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?
(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
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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