frogs with swarms of locusts or maybe a plague!
56. Re:Dumber and dumber by mjwx · 2013-10-10 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  Most folks can do any of those repairs. They might lack the tools, but with a chiltons book just about any car repair is doable. None of it is any more complex than putting a computer together. It might be dirtier and more dangerous, but none of it requires more skill.
  You've clearly never seen someone with zero experience trying to weld.
  
  I was taught to weld in high school, I'm not that good at it so I generally let someone who is a professional welder do that kind of work. That whole amateurs are dangerous and professionals are predictable thing.
  
  That being said, things like changing your own oil or a tyre, replacing brake pads, basic scratch repair and other simple jobs are basic knowledge. If you cant learn to do them with 1 hour on YouTube you need to reconsider car ownership.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
57. Re:Dumber and dumber by mjwx · 2013-10-10 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  This is nonsense. Parking, especially parallel parking, is a skill that has very little to do with normal driving.
  This is wrong.
  
  Parking is a very necessary skill. Every time you stop driving the car, you park it.
  
  Also most of the accidents people will have are in car parks. These may be minor dings and scratches, but they're far too frequent.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
58. Re:Dumber and dumber by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 14:39 · Score: 0
  
  Insightful? Mod this crap down. If you can't control your damn vehicle then you have no business being behind the wheel. Driving is not a right, it's a privilege. States need to start enforcing that fact.
59. Re:Dumber and dumber by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 16:29 · Score: 0
  
  You filthy lying loser. Literally everything you just said is worthless stupid fucking garbage, just like you. And you know it.
  Now you're going to splutter your way through an inadvertent confession that I am absolutely right. No other outcome is possible.
60. Re:Dumber and dumber by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 17:37 · Score: 0
  
  Aren't we just encouraging people to become less skilled and overall less intelligent when we remove the necessity to actually learn skills like driving?
  Yes. But Ford is also about 20 years late to the party.
  Anyone remember an episode of "Towards 2000" that demonstrated a car (a Renault, I think) that could turn all four of its wheels 90 degrees and roll sideways into a park between two cars? Someone else reinvented this feat more recently, http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/07/31/sideways-turning-wheels-makes-parallel-parking-a-breeze/.
  Nissan's Pivo 2 concept car could also turn its wheels 90 degrees for the same trick back in 2007.
  And back in 2004, Toyota offered Ford's automated parking idea on their Prius, http://tech.slashdot.org/story/04/01/20/018227/toyota-offers-automatic-parallel-parking-option
Except... by xlsior · 2013-10-09 19:14 · Score: 0

(i.e., you don't have to squeeze your way out of your vehicle while trying not to bang the next car's door)

That brilliant plan has two massive shortcomings:
1) You still need to squeeze back into the car when you're ready to leave (assuming there is no "unpark" feature)
2) What are the odds that the driver of the car parked NEXT to your in your overly narrow space will ding your passenger side door trying to get into HIS car?
1. Re:Except... by tkuCheck · 2013-10-09 19:23 · Score: 2
  
  1) You still need to squeeze back into the car when you're ready to leave (assuming there is no "unpark" feature)
  2) What are the odds that the driver of the car parked NEXT to your in your overly narrow space will ding your passenger side door trying to get into HIS car?
  I am sure Ford engineers haven't thought about this. They couldn't have come up with ideas like (1.) the car getting out of the parking spot the same way it came in (with a press of a button on the user's smartphone), or (2.) wirelessly communicating with the nearby parked cars to see if they support this parking feature, and only squeeze into the tight spot if they reply YES.
  </sarcasm>
2. Re:Except... by mjwx · 2013-10-09 19:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  (i.e., you don't have to squeeze your way out of your vehicle while trying not to bang the next car's door)
  
  That brilliant plan has two massive shortcomings:
  1) You still need to squeeze back into the car when you're ready to leave (assuming there is no "unpark" feature)
  2) What are the odds that the driver of the car parked NEXT to your in your overly narrow space will ding your passenger side door trying to get into HIS car?
  I'm more worreid that the technology does not work as advertised and will end up crashing into my parked non-autonomous car because it didn't detect it and through the space was empty (If you believe the advertising, I have a bridge to sell you... It comes with several cars). Seeing as I almost always reverse park, a bump is enough to kick start the dash cam. A driverless car should make for some interesting footage.
  
  However who's responsible for a self driving car? Do I (or more accurately, my insurer) sue the owner (who was not in control of the vehicle at the time) or the car company (who has no doubt waived responsibility for this with a ream of paperwork when they sold it).
  
  Beyond this, does the vehicle have the capacity to deal with arsehole parkers. People who are across multiple bays or cut in and steal parking spaces. I can see the first law suit now when Andy Arsehole cuts off an autonomous car to steal the parking bay and gets T-boned by it. However, knowing Ford the system is probably designed to be an arsehole parker.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
3. Re:Except... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 19:48 · Score: 0
  
  wirelessly communicating with the nearby parked cars to see if they support this parking feature, and only squeeze into the tight spot if they reply YES.
  Because, as we all know, these exact cars will stay there until *we* decide to leave and will never be replaced by other cars.
4. Re:Except... by homb · 2013-10-09 19:49 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  (i.e., you don't have to squeeze your way out of your vehicle while trying not to bang the next car's door)
  That brilliant plan has two massive shortcomings:
  1) You still need to squeeze back into the car when you're ready to leave (assuming there is no "unpark" feature)
  2) What are the odds that the driver of the car parked NEXT to your in your overly narrow space will ding your passenger side door trying to get into HIS car?
  Well if anyone RTFAs (and RTFVs) then it's clear that there is indeed an "unpark" feature. That is pretty obviously necessary.
  Second, for #2 it's the chicken or egg: As more cars get the parking assists, this'll happen less and less. Also, in many cases you can get into your car from the passenger side and then switch to the driver's seat if it's that bad.
5. Re:Except... by tkuCheck · 2013-10-09 19:51 · Score: 2
  
  Because, as we all know, these exact cars will stay there until *we* decide to leave and will never be replaced by other cars.
  And your point is? If the other car doesn't support the auto parking feature, then the driver probably would not park in that tight spot, because they wouldn't be able to get out of their car...?
6. Re:Except... by gbjbaanb · 2013-10-09 19:58 · Score: 0
  
  I guess the wheels will be left pointed in the direction required to get out, the way they got in so you just need ot start up and drive off. Its not like the computer is squeezing you into a spot its impossible to get out of,just that the spot you get is one the computer has calculated you can fit into, not one that you look at and think "hmm, won't risk it"
  Besides, is this new tech? Skoda had the magic parking for a few years now. I guess that they've just stuck it on the Ford brand and are kicking off marketing.
7. Re:Except... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 20:48 · Score: 0
  
  The other driver might have parked there first.
8. Re:Except... by gnasher719 · 2013-10-09 20:54 · Score: 1
  
  I am sure Ford engineers haven't thought about this. They couldn't have come up with ideas like (1.) the car getting out of the parking spot the same way it came in (with a press of a button on the user's smartphone), or (2.) wirelessly communicating with the nearby parked cars to see if they support this parking feature, and only squeeze into the tight spot if they reply YES.
  It always amazes me on Slashdot what negative attitude some posters have. They declare immediately that some idea is useless or impossible to implement, where a person with a more positive attitude to life would think about how they can make something useful and how to implement it.
9. Re:Except... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 20:58 · Score: 0
  
  What are the odds that the driver of the car parked NEXT to your in your overly narrow space will ding your passenger side door trying to get into HIS car?
  I drive a diesel truck that is not exactly small or "compact" - not on the Ford F250 scale, but still. It does have power steering and nice, large side mirrors, both of which help to make millimeter-distance manoeuvring much easier than in some smaller cars I have driven. In 14 years of workhorse life it has accumulated it's fair share of scratches, dings, bangs and rust patches on the bodywork. Whenever I find a parking space that nobody has taken because the adjacent spot is taken by a car whose owner obviously can't park (close to or even over the line), it is a great source of personal glee to park as close as possible to that car without actually outdoing the other driver's positioning. Bonus points if the open parking space is to the driver's side of the other car.
  I saw a photo of a hand written note on a windshield yesterday reading: "you park like s**t, please don't reproduce" with a condom attached.
10. Re:Except... by tkuCheck · 2013-10-09 21:10 · Score: 1
  
  Then we get back to my point number 2. where the auto-parking car will first ask the surrounding cars if they support the feature or not, and would only park in a very tight spot if they reply yes. It hurts me to write this because it's so bloody obvious.
11. Re:Except... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 21:47 · Score: 0
  
  Because, as we all know, these exact cars will stay there until *we* decide to leave and will never be replaced by other cars.
  And your point is? If the other car doesn't support the auto parking feature, then the driver probably would not park in that tight spot, because they wouldn't be able to get out of their car...?
  Your spot is tight, theirs doesn't neccesarily have to be. You auto park between two auto parking cars with barely a centimeter on both sides. Then the auto parking car to the left of your tight spot leaves and is replaced by a usual car. There is plenty of space to its left, so that driver has no problem getting out. In this way your check for whether the surrounding cars have a feature is pointless. Kind of reminds me of checking for enough disk space before you write to a file -- equally pointless.
12. Re:Except... by tkuCheck · 2013-10-09 21:57 · Score: 1
  
  Your spot is tight, theirs doesn't neccesarily have to be. You auto park between two auto parking cars with barely a centimeter on both sides. Then the auto parking car to the left of your tight spot leaves and is replaced by a usual car. There is plenty of space to its left, so that driver has no problem getting out. In this way your check for whether the surrounding cars have a feature is pointless. Kind of reminds me of checking for enough disk space before you write to a file -- equally pointless.
  Yes, so what? You come back and press a button on your phone "Un-park" and your can will come out of the tight spot. What is your point?
13. Re:Except... by Joce640k · 2013-10-09 22:35 · Score: 1
  
  That brilliant plan has two massive shortcomings:
  1) You still need to squeeze back into the car when you're ready to leave (assuming there is no "unpark" feature)
  You know how I know you didn't read the article...?
  
  --
  No sig today...
14. Re:Except... by Joce640k · 2013-10-09 22:38 · Score: 1
  
  However who's responsible for a self driving car? Do I (or more accurately, my insurer) sue the owner (who was not in control of the vehicle at the time) or the car company (who has no doubt waived responsibility for this with a ream of paperwork when they sold it).
  
  I'm sure that lawyers everywhere are salivating at the thought of self-driving cars but I fail to see why we should ban them for that reason. Road safety can't possibly go downwards simply because we took humans out of the equation.
  
  --
  No sig today...
15. Re:Except... by marcello_dl · 2013-10-09 22:43 · Score: 0
  
  > It always amazes me on Slashdot what negative attitude some posters have.
  On one hand, those who do, do; those who don't... rant on forums.
  On the other hand, for all the products and ideas out there, if you always say "meh" you are statistically more right than if you always said "wow".
  On the other other hand, even successful products suck. The ipod still sucks (no plain storage of music as files) the iphone and androids still suck (powerful as 15yr old computers, do 10% of what 15yr old pc can do and 300% of what PC cannot do and you don't want them to do either, namely locating you and eavesdropping on you all the time).
  On the other other other hand, Ranting is justified only if you try to do something about it too.
  
  --
  ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
16. Re:Except... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 23:15 · Score: 0
  
  1) You still need to squeeze back into the car when you're ready to leave (assuming there is no "unpark" feature)
  2) What are the odds that the driver of the car parked NEXT to your in your overly narrow space will ding your passenger side door trying to get into HIS car?
  I am sure Ford engineers haven't thought about this. They couldn't have come up with ideas like (1.) the car getting out of the parking spot the same way it came in (with a press of a button on the user's smartphone), or
  
  Agreed. It would be utterly idiotic of them if they DIDN'T think of supporting an unpark feature in the same way.
  
  (2.) wirelessly communicating with the nearby parked cars to see if they support this parking feature, and only squeeze into the tight spot if they reply YES.
  OK, I have to disagree with this one. Do you really think they would include such a restriction in the system? It would make the feature utterly useless until such parking systems are nearly universal (and all brand have a common way of communicating with each other). And besides, how do you know that the use in the next car will actually use that feature even if it is supported? Maybe they don't have a smartphone, left it at home, forgot to charge it, let someone else borrow the car, or just plain don't care to use the auto-parking feature.
17. Re:Except... by Kjella · 2013-10-09 23:37 · Score: 1
  
  Second, for #2 it's the chicken or egg: As more cars get the parking assists, this'll happen less and less. Also, in many cases you can get into your car from the passenger side and then switch to the driver's seat if it's that bad.
  As more and more cars get parking assists it'll happen more and more that it's tightly parked on both sides of your car boxing you in. On the other hand, if the parking assists make an effort to park in the middle of every parking spot where possible you might end up with less squeezed places to begin with.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
18. Re:Except... by gsslay · 2013-10-09 23:48 · Score: 1
  
  But this has always been a limitation to parking, particularly parallel parking. It doesn't matter how brilliant you are at getting into a space, you still have to account for how useless the drivers of the cars next to you may be. You may be able to skilfully squeeze in and out without scratching anyone's paintwork, but that's no comfort when they don't.
  And there's nothing more annoying than coming back to your car and finding some a*hole has parked so close to you that it's nearly impossible (or totally impossible) for you to get out. I can just see early users of this system being those a*holes.
  So I won't be making any use of this technology until it is uniformly available on all cars.
19. Re:Except... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 23:48 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Ford has released info saying their cars will park into a spot you normally couldn't fit. Ford hasn't released info about how the other guy is supposed to get out. It's valid to call Ford out on this.
20. Re:Except... by DarkOx · 2013-10-10 00:00 · Score: 1
  
  Another thing people tend to miss is few things are achieved with a single step.
  If your grand vision is cars that can "valet" park themselves, some import first steps are getting a vehicle to successfully and safely navigate a parking lot ( something human drives often fail at ) recognize a designated and legal space ( like not marked handicapped only ), and put itself there.
  Sometimes you have to cross the hurdles when you get to them.
  Here is a computer analogy since we are talking about cars. Imagine you were building firmware for an embedded device and it needed a web-server. Would you insist the TCP/IP stack your co-worked just completed is useless because nobody on your team has yet to implement and http daemon?
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
21. Re:Except... by halltk1983 · 2013-10-10 00:06 · Score: 2
  
  I'm pretty sure in 1998, I didn't have a quad core 1.2GHz machine with 2GB RAM, and integrated graphics, which could run for 12 hours on a self contained battery, while also maintaining wireless communications and constantly keeping me connected to the internet.
  
  --
  Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
22. Re:Except... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 00:07 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, so what? You come back and press a button on your phone "Un-park" and your can will come out of the tight spot. What is your point?
  My point is that the following part of the protocol you proposed earlier:
  
  (2.) wirelessly communicating with the nearby parked cars to see if they support this parking feature, and only squeeze into the tight spot if they reply YES.
  is both poorly-thought-through and redundant.
  
  In a scenario where you can magically "un-park" with your phone, what is the point of checking whether nearby cars offer a similar parking feature? There is none. Hence, redundant.
  
  In a scenario where nearby cars can leave after your check and be replaced by other cars, does it work? It doesn't. Hence, poorly thought through.
  
  Have I made myself clear, or shall we waste some more time?
23. Re:Except... by T-Bone-T · 2013-10-10 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  We can't use something until everybody uses it?
24. Re:Except... by Albanach · 2013-10-10 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  More ridiculous is the fact that the link in the summary takes you to a video that shows exactly the feature the poster was requesting.
  You use your smartphone to tell the car to 'unpark' and then climb in.
25. Re:Except... by gl4ss · 2013-10-10 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  whos responsible? whos responsible if you park with aid of a mirror and parking radar.. the driver, the initiator of the action, and the cars insurance. those are who are responsible.
  btw don't go on a road trip to southern europe if you're worried about someone nudging your car when parking. if anything if they had automata for it then you'll have less problems.
  I see a bigger problem in the fact that with this you're supposedly able and expected to park your car so that there's not enough space to get out of the car - or the neighboring car for that matter!
  (yeah it's just better to keep 24/7 cams running to explain to court why it wasn't your fault anyways and you probably would rather not be in the car when someone totals it while hunting for parking spot..)
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
26. Re:Except... by Albanach · 2013-10-10 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure that lawyers everywhere are salivating at the thought of self-driving cars
  
  Funny, I think the opposite is true. Sure there might be a couple of big class actions from which a handful of lawyers will become incredibly wealthy. Lawyers everywhere on the other hand, they can probably anticipate a dramatic decline in personal injury claims and claims for property damage. Likely there will also be a substantial reduction in the need for lawyers to defend tickets for moving violations.
27. Re:Except... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 01:21 · Score: 0
  
  Also, in many cases you can get into your car from the passenger side and then switch to the driver's seat if it's that bad.
  Obviously you've never tried parking in Arizona, New Mexico or Texas. I'm just glad my car has a sunroof and access to the cabin from the trunk.
28. Re:Except... by omnichad · 2013-10-10 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  When the other driver leaves, and their passenger tries to get in, they will road rage bash in your windshield.
29. Re:Except... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  What about when your kid gets his hands on your iPhone? "Oops, Little Jimmy just ran over the neighbour's dog Squashie!"
  Or when someone hacks the data stream?
  Or when there is enough interference and you can't send a key command during the operation?
  And once you can drive like this as a built in feature, you know auto hacks will have it doing it forwards and backwards in spots other than parking.....
  And what if your phone dies? Then you can't unpark the car you've wedged in so tight?
  Yes, this is a pandora's box, I tell you. I look forward to how insurers deal with this. I expect they'll take a dim view of car accidents where people are wearing Google Glass goggles too.
30. Re:Except... by drinkypoo · 2013-10-10 01:59 · Score: 2
  
  Second, for #2 it's the chicken or egg: As more cars get the parking assists, this'll happen less and less. Also, in many cases you can get into your car from the passenger side and then switch to the driver's seat if it's that bad.
  And if you can't, you can always still break the window out of one of the vehicles that parked you in, destroy the ignition lock with a massive screwdriver and a small wrench, put it in neutral and push it out of the way.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
31. Re:Except... by tkuCheck · 2013-10-10 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  In a scenario where you can magically "un-park" with your phone, what is the point of checking whether nearby cars offer a similar parking feature? There is none. Hence, redundant.
  You seem to have misunderstood that a bit. The car checks if other cars support the feature before it tired to park in a tight spot - not after!
  
  Scenario 1:
  Auto-parking car arrives to a parking lot and notices the parking spot is too tight.
  Asks cars around if they support the feature. No answer.
  Auto-parking car will not park here, because it would prevent the other drivers from entering their normal cars.
  
  Scenario 2:
  Auto-parking car arrives to a parking lot and notices the parking spot is too tight.
  Asks cars around if they support the feature. Both answer yes.
  Auto-parking car will park here, because the other cars can get out using the auto-park feature.
  
  Scenario 3:
  Auto-parking car is parked in a tight spot. Car on the left leaves. A normal car approaches, but the driver notices that the spot is too tight, so he decides not to park here, because he won't be able to open the doors on the right.
  
  Scenario 4:
  Auto-parking car is parked in a tight spot. Car on the left leaves. An auto-parking car approaches, asks cars around if they support auto-parking feature. Both answer yes. Everyone can still get out because they have the auto-parking feature.
  
  Did I miss anything? :D
32. Re:Except... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 04:07 · Score: 0
  
  Next time make your sarcasm tag bold, almost every reply missed it. Maybe they need a slashdot reading comprehension aid.
33. Re:Except... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 04:10 · Score: 0
  
  What?! You expect me to WTFV now?!
34. Re:Except... by yurtinus · 2013-10-10 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  The cars aren't going to talk to each other, just like people don't. I'd imagine the Ford engineers programmed it to ensure there is nothing blocking the parking lines. If somebody's crowding to one side of their own spot - just like with human drivers - that's entirely on them. I think an automated parking system would alleviate the "tight spot" problem as it'd be able to hit the center of the parking spot every time.
  
  --
  +1 Disagree
35. Re:Except... by yurtinus · 2013-10-10 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  I really wish I had four hands...
  
  --
  +1 Disagree
36. Re:Except... by yurtinus · 2013-10-10 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  Road safety can't possibly go downwards simply because we took humans out of the equation.
  I'm quite certain it can. When the majority of car accidents are caused solely by the human behind the wheel - and those human factors are primarily alcohol, speed, or other distractions - I think you'll find a decent automated system will on average be quite a bit safer than a human.
  
  --
  +1 Disagree
37. Re:Except... by yurtinus · 2013-10-10 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  On the other hand, if the parking assists make an effort to park in the middle of every parking spot where possible you might end up with less squeezed places to begin with./quote You can pretty much put your money on this. All this discussion about fitting into tight spaces when parking assists are going to make it far easier for those that don't have it by putting these automated cars neatly centered between the stripes.
  
  --
  +1 Disagree
38. Re:Except... by sjames · 2013-10-10 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  At some point, in paid parking, they'll repaint the lines a bit tighter so they can squeeze in a couple more cars per row.
  That will be their last hurrah though since as soon as cars become fully automated, they'll let you off at the curb and go find free parking. As overpriced as parking is in some places, it would still be a net win even if it has to drive out to the suburbs while you're at work.
39. Re:Except... by yurtinus · 2013-10-10 05:15 · Score: 2
  
  Can't tell if sarcastic or.... What about what happens when little Jimmy gets your keys or kicks the car into neutral while playing in it?
  
  Or when somebody breaks in and steals it?
  
  Or when your car breaks down and you can't get it out of your spot?
  
  And once you give regular cars to everybody, they'll be parking forwards and backwards in spots other than parking?
  
  No, this isn't a pandoras box. Aside from defining a framework of safety regulations for automated cars, all of this is being handled with current cars which are already driven by people who are far less reliable than a properly engineered automated system.
  
  --
  +1 Disagree
40. Re:Except... by SleazyRidr · 2013-10-10 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, that was exactly the point he was trying to make. I'm glad you managed to catch on. Good work, have a cookie.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
41. Re:Except... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 08:57 · Score: 0
  
  Did I miss anything? :D
  I think so. Scenario 5: Auto-parking car is parked in a tight spot. Car on the left leaves. A normal car approaches, the driver notices that the spot is tight, but he decides to park there, as he doesn't need to open the doors on the right -- he has no passengers. He exits on the left, where there's plenty of space. Can you still auto-unpark with your phone? Sure. But what was the point of the negotiation mechanism? None. Normal neighbour-cars can replace auto-parked neighbour cars at will, so why bother asking the original neighbours, when they might be gone in 5 minutes.
42. Re:Except... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 09:21 · Score: 0
  
  The point of the negotiation mechanism came in when the car first parked, by making sure it wasn't going to be blocking entry into a legacy car next to it. Your "Scenario 5" begins as a "Scenario 2". So no, you haven't pointed out anything the GP missed.
43. Re:Except... by Zynder · 2013-10-10 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  which could run for 12 hours on a self contained battery
  And you don't have one in 2013 either! ;)
44. Re:Except... by mjwx · 2013-10-10 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  However who's responsible for a self driving car? Do I (or more accurately, my insurer) sue the owner (who was not in control of the vehicle at the time) or the car company (who has no doubt waived responsibility for this with a ream of paperwork when they sold it).
  I'm sure that lawyers everywhere are salivating at the thought of self-driving cars but I fail to see why we should ban them for that reason. Road safety can't possibly go downwards simply because we took humans out of the equation.
  Who suggested banning them?
  
  I simply pointed out that it's a legal nightmare.
  
  Road safety can't possibly go downwards simply because we took humans out of the equation.
  Actually it can when you combine humans and computers that cant predict what humans do.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
45. Re:Except... by mjwx · 2013-10-10 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  which could run for 12 hours on a self contained battery
  And you don't have one in 2013 either! ;)
  We do, you just cant do anything with it without sacrificing battery life.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
46. Re:Except... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 19:53 · Score: 0
  
  That makes sense. I stand corrected.
Vehicle next door. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 19:17 · Score: 0

What happens if you use the system to park ridiculously close to the adjacent vehicle because you don't have to worry about squeezing yourself out?
The driver or passenger of that vehicle probably doesn't have the same luxury and so their door most likely hits your car when you're not around...
1. Re:Vehicle next door. by Cenan · 2013-10-09 19:23 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Well, if I'm the driver in the adjacent car I'd make very sure that your brand new Ford has a shiny new scratch on its side. I'll take my keys out of I have to.
  
  --
  ... whatever ...
2. Re:Vehicle next door. by tkuCheck · 2013-10-09 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  I'd think the car would try to wirelessly communicate with the nearby cars to see if they support a similar parking feature and only park in a tight spot if they reply YES.
3. Re:Vehicle next door. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 20:38 · Score: 0
  
  Headline in 10 years: Ford responsible for dramatic increase in obesity!
4. Re:Vehicle next door. by gnasher719 · 2013-10-09 21:01 · Score: 2
  
  Well, if I'm the driver in the adjacent car I'd make very sure that your brand new Ford has a shiny new scratch on its side. I'll take my keys out of I have to.
  In other words, you are a criminal.
5. Re:Vehicle next door. by LordLimecat · 2013-10-09 21:20 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe that driver could have parked more squarely within his spot-- the solution to this problem 90% of the time.
6. Re:Vehicle next door. by profplump · 2013-10-09 22:07 · Score: 1
  
  So long as all of the drivers doors are on the same side that's not really a problem -- this system still lets you reduce the amount of slack space between parked cars by 50% because you only need room for doors to open on one side rather than both. In the case where both cars support auto-parking you can further reduce the amount of space required, but that's just icing on the cake.
7. Re:Vehicle next door. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 22:28 · Score: 0
  
  That's the headline from 95 years ago.
8. Re:Vehicle next door. by AmiMoJo · 2013-10-09 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  You don't have that much control. It works the same as the automatic parallel parking systems we have had for a few years now. The space has to be considerably larger than necessary for a human driver to squeeze in, and the computer will always leave a fairly large space in front and behind. Otherwise the person in front might not be able to get their shopping into their boot (er... trunk I think you call it in the US), and neither would you if it was too close to the car behind.
  I imagine the minimum allowable space between cars is the distance the door swings open. The one positive thing is that it might encourage car park designers to have reasonable size spaces.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re: Right by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 19:19 · Score: 0

True, it is a pointless technology, if you can drive 1000miles why cant you park in small tight spaces, thought they taught that in driving school.
Same as all other cars? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 19:29 · Score: 1, Interesting

So it works exactly like the autoparking on Toyotas, Volvos, Mercedes and probably many other cars with the only distinction that you don't need your foot on the brake? That seems to be a policy choice not a technological leap...
1. Re:Same as all other cars? by CurryCamel · 2013-10-09 19:44 · Score: 1
  
  There is a second, much more important distinction. But granted, that is not a technological one either: Toyota, Volvo, Mercedes vs. Ford. Spot the difference yet?
2. Re:Same as all other cars? by viperidaenz · 2013-10-09 19:45 · Score: 1
  
  But now it's wireless, so the attack surface just got a whole lot larger.
3. Re:Same as all other cars? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 20:36 · Score: 0
  
  There is a second, much more important distinction. But granted, that is not a technological one either: Toyota, Volvo, Mercedes vs. Ford. Spot the difference yet?
  The latter one is a four letter word starting with F.
4. Re:Same as all other cars? by Joce640k · 2013-10-09 22:39 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  So it works exactly like the autoparking on Toyotas, Volvos, Mercedes and probably many other cars with the only distinction that you don't need your foot on the brake?
  Nope. Those can only parallel-park.
  (Clue: Try reading the article before posting...it works wonders)
  
  --
  No sig today...
5. Re:Same as all other cars? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 02:31 · Score: 0
  
  Ford also has the autopark like the other automakers, but this one allows you to do more than parallel park and you can do it from outside the vehicle.
6. Re:Same as all other cars? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, so you mean non-parallel-parking like VW/Seat/Skoda/Audi ParkAssist already can.
  Try youtubing "vw parkassist v2"
  (Clue: Reading the article doesn't tell you anything at all about the capabilities of Ford vs. other existing technologies, so telling telling other people to makes you look like a twat.)
7. Re:Same as all other cars? by JoeSmithee · 2013-10-10 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  And the Volkswagen Phaeton.
8. Re:Same as all other cars? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 09:57 · Score: 0
  
  Joce is one of the biggest twats here! Where have you been?
9. Re:Same as all other cars? by strikethree · 2013-10-10 19:01 · Score: 1
  
  (Clue: Try reading the article before posting...it works wonders)
  Erm, I hate to say this... but you must be new here. ;)
  
  --
  "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Not really new by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2013-10-09 19:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

I was in the passenger seat of a high-end BMW the other day that did exactly that: the driver drove slowly along the row of parked cars until the car beeped, then he let go of the steering wheel, reversed and let the car park itself. Quite amazing really...

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
1. Re:Not really new by wonkey_monkey · 2013-10-09 19:50 · Score: 1
  
  What's new is that the driver doesn't need to be in the car with his foot on the accelerator. I always assumed the only reason this hadn't been done already was that legally a human has to be in control of the vehicle, but perhaps with the looming prospect of fully autonomous vehicles some regulations have been relaxed.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
2. Re:Not really new by Joce640k · 2013-10-09 22:47 · Score: 2
  
  I was in the passenger seat of a high-end BMW the other day that did exactly that: the driver drove slowly along the row of parked cars until the car beeped, then he let go of the steering wheel, reversed and let the car park itself. Quite amazing really...
  Over here we get that in a Ford Focus, etc.
  
  --
  No sig today...
3. Re:Not really new by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 23:34 · Score: 0
  
  I suppose the controlling with the smartphone (james bond style) replaces the pushing of the accelerator (/brakes). This still leaves the driver responsible, not the car. Legally nothing is changed this way, just that the driver is in a much better position to manouvre the car into a thight space. Standing behind the car to guide it is a much better position than a mirror/camera can do it.
  The only problem i can think of is that when this goes into production, smartphones are 2 generations newer than this demostration. It would be a real bummer is you need a iPhone 5 to control your car if a iPhone 8 is available on the market.
4. Re:Not really new by mrego · 2013-10-10 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  yes, yes in theory sounds great, but in practice... say you are trying to parallel park on a busy street. The car is going to go IN REVERSE with traffic on-coming??? And in the case of this Ford with the smartphone app, you will GET OUT of the car as traffic whizzes by while you open your door into traffic and step out into traffic to go around the car (assuming left hand drive and no bench seat and no shotgun passenger to slide over)??? Sounds VERY dangerous. Bad enough to get out of the car when it is safely parked. And even staying in the car while the car parallel parks itself and perhaps does not need to reverse until it is at the curb takes time to get out of the traffic lane as cars come up from the rear can be time consuming and dangerous... human parking is slow enough, will car assisted parking be faster and less dangerous? Doubt it.
5. Re:Not really new by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  I suppose the controlling with the smartphone (james bond style) replaces the pushing of the accelerator (/brakes).
  
  You suppose wrong. All the smartphone app does is tell the car to go into self-parking mode. The user has no direct control over the process. He's not steering the car from outside like an RC toy.
6. Re:Not really new by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  You really believe you came up with a problem off the top of your head that a team of engineers haven't anticipated and solved long before you ever heard of this technology. And that is just adorable.
Fuly assisted parking is nothing new by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 19:41 · Score: 1

It is an option you can buy in most new mainstream small family cars in Europe. Ford is one of the suppliers, but Kia/Hyundai also has it.
Not sure if the old-tech vendors like Mercedes, BMW etc has received it yet.
Use in driving tests? by wjh31 · 2013-10-09 19:42 · Score: 2

I dont know about other countries, but in the UK maneuvers such as reverse and parallel parking can be part of the test, i wonder what the stance is if you have a car capable of doing it for you in the test? Maybe not too common now, but in the future... For that matter how about self driving cars in general, at what point do you stop needing a license in order to 'operate' it one operation becomes merely telling it where to go.
1. Re:Use in driving tests? by Chrisq · 2013-10-09 19:53 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder what the stance is if you have a car capable of doing it for you in the test? Maybe not too common now, but in the future..
  You have this now, Even thirty years ago when I took my test, when most of us had to hone clutch control for the slow manoeuvres like the three point turn and reversing round the corner , a friend of mine took hist test in a Land Rover and just engaged low ratio. Now my car has hill-start assist, turns the wipers on when it rains, the lights on when it gets dark - many will parallel park - all things that could make the difference between a pass and a fail. Oh and an emergency stop in the wet required more judgement before ABS.
2. Re:Use in driving tests? by aiadot · 2013-10-09 20:21 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I'm not sure how it works on other countries, but here in Japan there are two types of licenses for "normal" vehicles. One for auto transmission and the other for manual transmission. If you have only an AT license you can only drive AT cars. If you have a MT license you can drive both.
  
  Similarly, in the future, I believe there will be multiple types of licenses based on the level of automation you want your car to have. If you have a license for fully automatic cars, you may only drive those. If your license semi-automatic, self-parking only, you may drive your car but the parking must be automatic. If you have a normal license, you can do whatever you want. So basically learning these "old-chool" techniques will grant the right to manually drive cars (or drive old cars), if necessary. If you don't care about driving, than you may get an easier test, but if you need to do a maneuver you either ask someone else or upgrade your license.
  
  How to enforce this system? I suspect as cars become more intelligent, coupled with our increasing world wide surveillance state, future license cards will also have ID chips and biometrics so that the car recognizes who can or cannot drive.
3. Re:Use in driving tests? by aNonnyMouseCowered · 2013-10-09 21:54 · Score: 1
  
  Actually not just in Japan. You definitely need different licenses to drive a truck and a motorcycle. I see self-parking to fully autonomous vehicles being treated as totally different categories of vehicles.
  You don't need fancy biometrics to enforce the system. Right now our driving license system is mostly enforced by the honor system and the medium threat of getting pulled over by a police officer. Even now you can theoretically drive a truck without a license, just don't do something that makes you stand out like swerving between lanes or ramming a fire hydrant..
4. Re:Use in driving tests? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 22:04 · Score: 1
  
  If your license semi-automatic
  We need to ban these semi-automatic military style "assault cars".
5. Re:Use in driving tests? by Smauler · 2013-10-09 22:43 · Score: 1
  
  Oh and an emergency stop in the wet required more judgement before ABS.
  My class 1 license test (for everyone abroad, that's the biggest trucks you can drive on UK roads) I screwed up my emergency stop... I forgot to drop the clutch. Stalled the truck, stopped. He gave me a minor for it, and I passed.
  Also... most of the trailers I use have ABS. A little while ago, driving up the A1, a van in front of me dropped a couple of wheelbarrows on the carriageway. I stopped quickly, needless to say, and thought it was a relatively controlled stop... then looked in my mirrors - white smoke everywhere. ABS is nice.
  It's also better than people... if it wasn't there wouldn't be regulations about it in motorsport.
6. Re:Use in driving tests? by jiadran · 2013-10-09 23:05 · Score: 1
  
  It's similar in Switzerland. If you pass your driving test with an automatic car, you still get the same license, but with a mention that you are only allowed to drive automatic (similar to the mention that one is only allowed to drive with glasses).
  As for enforcing this system, wouldn't it be the more fancy cars (with lots of automation) that could actually enforce this, while the old cars (where you would actually need a better license) would not? You could still use biometrics, etc., to determine in a fancy car whether you're allowed to turn off the enhancements.
7. Re:Use in driving tests? by AmiMoJo · 2013-10-09 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  Well you can get an automatic transmission only license already, so I think in the future it isn't hard to imagine people getting "self parking only" licenses.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
8. Re:Use in driving tests? by DrXym · 2013-10-10 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  Same deal in the UK. Drive an automatic and you get a licence that only covers automatics. Most people however take the manual test which covers both manual and automatic. As an aside, car rental companies must laugh their asses off when Americans rent vehicles in Europe since they get to slap an enormous premium on the automatic models.
9. Re:Use in driving tests? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  You're both wrong. Don't forget the kei car license... Much easier to get.
  Source: lived there 13 years, currently living there.
10. Re:Use in driving tests? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 01:38 · Score: 0
  
  I'm seeing a whole new breed of instances where toddlers steal mommy or daddy's "key" and tell the car "McDonalds" or "Disneyland"
2008 called by jmke · 2013-10-09 19:46 · Score: 3, Informative

Audi has this already for quite a few years ;) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAeel-JmZVg
1. Re:2008 called by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 19:58 · Score: 0
  
  Not the same thing. That stuff still has the driver control gas/brake. This is fully autonomous no-driver-in-the-car parking.
2. Re:2008 called by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 23:43 · Score: 0
  
  Not even remotely similar. Audi is assisted, this Ford tech is driverless. Plus the Ford tech even finds the spot (thats the scariest part...)
Re: Right by wonkey_monkey · 2013-10-09 19:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

if you can drive 1000miles why cant you park in small tight spaces
If you can get a computer to do it more safely and more efficiently, why wouldn't you? And I'm talking about parking and driving.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
So you can expect to come back.. by Chrisq · 2013-10-09 19:48 · Score: 1

This is ideal for both parking in tight spaces (i.e., you don't have to squeeze your way out of your vehicle while trying not to bang the next car's door)
So you can expect to come back to the car park and find your car boxed in by one of these parked each side six inches from your car. I've had this done to me manually occasionally (one parking forward and one reverse so both drivers' doors face away) and it's very annoying.
1. Re:So you can expect to come back.. by tkuCheck · 2013-10-09 19:53 · Score: 1
  
  So you can expect to come back to the car park and find your car boxed in by one of these parked each side six inches from your car.
  Have you thought that the car would try to wirelessly communicate with the nearby cars to see if they support a similar parking feature and only park in a tight spot if they reply YES?
2. Re:So you can expect to come back.. by Chrisq · 2013-10-09 20:09 · Score: 1
  
  So you can expect to come back to the car park and find your car boxed in by one of these parked each side six inches from your car.
  Have you thought that the car would try to wirelessly communicate with the nearby cars to see if they support a similar parking feature and only park in a tight spot if they reply YES?
  TFA certainly doesn't mention this - is Ford including it?
3. Re:So you can expect to come back.. by Joce640k · 2013-10-09 22:50 · Score: 2
  
  So you can expect to come back to the car park and find your car boxed in by one of these parked each side six inches from your car.
  If I come back and see you've done that to me then your door's getting banged up.
  So much for this technology saving you from dents and scratches...
  
  --
  No sig today...
4. Re:So you can expect to come back.. by Smauler · 2013-10-09 22:53 · Score: 1
  
  I've had this happen to me manually too - if the guy on your passenger side backs in, you can't get into the car at all. It doesn't help my car is a 2 door... one of the big disadvantages of 2 door cars is that their doors are a lot longer, so you need more space to get out.
  I have in the past a couple of times leant in, got the handbrake off, and pushed my car out of a tight spot.
5. Re:So you can expect to come back.. by DrXym · 2013-10-10 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  That assumes there to be a common protocol for this kind of thing which is exceedingly unlikely to happen for a very long time, or for such vehicles to become common place given it is likely a very expensive optional extra that many people would choose to do without.
6. Re:So you can expect to come back.. by yurtinus · 2013-10-10 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Everybody's focussing on this "tight space" bit and ignoring the fact that a self-parking car will be far more likely to center itself in its lane than a regular driver. I'm picturing a lot where many of the cars are perfectly centered in their lanes rather than hugging one side or the other.
  
  --
  +1 Disagree
7. Re:So you can expect to come back.. by Chrisq · 2013-10-10 19:34 · Score: 1
  
  Everybody's focussing on this "tight space" bit and ignoring the fact that a self-parking car will be far more likely to center itself in its lane than a regular driver.
  
  Maybe that's because both the summary and the article specifically mention squeezing in to tight spaces as one of the uses of the system.
8. Re:So you can expect to come back.. by yurtinus · 2013-10-14 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  You can't expect me to believe half the people in this discussion read past tf title
  
  --
  +1 Disagree
A smartphone app to control this? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 19:49 · Score: 0

How long until this is hacked? I prefer my car not to be controllable by phone.
1. Re:A smartphone app to control this? by DrXym · 2013-10-10 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  It should be relatively straightforward to secure comms between a smartphone and a car - during a bluetooth sync the car and phone exchange randomly generated public keys. These keys are used to encrypt a handshake in which a random session key is created. The session key combined with timestamped packets would allow the car / phone to talk and also prevent replay attacks.
  I suppose someone in a van could throw broken packets or random interference and somehow DOS, disrupt or crash the session though.
Without the driver inside? by Purity+Of+Essence · 2013-10-09 19:50 · Score: 1

Don't know about your area but around here it is illegal to leave a running vehicle unoccupied.

--
+0 Meh
1. Re:Without the driver inside? by aardvarkjoe · 2013-10-09 22:43 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't that make the already-common remote ignition feature illegal?
  I know that this is a pretty wild concept, but maybe, just maybe, it would be possible to change such laws if this sort of feature becomes common.
  
  --
  
  How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
2. Re:Without the driver inside? by newcastlejon · 2013-10-09 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't that make the already-common remote ignition feature illegal?
  Yes, which is why it's not already-common in those countries where it is illegal (like the UK AFAIK).
  
  I know that this is a pretty wild concept, but maybe, just maybe, it would be possible to change such laws if this sort of feature becomes common.
  I think you might have that part backwards.
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
3. Re:Without the driver inside? by aardvarkjoe · 2013-10-10 00:08 · Score: 1
  
  I think you might have that part backwards.
  Well, evidently not, if we are to take remote ignition as an example -- the feature is widespread already, and the laws are lagging behind.
  
  --
  
  How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
4. Re:Without the driver inside? by newcastlejon · 2013-10-10 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Widespread where? In countries where it's not already banned, I expect. It's banned where I live and I've not so much as heard of a car that comes with remote start. There are aftermarket kits, yes, but to my knowledge no manufacturers offer that feature.
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
5. Re:Without the driver inside? by aardvarkjoe · 2013-10-10 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Widespread where? In countries where it's not already banned, I expect.
  Yes, that was my point. It's becoming widespread, and eventually the places that ban it will change their laws.
  I know that some Chevy cars have it as an option from the manufacturer. I would be surprised if they were the only ones.
  
  --
  
  How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Bad parking spot by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 19:57 · Score: 0

Let me get this straight: I want my car to park itself because the spot is too small for me to open the door from, right?
What happens when the *other* driver wants to get into his car? If the spot was too tight for me, you can bet it'll be too tight for him and I'm either locking him out of his car or giving him a perfectly good excuse to scratch the crap out of mine.
Laboratory conditions.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 20:05 · Score: 0

I would like to see how well the sensors work in winter season here in Finland when your car is covered in snow, ice and thick layer of dirt 4-5 months of the year...
1. Re:Laboratory conditions.... by Chrisq · 2013-10-09 20:10 · Score: 1
  
  I would like to see how well the sensors work in winter season here in Finland when your car is covered in snow, ice and thick layer of dirt 4-5 months of the year...
  As a matter of interest how well do the existing "parking sensors" work?
2. Re:Laboratory conditions.... by anubi · 2013-10-09 20:44 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone hip on the sensor technology? Microwave? Ultrasonic? Capacitive?
  
  --
  "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
Parking in tight spaces ? by Foske · 2013-10-09 20:30 · Score: 1

This is ideal for both parking in tight spaces (i.e., you don't have to squeeze your way out of your vehicle while trying not to bang the next car's door)
True, except that the driver of the other car still might have to do exactly that (or hit other cars from the front or rear) because some asshole with FAP-Aid parked his car too close to the others.
1. Re:Parking in tight spaces ? by gnasher719 · 2013-10-09 21:28 · Score: 1
  
  True, except that the driver of the other car still might have to do exactly that (or hit other cars from the front or rear) because some asshole with FAP-Aid parked his car too close to the others.
  I know one parking garage where you find a series of three parking spaces between two walls. If two cars can park their cars very closely to the walls, it's a lot easier for the one in the middle. I'll just repeat: It's amazing how Slashdotters can find only the negative in anything.
Godwin Law and car analogy in one by abies · 2013-10-09 20:31 · Score: 1

Seems that competitors already developed similar technology, which can stop WW2 as an extra...
http://vimeo.com/72718945
1. Re:Godwin Law and car analogy in one by Hypotensive · 2013-10-09 21:21 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think Ford was interested in stopping WW2: he was one of Hitler's major foreign supporters.
welcome to 2006 by nimbius · 2013-10-09 20:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

http://gizmodo.com/196551/lexus-self-parking-car-video-and-review

Lexus did this first in 2006. its entirely plausible Ford just licensed their technology as they did in the past with Toyotas Hybrid Synergy Drive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_Synergy_Drive#Ford

--
Good people go to bed earlier.
1. Re:welcome to 2006 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 22:16 · Score: 0
  
  Do you read the links you send? The second one states that Ford developed their own version, but cross-licensed patents, presumably because Toyota had patented first.
2. Re:welcome to 2006 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 23:25 · Score: 0
  
  The Lexus doesn't find a spot, nor is it driverless, you still kick it off inside the car. Read TFS.
3. Re:welcome to 2006 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 03:09 · Score: 0
  
  If you've researched well you will find that there was a cross-licensing with Toyota on their hybrid drive system. It was not a one-way street. Also, the Ford parking system was way much advanced that what Toyota can do. Check things out and compare them, you will be surprised.
4. Re:welcome to 2006 by darkmeridian · 2013-10-10 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  I have a Ford Fusion that has the Assisted Parking Technology. The driver has to remain in the car, shift gears, and hit the gas and brake pedals. The new system takes care of all of that.
  
  --
  A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Another thing to automate. by FelicitaBraxton · 2013-10-09 20:52 · Score: 1

And I thought we, as a race, couldn't get any lazier.
1. Re:Another thing to automate. by flyingfsck · 2013-10-09 21:31 · Score: 1
  
  Bah, my grandfather's donkey parked itself and if that was good enough for my gradfather, then it is good enough for me...
  
  --
  Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
2. Re:Another thing to automate. by operagost · 2013-10-10 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  Good point. You could tie on a feedbag and walk away, too, instead of having to stand next to your car waiting for the pump to fill your tank at 2 gallons per minute. Tailpipe is a little messy, though.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
3. Re:Another thing to automate. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  No worse than some really nasty diesels I have seen.
Assinine by flyingfsck · 2013-10-09 21:02 · Score: 2

Well, previously, you could slap the donkey on her ass and she would go and park herself in the pasture.

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
1. Re:Assinine by shikaisi · 2013-10-09 21:46 · Score: 2
  
  Well, previously, you could slap the donkey on her ass ...
  tautology
  
  --
  No left turn unstoned.
2. Re:Assinine by TheRaven64 · 2013-10-09 23:19 · Score: 1
  
  According to my (1897) edition of Websters, ass has two meanings: donkey and stupid person. Maybe he meant you slap the donkey on her stupid person?
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
3. Re:Assinine by Zynder · 2013-10-10 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  Your logic is exquisite as that is precisely what that means. You see, we call people ass's because when they open thier mouth, only stupid shit comes out of it. The only part of one's body that spews shit is your ass, which was called the d'arriere at the time (we also wore onions on our belts). So we subbed d'arriere with ass because of the stupid shit that pours from both of them.
Police Use? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 21:06 · Score: 0

How long until the police can use it to pull over/stop any auto-park enabled car with the use of backdoor keys or the like?
Then how long until those keys are released into the public?
captcha: hostage
Volkswagen by krenaud · 2013-10-09 21:16 · Score: 2

VW has had that feature for years. Their 2.0 version also has bay parking. http://applefansite.com/2013/04/the-new-golf-parking-sensors/
yawn... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 21:50 · Score: 0

the fact is that cagers suck a big one...
Unfortunate acronyms by smeg · 2013-10-09 22:00 · Score: 2

Heh, "Ford FAP-Aid". That'll be popular...
FAP AID by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 22:10 · Score: 0

Aptly named Fully Assisted Parking Aid aka 'FAP-Aid' to facilitate driver fapping while the car parks itself. For those who truly appreciate trolley-pushing parking lot milfs.
I learned to parallel park.. once upon a time. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-09 23:51 · Score: 0

15-years ago I learned how to parallel park. That was then and this is now. 15-years later I have never had to parallel park, ever. I also avoid the inner-city like the plague and use parking garages instead of overpriced parking meters (which ends up in my favor). I will continue to do avoid this need but it would be nice to learn again, but if I ever get a self-parking car then I guess I don't need to (hopefully). When I did my driver's exam, all I had to do was drive around a block and that was it. There were no cones, no parallel parking or anything difficult. Just a 3-point turn after reaching the end of a subdivision and that was it. At least it's better than most other countries which is just a written test and after 6-months you get your full-license.
Audi had this already by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 00:00 · Score: 0

Check this out @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt20UnkmkLI
name fail by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 00:06 · Score: 0

Fully Assisted Parking Aid = FAP Aid. Really?
Hrmm, by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 00:22 · Score: 0

FAP Aid?
Oops. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 00:23 · Score: 0

If it is too tight to park and exist the vehicle, how do you get back in when it is time to leave?
FAP Aid? by OurDailyFred · 2013-10-10 00:26 · Score: 1

So if I get one of these cars with a "Fully Assisted Parking Aid" will the car have any stickers saying it has a FAP Aid?
You'd think a big company like Ford would have someone who looks over names just to make sure ... oh... now I understand!
It looks like they already do. Good work Ford!

--
If your only tool is a hammer, you'll approach every problem as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
Alternatively by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 00:49 · Score: 0

Your super duper parking machine squeezes into a space leaving only inches on either side. The driver of the car next to you returns to his vehicle and is unable to gain access because of your car. Hilarity ensues when you kicks in your door or keys your shiny new vehicle in a rightful rage.
If the space is that small, you should NOT park there! A technological shoehorn is not the answer.
Car parks by axedog · 2013-10-10 01:00 · Score: 1

Will this mean that tesco, asda, sainsburys and the rest make their parking bays even more narrow than they are already?

--
Sent from my Tianhe-2 (MilkyWay-2).
What is the smartphone for? by __aaltlg1547 · 2013-10-10 01:03 · Score: 1

Why should I need a smartphone to park my car? All the necessary electronics are BUILT INTO THE CAR. It comes with a tiny remote control built into the key or fob. Put the button to park the car on the fob.
1. Re:What is the smartphone for? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 02:28 · Score: 0
  
  Presumably selecting the spot visually - the article described the idea of dropping you off and then going to park. A lot of discussion on here seems focused on jammed parking lots, but to me, the ideal use is mall parking lots during holiday shopping season - drops you off at the door and then goes and parks 40 spaces away.
not questioning the more important problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 01:13 · Score: 0

... cars themselves. Have we moved so far into self-delusion that we consider self-parking cars to be a solution to an important problem? Last I checked, cars (and petrol-based transportation) is bad for lots of reasons - global warming, squandering shrinking oil supply, etc. We need to wake up.
Handicap spots? by seven+of+five · 2013-10-10 01:23 · Score: 1

It can avoid the currently-open handicap spot? Reserved parking areas? Permit parking?
Valets by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 01:39 · Score: 0

Won't someone please think of the valets? They're gonna go the way of buggy whip manufacturers.
Cities will demand an unlock code by gelfling · 2013-10-10 04:10 · Score: 1

So they can remotely send your car to impound.
Re: Right by bob_super · 2013-10-10 04:20 · Score: 1

Once you show me that the car can read the sign behind the tree branch that says "no parking"...
Very Cool! by Nethead · 2013-10-10 04:29 · Score: 1

Now can I get this for my motorcycle?

--
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
Still far to go by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 04:39 · Score: 0

I can only assume they are not that far along yet because:
1) Videos focused on fairly easy parking in lots rather than the more challenging parallel street parking
2) Some of the videos appeared to be computer animation rather than real camera footage.
VW tried that ca. '89 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 04:46 · Score: 0

VW Future 1989/1990:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVQsVkYbpuw
I vaguely remember the book about the Future my dad brought with him from the factory in Baunatal... funny to see it being reimplemented.
Re: Right by SleazyRidr · 2013-10-10 05:53 · Score: 1

Can a person read that sign?
Also, I doubt the technology is quite there to have the car drop you at the door then go and find itself a parking spot, so it doesn't really matter if it can read signs or not.

--
Is 1563649 a prime number?
License Requirement by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 06:10 · Score: 0

If you {personally} can't park a vehicle, you sure as hell should not be driving it. Maybe Ford wants to entice the g000gle fleet of driverless autonomous cars into learning how to park.
1. Re:License Requirement by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 09:45 · Score: 0
  
  If you {personally} can't park a vehicle, you sure as hell should not be driving it.
  
  Don't want to != can't.
Re: Right by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 07:43 · Score: 0

I'm GP:
And I'm actually all for it in the future.
But you just gotta think about the ???? ,
that's exactly what the person would think getting stuck between two of these cars.
The liability question by gweilo8888 · 2013-10-10 08:22 · Score: 1

I'm amazed nobody has brought this up yet, and it's the reason you won't be seeing this in your car any time soon, if ever.

Who is liable when your self-parking car fails to self-park due to any of a million different reasons from a faulty sensor to an unaccounted-for scenario to malicious interference by a third party, and it crashes into my car -- or for that matter, ME?

With a regular car, the liability stops at its driver. (And then maybe, if the driver believes it wasn't their fault, they sue their mechanic or the manufacturer -- but mostly that doesn't happen, because it *was* the driver's fault, and court cases are expensive.)

But now the car is driving itself, and that means it is the manufacturer who's liable when it causes death, injury, or damage. If Ford puts this in a production car, they'd better be damned sure it is perfect, 100% reliable, and tamper-proof, and that if ongoing maintenance is required, that there is either a 100% reliable, tamper-proof system which alerts the owner and/or refuses to start the car if the self-driving system needs maintenance, or that the owner is comprehensively briefed on the maintenance schedule. Or more likely, both.

Otherwise, Ford is going to find itself on the receiving end of a whole lot of lawsuits it doesn't want. Which is why this "look at me" attention-whoring whizbang tech will stay in the lab, intended solely to get headlines and build reputation, but it won't be going in your car any time soon.
1. Re:The liability question by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 08:51 · Score: 0
  
  Why are you amazed that "nobody has brought this up" when lots of people already bring it up in every single story about automated cars? You're not even the first to mention it in this very story.
  And none of you ever stop to consider that the manufacturers obviously HAVE considered this angle already, since they're the ones developing this technology. Do you think that they don't have lawyers? That there's any possible aspect or consequence of this that they missed but you caught? There isn't. They aren't that dumb, and you aren't that smart.
2. Re:The liability question by gweilo8888 · 2013-10-10 17:25 · Score: 1
  
  Because nobody brought it up. I did a find-in-page for "liability" after loading all comments, and it didn't appear once before my post.
  
  As for your other comment, please point me to the many such driverless systems which have gone beyond PR whoring and are now on the street in the hands of the general public. Clearly, if the lawyers approved it and the tech is already available, there will be masses of them.
  
  Oh, wait. There aren't. Because, as I said, it's a PR stunt and nothing more. It's all about making people believe your brand is on the cutting edge so you can sell them massively outdated tech at a premium, not about actually putting cutting edge tech into a car. If you got out and look at your brand new, shiny car, it's almost identical to what you were driving a decade or two ago, in terms of technology. It's just been repackaged once a year to make it glossier.
Good sir! by Zynder · 2013-10-10 09:47 · Score: 1

I like the cut of your jib and wish to subscribe to your newsletter!
Ford - Dumbing down drivers! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 11:04 · Score: 0

If you cannot park a car you should not be driving a car!
1. Re:Ford - Dumbing down drivers! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-10 11:47 · Score: 0
  
  Have you realized why that's a stupid thing to say yet, or do you need it spelled out for you?
We've had driverless cars for years... by theGhostPony · 2013-10-10 14:33 · Score: 1

Commuting 200 miles a day, I'd have to say at least 25% of cars I see on the roads around here are already driverless.

--
/. Dissent will not be tolerated. Think like us or perish.
Re:Right by theGhostPony · 2013-10-10 14:48 · Score: 1

A-freakin-men. And I've been commuting 1000 miles a week for years, accident free. I don't need a f*cking computer to drive my car.

--
/. Dissent will not be tolerated. Think like us or perish.
Re: Right by wonkey_monkey · 2013-10-10 19:43 · Score: 1

that's exactly what the person would think getting stuck between two of these cars.
What are you waiting for? Get on the phone and call the scientists and engineers who obviously lack the insight to foresee this problem during the months and years they've spent developing this technology!

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
This is new? by cundare · 2013-10-11 04:25 · Score: 1

What am I missing? How is this different than what my 2010 Prius has been doing for me for the last three years. When I come up on a parking area, the Prius highlights candidate spaces on the touch screen and I select one. It then steers itself into the space. The driver keeps a foot on the brake in case of an event like a kid running behind the car, but otherwise, the Prius takes care of everything. Yes, this Ford system has a few greater degrees of automation, but I think those are just bells & whistles. I'm not so sure it's really a great idea that the driver doesn't have to be in the car, if only for the aforementioned safety reasons.
.
So I don't get it. Why is this news??
Re: Right by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-11 08:30 · Score: 0

Got me wonder where does your karma came from. Why should I care.
They just showcased something with limited value but an obvious huge adoption problem that would fuck up all the non-users, mind you just have to get close enough to the driver seat side for you to annoy people.
And why are you on the defensive anyway, good luck.