111–120 of 142 posts
Here's the reason I expect to hate this "feature": I already hate the way my seat belts work and they have nearly gotten me into multiple accidents. Specifically, if I see a hazard coming from the sides/rear and slow down and try to avoid them, I need to be able to turn my head quickly and sharply to see them. And the GODDAMN SEATBELT IS PREVENTING THIS because the slowdown and my quick sitting-up-straight has caused…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GPS combined with various road / traffic sensors. VW has a system that can drive itself all the way to a hospital (or anywhere really) in city traffic. They're going to trial some of these systems in Germany this year. Because of more stringent liability laws in the US you won't see it in America any time soon though.
uh...then why are the darpa challenge guys having so much trouble? surely darpa would just give the money to one of the big car manufacturers if this was a solved problem?
The Stanford guys have advanced so much that they'll take it on a rally track this year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CuVVZq9GfY
As usual, Scoble misses the boat by several magnitudes in his aim to over-sensationalize something he read on techmeme. I would personally put safety glass, airbags, anti-lock brakes, traction control, and crumple zones ahead of radar. Those are technologies that improve safety for everybody, whereas radar is for people who don't pay attention and should not be driving in the first place.
Radar is not for the people who don't pay attention. It's for the people who are driving in front of them who are going to get rear-ended otherwise. The less control idiots have over cars, the better. I would feel far more comfortable dealing with a bunch of automated vehicles than a similar number of typical drivers, to be frank.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that you need it to tell you that, it's that the human brain, even when focused, is relatively slow to respond. Not to mention many people have a panic impulse that causes them to yell first and then step on the brakes. In certain situations where a half second can mean the difference between death and a bruised knee, it's pretty impressive stuff.
That may be, but I still look with suspicion on someone who says he would have gotten in 2 accidents in 11,000 miles had his car not saved him. In my experience, it's very, very rare for someone to just cut you off with no warning. I can almost always predict that someone is going to switch lanes without signaling; usually 2 or 3 seconds before they do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That may be, but I still look with suspicion on someone who says he would have gotten in 2 accidents in 11,000 miles had his car not saved him. In my experience, it's very, very rare for someone to just cut you off with no warning. I can almost always predict that someone is going to switch lanes without signaling; usually 2 or 3 seconds before they do it.
Good for you, but how about the other 95% of the population who are less attentive than you and lack predictive powers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure but that's why you pay attention and drive properly, and look out for any dangers/issues. The best way to cut down the number of accidents is to get rid of all the crazy bad drivers, rather than any sort of technology IMHO.
It's not even remotely economical to eliminate bad drivers, not to mention good drivers who driver badly at times. My sense is that during any test, people will appear much better drivers than they are on average, since they won't be drunk or shooting off an SMS message or whatever else. It is economical to save a lot of lives with technology. This is a good tech. I don't know if I'd go with most important since seat…
BMW has a system in their top-end saloons that will safely pull your car over to the side of the road without crashing if the driver is suddenly incapacitated (e.g. a heart attack). These system are great and I hope we can overcome the social barriers eventually. Car accidents are still the #1 cause of preventable death worldwide. EDIT: Here's another great system expected to start trials in 2011: http://nextbigfutur…
N.B. saloon == sedan. (As with many of the Britishisms in my brain, I learned 'saloon' from The Economist .)
Though more entertaining than educational, I know the difference between my boot from my bonnet thanks to that show, as well as what a saloon, spanner, pillock and many other british-english mannerisms mean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Radar is not for the people who don't pay attention. It's for the people who are driving in front of them who are going to get rear-ended otherwise. The less control idiots have over cars, the better. I would feel far more comfortable dealing with a bunch of automated vehicles than a similar number of typical drivers, to be frank.
Radar will just be another crutch for a bad driver. Good drivers make sure that they always have an out, check their mirrors and blind spots as often as possible, stay safely away from other drivers, and do their best to control the situation. Adept use of brakes and speed can control how far people stay from you, as well as your position within a lane. These are skills every motorcyclist learns very, very quickly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In many cases you're better off trying to steer around the collision than (or in addition to) stopping short of it. I've seen a few crashes where people could have just steered onto the shoulder or median to avoid the crash but it seems that they just applied the brakes and hoped for the best. I don't think driver's education in the USA teaches emergency maneuvering much. How is it elsewhere?
My drivers education course (in the US) emphasized steering to avoid a collision first, and then braking afterwards. We were taught that colliding with a pole at 35 mph is better than doing so with oncoming traffic for a total effect of 70 mph. It also reduces the chances of injury. After reading that pilots are the safest drivers, I've made sure to always look around my car as I drive.
Hitting another car of the same size coming from the opposite side when each car is doing 35 mph is pretty similar to hitting a concrete wall at 35 mph. There is no 70 mph effect. The reason the pole would be safer is that it has some give. Lower acceleration = lower force.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
uh...then why are the darpa challenge guys having so much trouble? surely darpa would just give the money to one of the big car manufacturers if this was a solved problem?
The DARPA challenge was five years ago! This is the result of advances made in those challenges. The Stanford guys have advanced so much that they'll take it on a rally track this year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CuVVZq9GfY