Slashdot Mirror
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."
[...] 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?
They also forgot to mention: "... and sends the data back to Ford for whatever purposes they wish..
FTFT.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Just enough time to go Ohhhhh shi
That is, when someone hacks into the weak security systems that are on cars nowadays, the headlights can be controlled and aimed remotely.
.
But I doubt if I'll ever see that headline in my lifetime....
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.
"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.
Ford is based in south-eastern Michigan. There's nothing Chicago could possibly teach them about potholes.
...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-...
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.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
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.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
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 .
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
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.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
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.
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.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
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.
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.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
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.
The truth is somewhere in the middle.
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...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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.
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.
...omphaloskepsis often...
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.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
in the European Touareg
Timo's Audio Software http://www.esseraudio.com
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.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
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
Herve S.
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.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
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.
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!
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
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.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Remarkably little. Next question?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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...