Slashdot Mirror
Ford Showcases Self-Parking Car Technology
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."
or FAP-Aid for short?
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?
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>
(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.
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
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.
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!
Audi has this already for quite a few years ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAeel-JmZVg
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.
(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.
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!
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...?
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.
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.
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!
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/
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".
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.
Heh, "Ford FAP-Aid". That'll be popular...
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.
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...
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...
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...
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
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.
>> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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... :-)
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.
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
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.'"
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?
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