Ford's New Smart Headlights For Tracking Objects At Night

An anonymous reader writes: Headlights have been around since the 1880's, and while the source of their light has changed over the years, their functionality has remained virtually the same, until now. Ford has unveiled a new advanced illumination system that should make driving your car at night a lot safer. The new headlight system uses a standard and infrared camera to detect objects near the road. The new technology can locate and track up to eight people or animals up to 12 meters. Ford reports: "Building upon Adaptive Front Lighting System and Traffic Sign Recognition, the system interprets traffic signs to better illuminate hazards that are not in the direction of travel, and uses GPS information for enhanced lighting when encountering bends and dips on a chosen route. Where GPS information is not available, a video camera detects lane markings and predicts the road’s curvature. When next the driver uses the same road again, the headlights adapt to the course of the road automatically. We expect this technology to be available for customers in the near term."

Comments

Umm

[Psychotria]

[...] and uses GPS information for enhanced lighting when encountering bends and dips on a chosen route [...]

What about those of use who are really looking at least 1 turn ahead of the current turn/bend/dip? Nobody who can actually drive is actually looking at the current turn, so why highlight it?

Re:Umm

[drinkypoo]

Nobody who can actually drive is actually looking at the current turn, so why highlight it?

You should learn to drive before you lecture other people. Never outdrive your headlights. If that means you have to slow down to less than the posted speed limit, so be it. That's how you avoid driving over road obstacles at night, like rocks or animals. Now, in the future, watch where you're going.

Re:Umm

[Anonymous Coward]

How fast do I need to be going to out drive my headlights? I thought C was pretty quick :/

Re:Umm

[Psychotria]

You misunderstand what I am said. The current corner/dip/bend is always there but it's basically an extension of the NEXT bit of road which you should be looking at and anticipating. Yes, of course the current corner/dip/bend must be illuminated so that you can see what's there... but the headlights should not concentrate themselves on that corner/dip/bend because your mind has already processed pretty much all that there is to see; although your current reactions are fast-forwarding to what's coming next the current situation is, of course, always in your "peripheral vision" (I use that term because although it's not really a peripheral the term conveys what I am trying to say the most accurately). If the headlights decide to move, concentrate and highlight what you've already seen and moved on from then seeing and processing the next situation is compromised.

Did I say that you should outdrive your headlights? No! That would be insanity. What I said (or meant) was that by moving the headlights point of highlight (which according to the admittedly lacking articles) is the current corner/dip/turn the driver's concentration moves from looking ahead to what is already a committed action.

Re:Umm

[Demonoid-Penguin]

How fast do I need to be going to out drive my headlights? I thought C was pretty quick :/

You should follow drinkiepoos advice - then you wouldn't need to ask stupid questions. You need to drive no faster than a speed that will allow you to stop within the distance lit by your headlights. If you can't work out what that means, then don't fucking drive you quibbling fool.

Re:Umm

[rogoshen1]

it's okay to out drive your headlights, it's when you drive faster than your angel can fly that you run into troubles.

Re:Umm

[Ol Olsoc]

You misunderstand what I am said. The current corner/dip/bend is always there but it's basically an extension of the NEXT bit of road which you should be looking at and anticipating.

This is a standard thing in motorcycling - do not look into the turn you are on at the moment. Look well ahead of it.

You needed to make your driving decisions for the turn you are in well before you got there, When you are there, it's way too late.

Peripheral vision can take care of you for the space you are already in at the moment.

With the extra leaning and goings on for motorcycling, it's more critical to look ahead, but the same basic concept holds for automobiles.

Re:Umm

[Lumpy]

Slow down? Are you insane? At night you go faster faster FASTER! OMG I am soooo important I need to do 90!

Even at 70mph you are outdriving your low beam headlights on a modern car. High beams are required for speeds above 50. Yet 90% of the drivers on the road do not understand this and fly into the night at 80-90mph with low beams on and they get all pissy at the smart drivers that use their high beams.

Re:Umm

[Joce640k]

Whoosh!

Re:Umm

[tompaulco]

Slow down? Are you insane? At night you go faster faster FASTER! OMG I am soooo important I need to do 90!

Even at 70mph you are outdriving your low beam headlights on a modern car. High beams are required for speeds above 50. Yet 90% of the drivers on the road do not understand this and fly into the night at 80-90mph with low beams on and they get all pissy at the smart drivers that use their high beams.

Unless you live out in the country, streetlights are ubiquitous. I find that the only time I ever need to turn on my high beams is when I am out on country roads, which is very rarely. In fact, I have not used the high beams on my most recent car, which I bought 18 months ago. I can go faster in my car then I could comfortably stop within the headlight distance, but the fact is that I can see beyond the reach of my headlights due to all of the streets being illuminated.

Re:Umm

[Anonymous Coward]

but the headlights should not concentrate themselves on that corner/dip/bend because your mind has already processed pretty much all that there is to see

Here's something that you may not believe: You haven't already processed pretty much all there is to see. Your eye has focused on small bits of the road ahead and whatever is on it or nearby. Your mind then uses conjecture to fill in the missing details. It's called inattentive blindness and is the result that your eye can only accurately focus on a tiny area out of your entire field of view. It's one of the major reasons why automobile drivers have a hard time with pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists - they aren't expecting any of them, so they don't see them.

Here's some more information.

Re:Umm

[silas_moeckel]

2 of those should not be on the road.

Re:Umm

[Psychotria]

It's called inattentive blindness

Then perhaps the driver should be less inattentive. I doubt that focusing attention on a screen in the car instead of the road, and what's on it, is going to improve this.

Re:Umm

[Anonymous Coward]

We get pissy at the selfish idiot drivers who use high beams inappropriately, when there is another car plainly visible in front of them. Considering that the other vehicles on the road are the most likely partners in accidents, it is not a very good plan to temporarily blind all the nearby drivers.

Re:Umm

[operagost]

Um... you're supposed to dim (dip) your high beams when you approach another vehicle. Yeah, I get pissy when someone doesn't do this.

Re:Umm

[Psychotria]

Clown on a unicycle

One interesting experiment displayed how cell phones contributed to inattentional blindness in basic tasks such as walking. The stimuli for this experiment was a brightly colored clown on a unicycle. The individuals participating in this experiment were divided into four sections. They were either talking on the phone, listening to an mp3 player, walking by themselves or walking in pairs. The study showed that individuals engaged in cell phone conversations were least likely to notice the clown. This experiment was designed by Ira E. Hyman, S. Matthew Boss, Breanne M. Wise, Kira E. Mckenzie and Jenna M. Caggiano at Western Washington University.[24]

I postulate that paying attention to a display in the car instead of on the road is pretty similar to this. I rest my case.

Re:Umm

[drinkypoo]

I doubt that focusing attention on a screen in the car instead of the road, and what's on it, is going to improve this.

That's because you don't understand what's going to be on the screen. There are examples of systems like this already on the road. The purpose is to highlight objects which are difficult to see. A warning tone plays, an animal standing in the road is picked out by an IR camera and drawn on the screen in false contrast, usually with a big red box around it. But by the time you've looked down at the screen, you have already decelerated, because a warning tone has played. Therefore, not only is it making you more aware of what's on the road, but it's also helping you react to it before you can even see it. However, if you did manage to see the obstacle before the alert, no harm done; just don't look down. You are presumably in control of your own neck muscles. Don't invent things to be mad about, especially when it comes to technologies that are already in use on the road saving lives.

Re:Umm

[Bengie]

You were responding to someone asking about turns, but I'll talk about straitaways.

The problem with night time is with nothing in the road for lights to reflect off of, you have no depth perception. You can see the road surface that is illuminated, but that's a very short distance. Most of the light from the headlights goes off into infinity. If there is any amount of fog or precipitation in the air, I can easily see my max range, but when the air is clear, there is no distinct end to one's rage.

Re:Umm

[Captain Hook]

The car drivers and motorcyclists right? Since the in UK at least, pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders have a right to use the roads and everything motorized above a certain power limit requires permission (for both the operator and the vehicle).

Re: Umm

[Anonymous Coward]

Drivers who know why they are doing will be scanning ahead as time allows. If your headlights happen to illuminate something beyond your current turn you note it. You can even use the headlights of the vehicle in front of you or in front of them to see things ahead, or really any ambient light.

There is no reason to stare at the light patches from your headlights as you imply should be done. Once you know what is 50 feet in front of you, you should check 100 feet, and 200 feet and so on. You should NEVER have free time while driving as there is always an additional check you could be making.

Re:Umm

[Anonymous Coward]

obviously a granny driver

Re:Umm

[FranTaylor]

Unless you live out in the country, streetlights are ubiquitous. I find that the only time I ever need to turn on my high beams is when I am out on country roads, which is very rarely.

wow, we should just throw out all our surveys and statistical information and just go with your experiences because clearly we all live just like you do

Re:Umm

[Ol Olsoc]

It's called inattentive blindness

Then perhaps the driver should be less inattentive. I doubt that focusing attention on a screen in the car instead of the road, and what's on it, is going to improve this.

And you don't have to look at the screen. You can see the person/animal when the little headlight under your main headlight moves to illuminate the object. Or is illuminating objects you might run into a bad thing?

Re:Umm

[Ol Olsoc]

Don't invent things to be mad about, especially when it comes to technologies that are already in use on the road saving lives.

I haven't seen this much creeping codgerism since everyone knew someone who knew someone who's life was saved because they weren't wearing a seat belt.

Re:Umm

[Ol Olsoc]

I postulate that paying attention to a display in the car instead of on the road is pretty similar to this. I rest my case.

Trouble is, you're arging the wrong case. Now again, I wonder how many people have been killed because they looked at the speedometer, or the oil or electrical gauges? Tiny little distractions. Jesus Christ, not taking youe eyes off the road ahead is really bad. My Mother in law, would not do anything, not turn on teh heater, teh radio or anything but look directly ahead when she drove. She was dangerous, because she was hynotized. You could wave at her when she was coming the opposite way, and she wouldn't see you.

Even aside from that, tell me, what are the problems for drivers whan a person or animal iss illuminated automatically. Is this bad? Because you don't need to look at the damned screen ever. If you are so worried, Put a godsend piece of cardboard over it. It will still work.

While you are at it, paint every display or instrument flat black so things like the speed you are going, or the amount of fuel in teh tank don't distract you.

Or are you going to argue that illuminating something on teh side of the road that you don't want to run over is distracting? RTFA and watch the video.

Re:Umm

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

You need to drive no faster than a speed that will allow you to stop within the distance lit by your headlights.

Depending on the conditions, even that speed may be unreasonably high. Consider a narrow country road where your lights are the only major source of illumination. A cyclist may be close to invisible until you have a direct line of sight to any lights they have on and/or your own lights hit their reflective clothing, but they could still be moving at considerable speed towards you. And on a narrow country road, they may well be cycling in unusual road positions to avoid other hazards as well.

Even a motor vehicle going in the opposite direction to you could be hidden by a bend or dip in the road so you don't see it or its lights until relatively late. If you assume you're both travelling at similar speeds, then if you're both going so fast that you're at the limit of your headlight visibility, you're almost sure to crash if there isn't enough space to pass.

Re:Umm

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

This is actually the biggest single advantage of the modern headlight technology that is starting to appear, IMHO: these lighting systems do effectively run on full-time high beam at higher speeds except that they have mechanisms for cutting out specific part(s) of those beams to avoid dazzing other road users. They do it different ways -- BMW have been advertising something like this Ford system for a while, and the Audi matrix headlights are another interesting variant -- but the overall effect is still much the same.

The only downsides as far as I can see are the much higher cost and the reliability and maintenance issues. It's already reached the absurd point where I have to take my current car to a dealer to change the headlight bulb, because I don't have enough tools to disassemble the significant proportion of the front of my car required to access them myself, certainly not with me on the road. With the previous car I had, changing a blown headlight bulb was a two minute job requiring I think one standard screwdriver (and I'm not even sure about that; it may have been a completely tool-free procedure). With a new car, if one of those matrix bulbs blows or if the sensors that detect other traffic to adjust the lights isn't working properly, I expect the bill from the dealer will be astronomical, at least for a while until these systems are universal. Fortunately, technology with such obvious safety benefits tends to come down in price and gain widespread acceptance very quickly, particularly if regulation/legislation gives it a nudge. Except in the US, of course, where as far as I know driving cars with many of these safer headlight systems is actually still illegal on an obsolete technicality, but presumably that will change reasonably soon.

Re:Umm

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Well, drivers who plan ahead and drive within their and their vehicles' capabilities do have a much higher chance of living long enough to become grandparents...

Re:Umm

[Ravaldy]

That's why good drivers use common sense.

The technology is here to help improve driving at night, not to save you from an unavoidable accident.

Re:Umm

[drinkypoo]

With a new car, if one of those matrix bulbs blows or if the sensors that detect other traffic to adjust the lights isn't working properly, I expect the bill from the dealer will be astronomical

Most of the fancy lighting techs use lasers or LEDs, the systems are actually quite similar either way in implementation to existing HID lighting systems; there's a power module and then a cord to whatever the lighting element is. There's a brisk trade in replacement modules in the aftermarket for the HID systems already...

Re:Umm

[Anonymous Coward]

Then perhaps the driver should be less inattentive.

Read the Wikipedia article, especially the experiments. Inattentive blindness is less about not paying attention and more about paying attention to the wrong thing. In one of the experiments cited, individuals were asked to count the number of passes in a basketball game. A large percentage of individuals were focused on keeping their eyes on the ball (pun intended) that they failed to notice something highly unusual about the scene - that a man in a gorilla suit walked through the game. In the same way, when we drive, we can be actively looking for other vehicles and road hazards that we miss something important.

We only see most of the world in a fuzzy, perephreal way. Out of our field of view, we only have a very small part that our eyes are capable of perceiving clearly. We can't physically focus on everything in our field of vision in a reasonable amount of time. Instead, we look at what we consider to likely be important, and our brain just fills in the gaps.

Re:Umm

[tdandh]

If you read the article and watched the video you would know that the headlights do not move - they continue to do what they have always done, which is light up the road in front of you.

There are 2 additional movable spotlights that complement the headlights which would highlight additional risks for you - such as people, animals, curves on the side of the road which may not be in the path of your headlights.

Re:Umm

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

It's not so much the lighting parts themselves I'm worried about, but the sensors, control systems, and the need to calibrate the orientation of potentially a whole set of very bright lights and the related sensors much more accurately than aligning the old dipped and high beam bulbs.

Re:Umm

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Sure, but hitting an oncoming cyclist because you were driving too fast isn't an unavoidable accident. Unfortunately a lot of otherwise responsible drivers have never really thought this one through and assume that as long as they can stop within what their own lights cover they are OK. Physics doesn't work like that.

Re:Umm

[KGIII]

Maybe you should work on your concentration? This does not appear to be the headlights turning. This is an additional light turning.

Buick had something similar back in the 50s. I think it was Buick. They had a third headlight mounted high on the hood of the car. When you turned the wheel the light would turn in the same direction and aim an additional beam of light that way. I hope they did not get a patent for this as it is fairly obvious and a feature in other cars already. BMW calls it 'Intelligent Headlamps.' There was a Volvo model with the same feature a while back. I have no idea if it is still available nor do I recall the name. The only difference is that BMW (and now Ford) use GPS to intelligently point the additional lights.

Re:Umm

[KGIII]

I have no idea how they do it but my last two beemers and the one that I have on order all self-adjust the headlights. There is a manual override for them but I have never had to use them.

Re:Umm

[Demonoid-Penguin]

You need to drive no faster than a speed that will allow you to stop within the distance lit by your headlights.

Depending on the conditions, even that speed may be unreasonably high. Consider a narrow country road where your lights are the only major source of illumination. A cyclist may be close to invisible until you have a direct line of sight to any lights they have on and/or your own lights hit their reflective clothing, but they could still be moving at considerable speed towards you. And on a narrow country road, they may well be cycling in unusual road positions to avoid other hazards as well.

Even a motor vehicle going in the opposite direction to you could be hidden by a bend or dip in the road so you don't see it or its lights until relatively late. If you assume you're both travelling at similar speeds, then if you're both going so fast that you're at the limit of your headlight visibility, you're almost sure to crash if there isn't enough space to pass.

Agreed - drive to conditions. Part of those conditions are other road users, pedestrians, animals, the mechanics of your own car, and other things. Presume you can't predict what those things will do and cater for the lowest common denominator - that they'll do something that will seriously fuck you up and usually you'll be safe.

Re:Umm

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Whoosh!

That'd be the sound of the wind whistling through your ears. But don't fret, by the time you reach puberty the wax build up will reduce that noise.

Re:Umm

[Ravaldy]

What does this have to do with the topic?

Someone went from the tech being useless, to being explained that the tech works at improving visibility if one isn't a tard behind the wheel to now talking about tards again. If one can't drive safely then that's just a problem in itself isn't it? No amount of lighting will help that driver.

Re:Umm

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I was just pointing out that the statement I first quoted about being able to stop within the distance you can see with your headlights is optimistic. Even with new lights that let you see further, you still need to allow for moving hazards coming into your view at speed and not drive to the limit of what you can see right now. A lot of generally sensible drivers don't seem to understand that, presumably just because they've never thought about it, so I thought it was worth pointing out. Don't make a big deal of it. :-)

they forgot to mention

[Anonymous Coward]

They also forgot to mention: "... and sends the data back to Ford for whatever purposes they wish..

FTFT.

Re:they forgot to mention

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

And you forgot to mention the subsequent retraction and unconditional denial that this was actually the case, even though it's mentioned in the exact same article you linked to. They could just be lying to cover themselves, of course, but usually when companies try to cover themselves like that they do it with weasel words and half-truths to mitigate potential lawsuits.

Pass

[AntronArgaiv]

I'll stick with my regular headlights, thanks just the same, Ford. I can only speculate as to how many additional things could go wrong with "automatic traffic sign recognition". All I currently need to worry about is making sure the bulb isn;t burned out.

Re:Pass

[Ol Olsoc]

I'll stick with my regular headlights, thanks just the same, Ford. I can only speculate as to how many additional things could go wrong with "automatic traffic sign recognition". All I currently need to worry about is making sure the bulb isn;t burned out.

So you probably don't even have a sensor to turn on the yard light you use to keep those damnable teenagers out of your lawn! Well played, codger. Have you considered carbon arc lamps?

Re:Pass

[AntronArgaiv]

I'll stick with my regular headlights, thanks just the same, Ford. I can only speculate as to how many additional things could go wrong with "automatic traffic sign recognition". All I currently need to worry about is making sure the bulb isn;t burned out.

So you probably don't even have a sensor to turn on the yard light you use to keep those damnable teenagers out of your lawn! Well played, codger.

Have you considered carbon arc lamps?

No sensor for the yard lamps, correct. Damn deer are more trouble than the kids could ever be.

But seriously, the possibilities for failure (and by failure, I mean not having light where I need it to be) are almost endless. If the smart headlights' computer guesses wrong, doesn't illuminate a bike rider on the side of the road, and I hit them because I couldn't see them, whose fault is it?

Re:Pass

[Lumpy]

"If the smart headlights' computer guesses wrong, doesn't illuminate a bike rider on the side of the road, and I hit them because I couldn't see them, whose fault is it?"

Your fault because you are driving on the side of the road. Try looking down the road and keeping your car in the lane.

Re:Pass

[Anonymous Coward]

If those motion activated yard lights kick off at the wrong time or don't perform normally 99.999% of the time its just a minor inconvenience. When your car headlights do the same chances are above 50% that you're traveling down an unlit road at fairly high speed and you're now very distracted or effectively blind. Its like comparing the trigger reliability on a water gun to that on a Glock 45, one has to highly reliable (both in terms of firing and not firing) and one doesn't matter.

Re:Pass

[Ol Olsoc]

But seriously, the possibilities for failure (and by failure, I mean not having light where I need it to be) are almost endless. If the smart headlights' computer guesses wrong, doesn't illuminate a bike rider on the side of the road, and I hit them because I couldn't see them, whose fault is it?

Your fault, if found. Same as it would be if you hit them without the help. These things are there to help you, not as some sort of majick device that will keep you from ever doing anything wrong. Like a back-up camera, most of the time they are of no use at all. But they are darned helpful when your kid is in back of the car. I personally know two people that squished one of their kids while backing up.

Even so, you need to read the FA, because your main headlights stay right where God wants them. A rotatable smaller beam below the headlights illuminates the object you might squish (and mess up your pretty car - now it makes it about you) as well as makes a little announcement on a screen in the car. You don't even have to take your eyes off the road if you don't want to.

Re:Pass

[Ol Olsoc]

If those motion activated yard lights kick off at the wrong time or don't perform normally 99.999% of the time its just a minor inconvenience. When your car headlights do the same chances are above 50% that you're traveling down an unlit road at fairly high speed and you're now very distracted or effectively blind. Its like comparing the trigger reliability on a water gun to that on a Glock 45, one has to highly reliable (both in terms of firing and not firing) and one doesn't matter.

Tell me, how does one smaller moveable headlight below your main headlights - which don't move at all - make your main headlights turn off, or somehow move?

People really need to RTFA, because they are arguing something that isn't happening. There's a little light under the headlights that swings to directly illuminate whatever it is on the side of the road.

Your main headlights stay where they need to be.

Re:Pass

[StikyPad]

It's two *extra* lights. The headlights do what the headlights have always done, and the 2 spotlights shine toward objects of importance, like street signs or warm bodies. Worst case, they don't, and you have the exact same functionality you've always had.

Re:Pass

[KGIII]

Again, these are not the headlights that are turning. They are secondary lights that illuminate the sides of the road as needed, they are small round spotlights. They do not stop your regular lights from working just like they have always done. Those will not change. The earliest implementation was in the 40s with a Tucker that had a central third light. (I misposted earlier - it is not a Buick.) My BMWs have been doing this for years under the name of 'Intelligent Headlamps.' Volvo has had the functionality in the past as well. A couple of early English sportscars had similar functionality. The difference is that these newer versions rely on sensors and GPS and infrared sensor data to determine where they aim the spotlights.

You will still be able to drive like you always have. If these fail then you simply keep driving like you always have. They are used in addition to other safety features. They take nothing away from other features but supplement them by providing additional light where there may be a problem. They will not kill you, they will not kill pedestrians, and they will not distract you from your normal driving unless you are already a very poor driver and, in that case, you probably should not be driving at all.

Potholes

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish it the best of luck tracking potholes in Chicago.

Re:Potholes

[Anonymous Coward]

Ford is based in south-eastern Michigan. There's nothing Chicago could possibly teach them about potholes.

Re:Potholes

[tomhath]

In Philadelphia, the traffic reports would often mention backups caused by "Roving Pothole Crews". It's bad enough when you know where a pothole is, but when they take evasive action it gets really tough.

older cars

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw an old Triumph the other day, it had a speedometer, tachometer, voltmeter, oil pressure gauge, and a choke. There was a gas pedal, a brake, and a clutch. That was about it. It's 50 years later and the car still runs. What happens to these fancy rare-earth gobbling, RFID tracking-enabling spaceships in 5-10 years? They end up scrapped.

Re: older cars

[galgon]

Yes older cars are easier to maintain but the newer ones are outlasting them. Current average is almost 11 years before scrapping compared to under 7 in 1930. Sure you could fix the old cars up but with all that sheet metal rust was a major concern. I know old guys complain about the new plastic boxes on the roads these days but you hardly ever see rusted cars anymore. Besides in 10-15 years when you go to scrap your ford you can upgrade to a self driving car. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ji...

Re: older cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Current average is almost 11 years

Actually, it has increased to 18 years already.

Re:older cars

[Anonymous Coward]

I just put Hellas with a relay kit on my 30 year old truck. Headlamps now shine better than the crap they make today.

Re: older cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Current average is almost 11 years

Actually, it has increased to [18].

I gotta a feeling that's going to be a peak. There's no doubt that things like electronic fuel injection, electronic timing (basically replacing all of the mechnical components) have been great in allowing cars to run longer, I have to wonder about the new things that get added that aren't necessary. Do I really need two or more mode for my suspension, all wheel drive, electronic vents. I had a 2002 Chev that the alternator died and when it was repaired, nothing worked on the dashboard except the engine controls. They "reprogrammed" the thing and I lost the high speed on the fan, my heater would only work on at "hell" level or not at all, and my CD player didn't work. My electronically controlled AWD control unit was replaced three times. And the electronic seat failed (despite me not using it). Go ahead and blame Chevy, but when I look at BMWs and Mercedes I cringe.

So mechanically cars might last longer, it's just going to suck to drive them unless you sink money into it.

Re: older cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that giant battery cost sink that's getting built into new cars. It's not like replacing a AA ;)

Re: older cars

[Ol Olsoc]

Yes older cars are easier to maintain but the newer ones are outlasting them. Current average is almost 11 years before scrapping compared to under 7 in 1930. Sure you could fix the old cars up but with all that sheet metal rust was a major concern. I know old guys complain about the new plastic boxes on the roads these days but you hardly ever see rusted cars anymore.

Don't go throwing reality in here, ya whipper snapper! Back when I was growing up we had points and plugs, and sealed beam headlamps. I'm still pissed off they made us put turn signals on cars. And them damn seat belts? How ya gonna get your best girl's dress off when ya go parkin'?

Whoa sorry about that!

It is nothing short of amazing any more. A presumed tech site, where as soon as a technical innovation is announced, the slashdotters pounce on it like crocodiles on a wildebeest, and loudly proclaim how awful it is. Hell, they are all upset about backup cameras becoming standard equipment. We had a real donnybrook going in here last year about just that.

Driving the non-interstate roads of Pennsylvania will make one appreciate this device very well.

Re: older cars

[Lumpy]

that increase is not because of technology. It's because car makers are forced to do corrosion control on the body and important parts. I wish the feds forced the car makers to use stainless on the brake lines. #1 failure of any northern car is rusted brake lines because they use the cheapest soft steel they can get .

Re: older cars

[tompaulco]

Current average is almost 11 years

Actually, it has increased to [18].

I gotta a feeling that's going to be a peak. There's no doubt that things like electronic fuel injection, electronic timing (basically replacing all of the mechnical components) have been great in allowing cars to run longer, I have to wonder about the new things that get added that aren't necessary. Do I really need two or more mode for my suspension, all wheel drive, electronic vents. I had a 2002 Chev that the alternator died and when it was repaired, nothing worked on the dashboard except the engine controls. They "reprogrammed" the thing and I lost the high speed on the fan, my heater would only work on at "hell" level or not at all, and my CD player didn't work. My electronically controlled AWD control unit was replaced three times. And the electronic seat failed (despite me not using it). Go ahead and blame Chevy, but when I look at BMWs and Mercedes I cringe.

So mechanically cars might last longer, it's just going to suck to drive them unless you sink money into it.

As long as the car still runs people will keep it. It is inconvenient and that all of the cheap electronic gizmos stop working and possibly unsafe to drive with some of them inoperable, but fixing all of the gizmos would cost thousands of dollars per year in maintenance that owners of older cars can't afford.

Re: older cars

[operagost]

I don't see how all that could break just when replacing an ALTERNATOR. I think your body control module (BCM) and maybe your main computer (ECM) were damaged at some point-- and that doesn't happen from just your alternator dying and allowing your battery to go flat. The shop that replaced your alternator should have fixed everything for free, because they probably broke it.

Re: older cars

[DarkOx]

Really old cars could be maintained! Prey war stuff had nice thick sheet metal that would never rust thru unless it was really abused, like you did not bother to keep paint on it. If that stuff does get a whole there is plenty of structurally good stuff near by to anchor putty or lead to or ideal weld an new section in.

Its the 1960s-late eighties stuff that is shit. Once rust gets to far along on any of those there is little you can do but replace a whole damn panel. Sure you can patch and if your goal is keep the thing on the road for another few years but if you are trying to preserve the vehicle its rarely worth while doing anything other than replacing an entire panel.

Re: older cars

[drinkypoo]

Yes older cars are easier to maintain

Eh, hit and miss. The only thing that's provably more of a PITA today is actual auto body, and with the coming prevalence of aluminum that's going to be more of a thing and not less. The good news is that the Aluminum body is even more recyclable than the steel that cars are made out of now; it takes less energy to do so, and the resulting alloy is more similar to the original than with steel.

People are complaining about having to hook a computer up to their engine... a computer that will tell them in detail what the engine is doing at any given time, including a freeze frame at the moment of any fault. And they complain that they can't do things they used to do, but there's so many things that they no longer have to do; my last car with a distributor had a keyed shaft and would only take it one way, and these days they don't even have them, nor wires 'twixt coil and plug.

I'm happy to see Aluminum coming, I don't want to have to make any more rust repairs, that's why I bought an Aluminum car. But we're going to be totaling even more vehicles...

Re: older cars

[FranTaylor]

When talking about statistical averages, the first thing to do is to emphasize that your one data point is much more important and interesting than the rest of them.

Re: older cars

[Ol Olsoc]

that increase is not because of technology. It's because car makers are forced to do corrosion control on the body and important parts. I wish the feds forced the car makers to use stainless on the brake lines.

Sure it is. The reason that cars get about double the engine life is because today's technology allows them to essentially make stock engines "blueprinted". Better quality control of materials helps a lot too.

Also, one of the best defenses against rust, is not "rustproofing" them. That old tarry crap they used to spray on cars, held in salt and moisture, as well as made for a lot of weight.

Re: older cars

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I also fear the current trends will be a peak, but more because car manufacturers will abuse the new technology both to build in obsolescence and to spy on drivers in order to market newer cars to them.

Technology in cars is a double-edged sword indeed. Modern systems for things like fuel injection, ABS and AWD have brought significant improvements in both efficiency and safety, and in most cases if anything does go wrong they can give ample warning and fail to safe. But all the communications and interactions and remote access make me very nervous. As a software developer with experience in some related industries, I've heard way too many scary but probably true stories to trust that stuff on either privacy or safety grounds.

Re: older cars

[KGIII]

I have owned two modern BMWs (and several older models, two of which I still own) and have a new one that should be ready to be delivered in about six more weeks. I am a bit of a car buff, read car geek really as I abhor working on them personally, and own BMWs for a reason. I have not ever had anything like what you describe happen. I suspect that it is not the fault of the OEM nor of the alternator. I suspect that the blame lies squarely on the mechanic. The mechanic may well have put in the wrong alternator which is actually a bad thing - as they are pretty damned precise and you can put the wrong alternator into a vehicle with some ease and it will appear to be working properly. My guess would be that the amperage output was too high and fried your wiring harness due to the heat which made it behave like it did. Of course that is just a guess but I have seen similar things happen.

Alternatively, you bought a Ford. The quality of parts and the education and attentiveness of repair technicians may be different enough to result in vastly different outcomes. A BMW is expensive to maintain and repair but those costs are less frequent than they are in other vehicles so they probably average out to similar costs of ownership when all things are equal.

Re: older cars

[KGIII]

Prior to breakage there could have been a surge that caused damage to the wiring harness. The alternator could have been the wrong replacement. They often have the same mounting brackets and take the same belts even though they have different amperage outputs. The fuse could have been untripped as it was still within spec but increased power could still managed to cause enough heat to damage the wiring harness. A surge, brownout, dirty power, or the additional amperage could have also caused faults in the BCM and/or ECM which seems to also be what you were hinting at.

Of course we are just stabbing into the dark of night but these seem to be the most likely of causes. A simple, properly done, replacement should not have caused any damage at all.

Re: older cars

[drinkypoo]

My guess would be that the amperage output was too high and fried your wiring harness due to the heat which made it behave like it did. Of course that is just a guess

The alternator's amperage rating is a maximum. It doesn't just spit out X amps of current; you have to draw that current. Something else would have to go wrong at the same time, like a seriously bad battery.

Illuminates objects 12 meters ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, forty whole feet? What's my stopping distance at 60mph again? 240 feet? Awesome

(sorry for the American units, I can't think in SI until after my first gallon of coffee)

Re: Illuminates objects 12 meters ahead

[NathanWoodruff]

Actually, TopGear did tests with sports cars and the distance was like 70 feet. It took the reasonably priced car going 115mph to stop in 240 feet.

Re: Illuminates objects 12 meters ahead

[fustakrakich]

Actually, TopGear did tests with sports cars and the distance was like 70 feet.

You will have traveled almost 90 feet before you even react to what you see. And that distance with sports cars with fat sticky tires is hardly the average for a Yugo.

Re: Illuminates objects 12 meters ahead

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Actually, TopGear did tests with sports cars and the distance was like 70 feet. It took the reasonably priced car going 115mph to stop in 240 feet.

It's reaction time (notice and react) + braking time. If you're paying attention it's 1/4 to 1/2 a second to notice, and another 1/4 to 3/4 of a second to react - then add the braking time.

At 100kph (~60mph) in dry conditions with good brakes in an ordinary car that's about 18.3m (60ft) to start braking, another 59.4 (195ft) to stop. A total of 77.7m (255ft), One and a half Olympic swimming pool lengths.

Which is why I hate tail-gaters.

Re:Illuminates objects 12 meters ahead

[Demonoid-Penguin]

That's fine. Most Americans don't want anything to do with that metric shit anyway. How many tons in 234,670lbs anyway (let alone tonnes)

117.335 short tons, 104.763393 long tons, 106.444521 tonnes. Have you heard of the internet?

Re:Illuminates objects 12 meters ahead

[sjames]

That was my first thought. Great, I can clearly see the thing I will inevitably run over rather than the thing far enough ahead that I can stop for it.

Re: Illuminates objects 12 meters ahead

[sjames]

Yes. That means that even at 30 MPH (44 ft/sec), these headlights will only highlight things you will inevitably hit.

Re:Illuminates objects 12 meters ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary is in error; the linked article states 120m.

Re: Illuminates objects 12 meters ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to completely exonerate tail-gaters, but obviously they only have to react and match your deceleration profile within the following distance between your cars. So unless you plan to hit a brick wall or mountainside and stop instantaneously, they don't need to be able to completely stop within that following distance. Also, drivers should be looking past the car in front of them and anticipating hazards and changes in traffic conditions well before the arrive at the bumper they are following. As a driver on busy highways, what concerns me are the huge vehicles and overly tinted windows that prevent followers from seeing through 3-4 cars ahead of themselves in those densely packed conditions.

Re:Illuminates objects 12 meters ahead

[dinfinity]

It.s 120 meters. TFS and TFA are wrong.

From the actual press release:
"Spot Lighting – currently in the pre-development phase with Ford engineers in Aachen – uses an infra-red camera in the front grille to simultaneously locate and track up to eight people and bigger animals, including larger dogs, at a range of up to 120 metres." (my emphasis, source: http://www.at.ford.com/news/cn... )

Re:Illuminates objects 12 meters ahead

[sjames]

That makes a lot more sense.

Re: Illuminates objects 12 meters ahead

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

So unless you plan to hit a brick wall or mountainside and stop instantaneously, they don't need to be able to completely stop within that following distance.

As long as the lead vehicle is stopping as a whole, as distinct from something falling out/off and potentially decelerating much more quickly, there is some truth in that.

But a lot of tailgaters on the motorway in the UK would likely be seriously injured or dead from the impact before they even registered the brake lights coming on as the car in front executed an emergency stop. Sadly, so would some or all of the occupants of the car in front.

These days, I no longer consider it extreme to slow down until the distance between the car behind and my own is safe for speed we're doing even if that means I drop down well below the normal traffic speed. If they're really close, I'll use the brakes to do it and not just easing off the gas, so they get the lights flashing at them as well. I'm always wary of frustrating the real crazy ones into making a dangerous overtake, so usually I'll try to adjust the speed somewhere they can and hopefully will choose to pass me safely, but on balance I think it's safer to keep that safety zone all around anyway.

Re: Illuminates objects 12 meters ahead

[StikyPad]

Things that fall off generally decelerate much less quickly than a vehicle can, because a) they are skidding, and skidding is not the fastest way to decelerate, and b) they usually aren't made out of material that deforms to the shape of the road surface to maximize traction, like tires.

Re: Illuminates objects 12 meters ahead

[StikyPad]

Also, the smaller the distance, the less you will have decelerated before the car behind you hits you, making the impact less severe!

(Note: I'm not defending tailgaters -- I would rather do without any collision, large or small -- but someone following a safe distance and not paying attention is a bigger risk, because you will have slowed significantly more before they rear end you.)

Re: Illuminates objects 12 meters ahead

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Fair point, though I would also point out that the lead vehicle was probably braking suddenly for a reason, and you've still got two vehicles' worth of momentum to stop before you hit whatever that reason was and less runway to do it in the closer the tail vehicle is. In this scenario the tail vehicle is going to extend the braking distance for the lead vehicle because of the added momentum that the braking system of the front vehicle is trying to stop, and potentially because of added engine power from the tail vehicle actively pushing forward until its driver wakes up and switches from gas to brakes.

Re: Illuminates objects 12 meters ahead

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Things that fall off generally decelerate much less quickly than a vehicle can

True, but often the reaction time is much longer, because something falling off that is big enough to cause damage or injury might still be small enough not to notice immediately, and it doesn't come with brake lights.

Re: Illuminates objects 12 meters ahead

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Yes. That means that even at 30 MPH (44 ft/sec), these headlights will only highlight things you will inevitably hit.

It also means that if you drive so fast that you can't stop within the range of what's lit by your headlights - you may well wind up fucking up.

If someone's excuse is that they're in a hurry - buy a fucking alarm clock and learn time management.

Re: Illuminates objects 12 meters ahead

[sjames]

It turns out TFA is wrong, Ford claims 120m, not 12.

But yes, maximum speed must be dictated by visibility.

12m NOT enough - useless

[Anonymous Coward]

A vehicle travelling at 60 mph is traveling at 88ft/sec. An object at a distance of 36 ft. (12m) would give the driver ~400 mS reaction time to hit the brakes, afterwhich the vehicle will have already hit the object at that distance.

12m is a start, but until that number is extended, this will be a sales gimmic used to artificially boost the cost (and profit - we all know how electronic options are high-profit items) of new cars and give insurance companies a reason to boost rates on cars not equipped with this option (99.9999999999% of the vehicles on the road currently) that has dubious value.

Re:12m NOT enough - useless

[KGIII]

120m is the actual distance.

Not for USA

[genka]

This system is developed by the European Ford division. We are unlikely to see it in States anytime soon because of the ancient DOT headlights regulations that are not ready for the latest innovations. Mercedes Benz developed a similar system a while ago.

Re:Not for USA

[Virtucon]

not to mention the thousands of lawyers looking for class action lawsuit money when it fails.

Re:Not for USA

[satch89450]

Remember the Tucker, with the swiveling center headlight?

Re:Not for USA

[Demonoid-Penguin]

not to mention the thousands of lawyers looking for class action lawsuit money when it fails.

Or all the people off the side of that road who get blinded when the oncoming car swivels it's high-beam spotlight at them... I'm guessing (hoping?) they've thought of that, but I don't see how it will work if the road the attention-deficit automagically swivelling headlights is on, is higher than the side-roads.

Re:Not for USA

[sjames]

That's OK, even at 30 MPH, you won't have time to stop for anything the headlights might highlight for you. You won't even have time to get the brakes applied. If they can at least triple the range of detection to 36 meters, they might occasionally help you.

Re:Not for USA

[Anonymous Coward]

we've got plenty of retarded drivers already who will blind you with their brights *once they've fucking seen you*. That behavior should reward you a week without your car.

Re:Not for USA

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think oncoming traffic is bad, the asshole who drives on my ass with his high-beams on - making it bright enough to read in my car - is fucking up my night vision. I hit the breaks until those fuckers pass.

Re:Not for USA

[Ol Olsoc]

not to mention the thousands of lawyers looking for class action lawsuit money when it fails.

What will happen when it fails?

Re:Not for USA

[phantomfive]

That's OK, even at 30 MPH, you won't have time to stop for anything the headlights might highlight for you.

Good point. A 12 meter range isn't going to be very useful.

Re:Not for USA

[sjames]

Turns out TFA and TFS are wrong. Press release says 120m.

Re:Not for USA

[KGIII]

I have this on my BMW which is three years old and a US-centric car. The limits that DOT applies are usually limited to width and lumens. Note that these are not the main headlights but are secondary spots.

I smell money bags

[Anonymous Coward]

Who are they going to pay off to change the book of regulations regulating headlamps?

It's even worse than I thought!

[Psychotria]

The system spotlights hazards for the driver with a spot and a stripe on the road surface and highlighted objects are displayed on the screen inside the car

So... the driver has to take their eyes off the road (where they should be looking) to look at the screen inside the car?

“Many people who drive at night have had to quickly react to someone or something suddenly appearing in the road – as if from nowhere. Ford’s Camera-Based Advanced Front Lighting System and Spot Lighting help ensure the driver is quickly alerted to people or animals that could present a danger,” said Ken Washington, vice president, Ford Research and Advanced Engineering.

Yes, and you won't be able to do that when you're losing 500ms to 15 seconds of potential response time by looking at the screen in the car.

Re:It's even worse than I thought!

[Ol Olsoc]

The system spotlights hazards for the driver with a spot and a stripe on the road surface and highlighted objects are displayed on the screen inside the car

So... the driver has to take their eyes off the road (where they should be looking) to look at the screen inside the car?

Yes, and you won't be able to do that when you're losing 500ms to 15 seconds of potential response time by looking at the screen in the car.

Did you take those annoying mirrors off your car? You know, the ones you have to look at every once in a while?

Re:It's even worse than I thought!

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you take those annoying mirrors off your car? You know, the ones you have to look at every once in a while?

I don't typically use the mirrors to spot driving hazards in front of me.

Re:It's even worse than I thought!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mirrors still allow one to use peripheral vision to keep a view of the road.

Re:It's even worse than I thought!

[Ol Olsoc]

Did you take those annoying mirrors off your car? You know, the ones you have to look at every once in a while?

I don't typically use the mirrors to spot driving hazards in front of me.

How about the one's behind. Like the one passing you? Maybe an ambulance coming up on you at a high rate of speed. Do you want to pull into the passing lane while he's trying to pass you? Or backing up. Suddenly those mirros looking out the back become pretty handy. That's why they are there

Maintaining a safe environment while driving involves knowing what is happening all around you, not just what is in front.

Re:It's even worse than I thought!

[Ol Olsoc]

Mirrors still allow one to use peripheral vision to keep a view of the road.

Read the article. There's no requirement to stare at the screen. Which by the way, is showing a vew of the road. Even then the same peripheral vision can allow you to see the screen.

But as I said, you never have to look at the screen. The smaller light under the main headlamps, swings over to illuminate whatever is on teh side of the road. Without you doing anything. You can preserve your highway hypnosis.

People gotta try discarding this "It's new, so I hate it!" mentality Because it gets you to make knee jerk ractions that end up making you argue for not putting light on something you might run into.

Re:It's even worse than I thought!

[dinfinity]

Did you even watch the video? Or the part of the summary you yourself fucking quoted?

The system spotlights hazards for the driver with a spot and a stripe on the road surface and highlighted objects are displayed on the screen inside the car

So no. The driver does not have to take his eyes off the road.
This is extremely useful functionality, because it also highlights cyclists who often do not have adequate lighting and are thus a huge source for (death!)scares for many drivers, at least in the Netherlands.

Please leave Slashdot and take your anti-new technology kneejerk reactions with you. That also goes for everybody who was stupid enough to mod you up.

Re:It's even worse than I thought!

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason you are scared by bicyclists is because of your own headlights. We have perfectly working streetlights in the Netherlands which are more than sufficient to see every bicyclist on the street. However, you are blinding yourself and everyone else with your way too intense headlights, causing you to see nothing outside of your light radius. Unfortunately the "solution" so far seems to be ever more intense headlights, only exaggerating the problem. It's so bad nowadays that I'm seriously considering using sunglasses during winter evenings while on the bike.

Re:It's even worse than I thought!

[StikyPad]

There's no reason this couldn't be implemented in a HUD that's projected onto the windshield.

Re:It's even worse than I thought!

[dinfinity]

Only people who have never driven a car and encountered a bicyclist without lighting would say this. I used to think exactly like you. Then I got my driver's license and almost pissed my pants.

The first reaction of every new driver who experiences this is "Fucking christ, that is dangerous as FUCK. I almost killed the fucking guy!" (then they honk to get rid of a bit of fear, anger and frustration)

BTW, I don't own a car anymore, but have driven one regularly for years. I ride my bicycle everywhere now. The lights either work, or we're talking about 5 minutes of riding my 'station bike' to town when going out.

Think about this: would you find it acceptable if half the cars drove around town without headlights, specifically thinking about your ability to go through traffic safely?

Re:It's even worse than I thought!

[onkelonkel]

How amazing that your entire country is lit up by streetlights. Such marvels you have! Here in the colonies we sometimes have roads that are not in cities. Some of these roads have no street lights at all. When you start driving you might find that the first time you come upon a cyclist with no lights, no reflectors, and dressed from head to toe in black, in the rain, at night, riding on the wrong side of the road, you may be somewhat startled. It is only by the grace of the Almighty and a very quick twitch of my steering wheel that said cyclist didn't end up broken and bleeding in the ditch.

Re:It's even worse than I thought!

[Anonymous Coward]

gotta try discarding this "It's new, so I hate it!" mentality

Says the guy with old in his username....

Re:It's even worse than I thought!

[david_thornley]

Bear in mind that many of us would rather not kill even a stupid cyclist.

Re:It's even worse than I thought!

[Ol Olsoc]

gotta try discarding this "It's new, so I hate it!" mentality

Says the guy with old in his username....

Hehe, old does not equal luddite. I recently had a on-air conversation with a 96 year old guy who decided he was going to build a digital RF station.Did very well, and we shared alot of technical info.

Or the writer of a Linux/OSX/Windows multi platofrm suite of programs that all play well together. I use them all and make certain they play well. He's a youg pup of 78.

(and that's a side note for the stuck in the 1990's windows programmers who say writing multi-platofrm software is too hard) Then again, I worked with a fellow in his mid 20's, a wonderful guy, but as grumpy and incensed by progress as they come. He may be on Slashdot and posting for as much as I know.

Don't need

[ITRambo]

I don't need a hackable headlight system. Also, what happens when driving through an area of road construction, something that happens all too often in the American Midwest. This idea may have some benefits that I don't recognize at the moment. But, for now it seems unnecessary and frivolous.

Re:Don't need

[Shadow IT Ninja]

Right. Is it going to automatically blind any cop who is directing traffic?

Re:Don't need

[StikyPad]

Would that be a bug or a feature?

"Great for spotlighting deer too!"

STOP!

[BitZtream]

Head lights that try to move and predict what I'm doing are fucking obnoxious and almost no use what so ever. My wifes car has headlights that turn with the steering wheel. They are nothing but obnoxious. They turn so little it does nothing but distract me and many times they are turning the wrong way from where I actually want to see when pulling a trailer and having to swing wide before turning the actual direction I want.

12 meters? awesome, so it can focus on the guy a half a second before I run over him at 60mph, SO USEFUL! And of course I want those lights randomly change directions to point at new objects while I'm driving rather than being consistent and not distracting me while at the same time pointing away from the things I probably actually want to see, like the road in front of me.

Just fucking stop trying to make things so smart, you're being really stupid.

Re:STOP!

[Anonymous Coward]

Show us on the model car where the headlight touched you.

Re:STOP!

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this go against everything slashdot stands for, but read the article and watch the video.

They are adding a second set of headlight. Your normal headlights stay exactly where they are, looking dead ahead. The second set of headlight are what are use to illuminate extra things. All in all, you are gaining lite area.

Re:STOP!

[Anonymous Coward]

so it can focus on the guy a half a second before I run over him at 60mph,

At least you can see the gender and race if you are keeping score.

Re:STOP!

[bondsbw]

My wifes car has headlights that turn with the steering wheel.

Those aren't smart headlights. Quite dumb actually.

Just fucking stop trying to make things so smart, you're being really stupid.

This tech doesn't sound ready for launch. But that doesn't mean they should stop trying to make them smart enough for us to use. Maybe they would succeed and you might actually like the result.

You'll cover that ground in ~1 second at 30MPH

[sargeUSMC]

Just enough time to go Ohhhhh shi

When next the driver uses the same road again

[Anonymous Coward]

So where you have gone is stored in some file someplace. Who gets to view that data? It likely has a time stamp on it.
Who gets to know where you go when? Who gets to see where you go and send you Advertisements to your Media center based on those trips?
Are you ready for the bar near your barber to send you Ads, when your grandmother is in the car?
No thank you.

Cool! Remote control headlights!

[QuietLagoon]

That is, when someone hacks into the weak security systems that are on cars nowadays, the headlights can be controlled and aimed remotely.

Automotive-oriented headline I'd like to see...

[QuietLagoon]

"Automotive industry stops trying to turn vehicles into living rooms and entertainment centers, and starts focusing upon the improvement of car system security."

.
But I doubt if I'll ever see that headline in my lifetime....

Re:Automotive-oriented headline I'd like to see...

[fustakrakich]

But I doubt if I'll ever see that headline in my lifetime....

That's right. We want to turn our cars into living rooms and entertainment centers with full automation and everything, including a toilet. The sooner the better. Then we won't need a damn license to get around. The track is the only safe place to drive anyway.

Re:Automotive-oriented headline I'd like to see...

[neminem]

I absolutely agree, nonsarcastically - do you know how awesome a self-driving RV would be? Pretty awesome.

I don't want any of that crap in my regular boring 4 door commute-to-work car, granted, but I am absolutely ecstatic about the idea of a google/tesla partnered self-driving electric RV - retire in style, see the whole country, sleep at night while your RV drives through the boring bits and not pay for a hotel. Sounds amazing.

Re:Automotive-oriented headline I'd like to see...

[QuietLagoon]

I agree that would be nice. But what good is a self-driving vehicle if the security of the vehicle's systems were so poor that the vehicle is no longer self-driving, but driven by a hacker.

.
That would definitely harsh your mellow as you view the country in your "self-driving" RV...

Re:Automotive-oriented headline I'd like to see...

[neminem]

Not good at all, but that isn't what the person I responded to was snarking about.

I absolutely agree, I would not ever buy a self-driving car where *any* features essential to driving safely - wheels, brakes, acceleration, maps, etc. - were hooked up in any way to any system that was remotely accessible from outside the car in any way, no matter how much it was promised that they "take security seriously". Air gap or nothing.

Re:Automotive-oriented headline I'd like to see...

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here.

Re:Automotive-oriented headline I'd like to see...

[fustakrakich]

Um, you do realize you would blind all the cameras and other sensors also? Your car would meander around like a Roomba, which would kinda suck if you're headed towards a cliff.

I can see this going disastrously wrong

[Chrisq]

Imagine you are coming up to a point in the road where the road bends to the left. However this is mostly obscured by bushes, ans something, maybe a drainage ditch looks a bit like a road bending to the right. Usually you will sense that something's not quite right, slow down and see what happens. Now imagine that the car's headlights illuminate the false road, leaving the real route in relative darkness. Also imagine that hundreds of hours of driving had conditioned to believe that the car would illuminate your path. It could end in disaster.

Re:I can see this going disastrously wrong

[BradleyUffner]

Imagine you are coming up to a point in the road where the road bends to the left. However this is mostly obscured by bushes, ans something, maybe a drainage ditch looks a bit like a road bending to the right. Usually you will sense that something's not quite right, slow down and see what happens. Now imagine that the car's headlights illuminate the false road, leaving the real route in relative darkness. Also imagine that hundreds of hours of driving had conditioned to believe that the car would illuminate your path. It could end in disaster.

These don't replace the static headlights, they stay where they are and do what they already do. This adds a SECOND pair that tracks things. It won't leave anything in the dark that isn't already dark in your current car.

Re:I can see this going disastrously wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine you are coming up to a point in the road where the road bends to the left. However this is mostly obscured by bushes, ans something, maybe a drainage ditch looks a bit like a road bending to the right. Usually you will sense that something's not quite right, slow down and see what happens. Now imagine that the car's headlights illuminate the false road, leaving the real route in relative darkness. Also imagine that hundreds of hours of driving had conditioned to believe that the car would illuminate your path. It could end in disaster.

These don't replace the static headlights, they stay where they are and do what they already do. This adds a SECOND pair that tracks things. It won't leave anything in the dark that isn't already dark in your current car.

Hence GP's relative darkness

Re:I can see this going disastrously wrong

[Ol Olsoc]

Imagine you are coming up to a point in the road where the road bends to the left. However this is mostly obscured by bushes, ans something, maybe a drainage ditch looks a bit like a road bending to the right. Usually you will sense that something's not quite right, slow down and see what happens. Now imagine that the car's headlights illuminate the false road, leaving the real route in relative darkness. Also imagine that hundreds of hours of driving had conditioned to believe that the car would illuminate your path. It could end in disaster.

Imagine someone making up shit to try to make a point.

1. Regular headlamps stay right where they are, They do not move at all, ever, unless they are being aimed at inspection time.

2. A little headlamp under the regular headlamp that comes on as needed, ansd swivels as needed. 3. More light. 4. more light is bad? Oh wait, I know what your argument can be. A retroreflective sign might be on the side of the road, causing you to be blinded, and you run into a gas station pump, causing it to blow up and setting a chain reaction of fires that cause a false nuclear alert, plunging the world into nuclear armageddon and the death of all humanity.

All because those stupid fuckers at Ford had the nerve to add a little more light on objects on the side of the road in addition to the regular non-aimable lights.

When I was a kid, we drove in the dark, and by Gawd, we liked it.

Thanks, Obama!

Thanks a lot; just what I don't need.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure these headlights will light up stop signs on country highways intersecting mine at sharp angles, where even in daylight, it is sometimes ambiguous which road has the stop. That will just be great at night. Thanks.

{captcha = "delights"}

even more expensive cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Due to all of the tech in cars now, they are too fucking expensive. That's why most people lease cars -- because they cannot hope to actually pay for one outright any more. This is only going to exacerbate that problem. Until auto-makers can make cars that will last generations of drivers can they expect us to pay for them over generations.

Re:even more expensive cars

[tompaulco]

Due to all of the tech in cars now, they are too fucking expensive. That's why most people lease cars -- because they cannot hope to actually pay for one outright any more. This is only going to exacerbate that problem. Until auto-makers can make cars that will last generations of drivers can they expect us to pay for them over generations.

The current average retail price of a new car is now $33,560 or about 64% of U.S. Household income. In 1980, it was $7,200 or 44% of 1980 median household income. The further back you go, the more affordable cars were. Compound that with the fact that most households used to be single income, and now most households are dual income means that the real rate of increase of car prices is even more out of control than it looks.

Re:even more expensive cars

[Ol Olsoc]

The current average retail price of a new car is now $33,560 or about 64% of U.S. Household income. In 1980, it was $7,200 or 44% of 1980 median household income. The further back you go, the more affordable cars were. Compound that with the fact that most households used to be single income, and now most households are dual income means that the real rate of increase of car prices is even more out of control than it looks.

And back in the good old days, we bought them more often. Last vehicle I bought was to replace a ten year old one. When I started driving, in ten years, you were on your third vehicle.

Re:even more expensive cars

[tompaulco]

And back in the good old days, we bought them more often. Last vehicle I bought was to replace a ten year old one. When I started driving, in ten years, you were on your third vehicle.

Well, that was definitely the case with me. My first car was an 8 year old 1979 Ford Granada that was already unreliable and ready to be disposed of. A couple of years later, I "upgraded" to my mom's old car, a 1980 For Fairmont that was slightly more reliable, but still well past it's prime.
About year after that I bought a 2 year old 1988 Toyota MR-2 that I never had any issue with and even when I sold it in probably 1995 or so, it had nothing on the squawk list at all. So I guess I had 4 cars in my first ten years, but the first two were just total crap even when I bought them. I only sold the MR-2 to move up to a Supra, otherwise it was still in great shape.

Just drive with the high beams on!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what everybody seems to be doing nowadays. I know the low beams lights are brighter, but someone out there has to be telling people to drive in the city with their high beams on because when people are behind me, their lights shouldn't be brighter than mine.

Which reminds me, hopefully Ford can design a light system that stops bright lights from hitting you straight in the eye.

Re:Just drive with the high beams on!

[tompaulco]

I know the low beams lights are brighter, but someone out there has to be telling people to drive in the city with their high beams on because when people are behind me, their lights shouldn't be brighter than mine.

When I am driving at night, I get at least one person flashing their brights at me, or even more annoying turning their brights on "in retaliation" and leaving them on. Thing is, I never use my brights. I have factory Xenon bulbs which are quite bright for normal low beams.

Which reminds me, hopefully Ford can design a light system that stops bright lights from hitting you straight in the eye.

My 1979 Ford Granada had that technology, but it was manual. My newest car (which is still 5 years old) automatically adjusts the rear view mirror tint so that you don't get brights in your eyes.

Re:Just drive with the high beams on!

[drinkypoo]

Which reminds me, hopefully Ford can design a light system that stops bright lights from hitting you straight in the eye.

My 1979 Ford Granada had that technology, but it was manual. My newest car (which is still 5 years old) automatically adjusts the rear view mirror tint so that you don't get brights in your eyes.

I think he's talking about auto-leveling headlights, which are already a thing. A lot of luxury cars have them. There's a suspension height sensor in the rear that's used to diddle a servo in the headlight so that when you load up your trunk you don't blind people.

Re:Just drive with the high beams on!

[Skater]

My newest car (which is still 5 years old) automatically adjusts the rear view mirror tint so that you don't get brights in your eyes.

Our car has that and I don't really like it much - sometimes it fails to dim when I want it to, and my wife said that it dims too easily for her liking. A mirror with a manual lever mirror worked better for us. (Our truck has it, too, but the cap over the bed with tinted windows means that headlights are never bright enough to trigger it.) It's not something I actively hate, but if our next car didn't have it, I wouldn't mind.

What I would like is a way for the headlights of oncoming cars to be blocked out. I sometimes do this with my hand and I can instantly see far better. Unfortunately a lot of people don't seem to understand our eyes and how light works - for example, a cop car with bright, flashing lights at night can actually blind your eyes to whatever they were trying to warn you about.

Re:Just drive with the high beams on!

[Anonymous Coward]

If people are flashing their high beams at you because of your factory xenon low beams, maybe you should have your car checked by the dealer. There are a lot of cars out there with dangerously bright xenons. Some, like certain Acuras, are a bad design, but I assume most are mis-adjusted somehow.

Re:Just drive with the high beams on!

[tompaulco]

If people are flashing their high beams at you because of your factory xenon low beams, maybe you should have your car checked by the dealer. There are a lot of cars out there with dangerously bright xenons. Some, like certain Acuras, are a bad design, but I assume most are mis-adjusted somehow.

It's not like the lights are shining in their eyes. They shine forward and down like they are supposed to. But people are used to hazed over and dirty headlamps so that the low beams put out about the same intensity as parking lamps.

Re:Just drive with the high beams on!

[Grishnakh]

I'm pretty sure these are actually mandatory for any new car that comes with xenon (HID) lights, because they're so bright.

Of course, people who retrofit their cars with these headlights almost never put the auto-leveling systems on them.

Re:Just drive with the high beams on!

[KGIII]

All of my recent BMWs have auto-adjusting headlights. I had no idea how they worked until I read your post - I have never had to do anything with them. I have never even had to replace a bulb in any of them (though I am soon to be on my third when it gets built and delivered). Anyhow, you seem to describe it like it would likely work so it makes sense to me. I have never even noticed them adjusting. I have pushed the button to make them readjust automatically (sort of a reset button) but that did not do anything of interest so I stopped pushing it.

Yes, yes I do have an obligation to push every button within reach. This is why I should never be allowed around anything important or dangerous. If you put a big red button on something and label it "Do Not Push" then the first button I am going to push will be that one. I may not even wait for you to get out of the room or finish giving me instructions. That button will be depressed by my own hand - and quickly. I dare say it is not my fault. Who would put such a button there and make disaster a simple single button push away?

Re:Just drive with the high beams on!

[Anonymous Coward]

My newest car (which is still 5 years old) automatically adjusts the rear view mirror tint so that you don't get brights in your eyes.

My eleven year old Passat does the same. I think it is pretty common nowadays. However, I wish the side-view mirrors had the same functionality.

Wait... It remembers?

[webdog314]

"When next the driver uses the same road again, the headlights adapt to the course of the road automatically."

Which means that it remembers everywhere we have driven. I don't think I like the sound of that.

Re: Wait... It remembers?

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess you don't like any car or other device with gps capabilities?

Re: Wait... It remembers?

[QuietLagoon]

It's not the gps capabilities I mind. It is the sharing/selling of the accumulated data that I mind.

Re:Wait... It remembers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just that it remembers, but it shares it since they said the "next driver" and not the "same driver"... this is Ford's way of saying that they own your tracking information and can do what they want with it.

Re:Wait... It remembers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think I like the sound of that.

And to one up it...
http://www.businessinsider.com/ford-exec-gps-2014-1?op=1&IR=T&IR=T

Re: Wait... It remembers?

[FranTaylor]

It's not the gps capabilities I mind. It is the sharing/selling of the accumulated data that I mind.

you are aware that there are video cameras on most roads today, snapping pictures of your license plate as you drive by?

you are aware that every police car is covered with sensors that record the license plate of every car that comes near it, even when it's not running?

so you are complaining about something you already lost a long time ago

Re: Wait... It remembers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither the online video cameras, nor the police, take that data and sell it to marketers (legally). So far, car companies have been somewhat reluctant to sell collected driver/driving information (including GPS) to third parties, and for good reason. They know they would take a serious hit to sales if people knew that their driving habits in a certain car were being seen by someone else who might exploit them. But the very fact that such information is being recorded in perpetuity within their car, might be enough to trigger the same consumer response.

Re: Wait... It remembers?

[KGIII]

No. Every police car does not have that. In fact, they are illegal (preemptively so) in my state. There are some traffic cameras but they are few and far between. I have it on good authority that they are not the traditional red-light cameras as they do not seem to issue tickets. We also do not have billboards. I live in Maine and no, you would not like it here so do not move here as it is absolutely horrific and you will likely be eaten by a grue. Cops do have cameras in their cars and often wear one on their body as well. They do not automatically do anything including no facial recognition or license plate reading.

Give it time though... We have a moron for a governor and he may well try to override the courts on something like this as he has a decent backing in the also-moronic legislative body. If they keep pushing I will end up in Canada though that is less impressive than it used to be.

Tucker

[Anonymous Coward]

The more things become new, the more they remain the same.

Mercedes already has this...

[crvtec]

...and debuted it in their 2015 CLS. Unfortunately, due to federal laws, they couldn't put all the features in the US market: http://jalopnik.com/a-50-year-...

Re:Mercedes already has this...

[Lumpy]

But it's still there just disabled. you can easily re-enable it with coding.

Re:Mercedes already has this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the article you commented on. Now read the article you posted to.

If you can't from that figure out that this article and the one you posted are talking about 2 different systems, then I suggested you have google translate the articles to your native language, or take a English for non-native speakers class because you just don't seem to understand what you are reading.

The other option is you didn't even bother reading the article here and just posted in an attempt to display your ignorance.

Infrared cameras are expensive

[hankwang]

I was going to rant about how this thing is going to dazzle pedestrians, but fortunately, the video shows that it will mainly lighten up their legs. Wheelchair riders beware, though.

Anyway, the system as described uses thermal IR cameras. I'd say that technology is way too expensive even for high end cars. Thermographic cameras capable of around 200x150 pixels are commercially available for around 5 kEUR and I suspect that that resolution is still too low to recognize a pedestrian at 50 m distance and at the same time have a reasonably wide field of view. You can get 80x80-resolution systems for around 1 kEUR, but those will definitely be useless for the present purpose.

Re:Infrared cameras are expensive

[tompaulco]

Infrared cameras also won't help much since most pedestrians at night tend to wear dark colored clothing that covers as much of their skin as possible.

Re:Infrared cameras are expensive

[drinkypoo]

Anyway, the system as described uses thermal IR cameras. I'd say that technology is way too expensive even for high end cars. Thermographic cameras capable of around 200x150 pixels are commercially available for around 5 kEUR and I suspect that that resolution is still too low to recognize a pedestrian at 50 m distance and at the same time have a reasonably wide field of view. You can get 80x80-resolution systems for around 1 kEUR, but those will definitely be useless for the present purpose.

You don't use high-resolution cameras for this job. You use a highly sensitive normal camera and then you use the thermo camera right next to it for object detection and for gain control on the primary camera. The system doesn't have to see in absolute darkness.

Re:Infrared cameras are expensive

[hankwang]

It's thermal infrared cameras. The color of the clothes doesn't matter. Except maybe if they cover themselves in aluminum foil, which would appear to be very close to the temperature of the environment.

Re:Infrared cameras are expensive

[hankwang]

You don't use high-resolution cameras for this job. You use a highly sensitive normal camera and then you use the thermo camera right next to it for object detection and for gain control on the primary camera.

That would sound plausible, except that the image that they show in the video clip (0:28) is a fairly high-resolution fully thermal image without blending with a visible-light image.

Re:Infrared cameras are expensive

[StikyPad]

80x80 are $150-$250 straight from FLIR.

I suspect auto manufacturers can get a deal for a the resolution they need at a reasonable price.

Re:Infrared cameras are expensive

[hankwang]

$200 for an 80x80 FLIR camera? Which model is that? I'm looking at the FLIR selection, but the only one that comes close is an IR plugin for an iPhone, 80x60 pixels. At a 9 Hz frame rate, I don't think that sensor would be suitable for analyzing road obstacles while driving, never mind the resolution.

Great

[jbmartin6]

One more thing to break. let me guess, it costs $1000 to fix and the car will self-report the failure so no inspection sticker until I cough up the money.

Another attack surface...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all software.

What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Another attack surface...

[KGIII]

Remarkably little. Next question?

This is the wrong direction.

[coolmoe2]

After actually RTFA and watching the short demo video this system seems to have a lot of flaws.

1. Driver has to look at a secondary screen (which diverts attention from the road)

2. The movable secondary lights track the "hazzards" and shines very bright light on them. This could startle the person or animal and make them react in unpredictable ways (such as dart out in front of the car for instance).

3. Adds more complexity and points of failure for a critical system. (if they malfunction then what)

4. As im sure this system will be integrated with all the other car systems it will add yet another security exploit vector to the vehicle. (Automotive security is not that impressive right now anyway)

I guess I don't get why they don't just have the two bottom lights be non movable and trained on the sides of the road. Then use infrared light (which is invisible to people) instead of the bright visible light to paint the hazzards. The camera would pick this up as it does now but instead of putting it on a secondary screen put it in a heads up display that enhances the sides of the road while leaving the front view unobscured.

Seems like that would have less points of failure and take a lot of the bad design points out of this system.

Re:This is the wrong direction.

[StikyPad]

No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.

This was on Gizmag yesterday...

[Anonymous Coward]

... like half of Climatedot's articles. Sorry- Slashdot's articles.

These hackers are also assholes

[Anonymous Coward]

They .. assured me that they wouldn’t do anything life-threatening. Then they told me to drive the Jeep onto the highway .. That’s when they cut the transmission. .. I could see an 18-wheeler approaching in my rearview mirror. I hoped its driver saw me, too, and could tell I was paralyzed on the highway. “You’re doomed!” Valasek shouted .. The semi loomed in the mirror, bearing down on my immobilized Jeep.

Later, they "cut the Jeep’s brakes, leaving me frantically pumping the pedal as the 2-ton SUV slid uncontrollably into a ditch."

I know it's important to demonstrate the effectiveness of the hack, to prove the hack is real and that this is a problem. But asking your tester to drive onto the highway, then kill his transmission while you cackle that he's about to die - that's asshattery. They could equally well have done this demonstration in an empty parking lot, or have Wired rent a demo track. At the very least, the hackers should have done the responsible thing and told the tester what they were doing, giving some warning and heads-up. And that would have more effectively demonstrated that they had control of the car.

That said, the hack does clearly establish that cars are vulnerable. The fix "must be manually implemented via a USB stick or by a dealership mechanic" which means a lot of drivers won't fix their cars. Even if you don't drive one of the affected makes, this still affects you as some random hacker might decide to play with someone else's car. I drive a lot as part of my job. I already have to watch for inattentive and drunk drivers. Now I'll have to be on the lookout for someone's hacked car.

Over-engineered

[Wahakalaka]

My friend had a car (I forget what kind, maybe 5 years ago), where the headlights would point slightly left or right in response to the steering wheel turning. It worked great. "Adaptive Front Lighting System and Traffic Sign Recognition" is just overkill.

All the better for blinding targets.

[Anonymous Coward]

Super high intensity blue headlights that now track your target! Guaranteed to blind all oncoming traffic and people or animals on the road! To hell with everybody else! They don't need to see! Only I am important! Only my life has value! Everyone else is just garbage on the road!

adaptive headlights

[swell]

Headlights that turn have been around a while. Citroen & BMW seem to have had them. The American car, Tucker, had many such innovations. BMW also had side lights that help in tight turns. Here are some links:

1948 Tucker- great photos: http://www.laubly.com/1948tuck...
How Adaptive Headlights Work: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/...
1934 patent US1952346 A: https://www.google.com/patents...

Interacting with a car or motorcycle on a country road or mountain curve can be a pleasure, a form of meditation sometimes. We will lose that as vehicles get smarter and more independent.

Re:adaptive headlights

[maz2331]

My 2011 BMW has them, and they work pretty well.

Re:adaptive headlights

[jerel]

Google "adaptive headlights" and you'll see that this has been going on since the dawn of the headlight, or at least since the 1930's. There have been systems that were mechanically linked to the steering wheel, like the famous middle headlight on the Tucker, as well as automatic dimmers. In the late 60's my father bought a 1956 Lincoln Continental Mk II which was the first Lincoln to offer such a system. It was very unreliable and I think he disabled it somehow. Typically, in an effort to protect us all from crazy automakers making headlights ... um... dangerously adaptive (??? my words, but really, WTF?) created a standard definition of exactly how the lights had to work, and anything else is illegal. To keep us safe. Of course.

Volkswagen as well

[Timo_UK]

in the European Touareg

french Citroën cars did this 40 years ago...

[Herve5]

or maybe 50 indeed.
I for one have seen, and have driven, Citroëns geared with small headlights that just were mechanically associated with the wheel (or, at least, so I expect), this resulting in the next bend fully lighted each time one would rotate the wheel
Full mechanical system without GPS nor camera -way more reliable, I'd say ;-)

Oh great!

[jenningsthecat]

Yet another way of lulling drivers into a false sense of security while further disconnecting them from actually driving their vehicles. Also, yet another potentially hackable 'feature'. Yay!

Sweeeeet

[r-diddly]

Hey if I dare to walk outdoors without a car wrapped around me, can the auto makers please make sure to shine an obnoxious light in my face? I was just thinking cars don't dominate public space thoroughly enough, and the lights they currently use don't actively target my face for maximum annoyance/humiliation.

Re:Sweeeeet

[r-diddly]

And can it be loud too? Loud and take up the whole road? And shining lights at you arrogantly like a cop? A big mechanized searchlight-sweeping hunter-killer from a present more horrible than the Skynet future? K great guys thanks, love you lots!!! XOXO

Good Morning

[simasg]

Look, who finally woke up. Good morning, Ford, BMW and others have this technology in their production cars for over 2 years now: http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insi...