Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

EU Approves Anti-Collision Automobile Radar 83

Posted by timothy from the flying-is-next-year dept.
Oscar writes "The European Union has approved frequencies for short-range radars that can detect collision dangers and automatically apply cars brakes. The technology should be available by mid-2005. 'Short-range radar can save lives,' said Viviane Reding, the EU commissioner responsible for the decision, which opens radio bands while preventing radio interference to other essential users of these frequencies. Full text of the legislation is available in English, French, and German in PDF format."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Approves Anti-Collision Automobile Radar More

EU Approves Anti-Collision Automobile Radar

Comments Filter:

  • This is how it starts (Score:4, Interesting)

    by samael ( 12612 ) <Andrew@Ducker.org.uk> on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @11:44AM (#11409164) Homepage
    There isn't going to be a sudden switchover from person-driven cars to AI driven ones. Instead you'll see the steady accretion of functionality that covers one situation after another, until there's nothing left for the 'driver' to do.
    • in Korea, only old people know how to drive cars
    • Welcome to the world of Minority Report. I wonder if some luxury brands will avoid AI systems to let people choose their own way, and how accepting the general population will become to AI driving?
    • Instead you'll see the steady accretion of functionality that covers one situation after another, until there's nothing left for the 'driver' to do.

      I doubt it. Driverless subway trains [railfan.net] have been around for 70 years. Yet the vast majority of the world's subway trains are not controlled by AI. Despite:

      Control can be centralized easily

      You have a far simpler 'road network' to control

      You have full knowledge of the location and destination of every train at any given moment

      The 'freedom' of the trains ar

      • So why hasn't it taken off? The answer is probably part psychological.
        I think the largest part of the problem is economics. Replacing you entire fleet of vehicles and upgrading your entire subway network would be very expensive and would interrupt service for some time. 2 things any company can't afford.

  • backup radar (Score:2, Funny)

    by p38 ( 807402 )
    My wife needs this on her car.

  • Warning: I brake for BSODs! (Score:4, Funny)

    by nekoniku ( 183821 ) <justicekNO@SPAMinfosource.info> on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @12:04PM (#11409366) Homepage
    Golly, I can't wait for my Windows OS car to slam on the brakes for no reason whatsoever while I'm in the passing lane on the Interstate!
    • But it might in reality just do that. See, I've noticed that some people tend to speed up, drive just behind the car they are about overtake and then switch lanes at the very last moment leaving only a little bit of space between. So when driving aids become more common, we might have to change our driving styles.. And that's not a bad thing!

  • women of the world rejoice (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cassidyc ( 167044 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @12:04PM (#11409368)
    let the stereotype arguments begin here.

    Though to be fair the last study I heard showed that women were more likely to have a shunt in a car park, where said radar might prove useful. Wereas men were more likely to lose control and hit a tree. Radar less useful there.

    CJC

  • That's all well and good (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bairy ( 755347 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @12:14PM (#11409466) Homepage
    But what happens to the car behind you who's too close and doesn't have this system and your car brakes sharply. There's a reason rear view mirrors exist and there's a reason humans drive cars.. because we know what's happening all around, computers don't
    • Not if you have rear-facing radar too.

      (Playing devil's advocate)
    • Here's a simple solution to that dilemma: DON'T TAILGATE. I'd be more concerned about the system doing something stupid, like braking on a sharp turn because it sees a tree or a car on the side of the road or something. That would really be dangerous.
      • Here's a simple solution to that dilemma: DON'T TAILGATE
        Like men's ego's follow that rule "But I'm a great driver"

        like braking on a sharp turn because it sees a tree
        another reason not to let machines drive

      • You not tailgating does not help you when someone is tailgating you and cannot stop in time.
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • If you are not tailgating then you don't have to stop suddenly, you can slow down giving the driver behind you more time to brake.

          If you are right up against the car in front you don't have that extra time to give the driver behind you and so then he does hit your car. Not your fault, but small comfort when you still couldhave avoided it.

          Sam
      • I found some very good articles about Toyota's [findarticles.com] GM's [accidentre...uction.com] and Ford's [nzoom.com] prototype crash avoidance systems which include the radar system (Nissan's is discussed too). From the article on GM's prototype:
        • 'The system will use radar to determine the distance to the next car ahead on the road and how fast it is going. A computer chip in the so-called smart car will monitor the speed of the motorist's car.

          If a motorist uses the system's new type of cruise control and does not see vehicles ahead slowing or stopped, the

    • The same thing that happens now. If I'm driving and you're riding my a$$ and I stop suddenly, you better stop before you hit me. If not, you're at fault, you're going to pay the insurance premiums, you're going to pay the fines, etc. I can't believe you got modded insightful for this.

      Too many people today drive as if they are more important than everyone else on the road. They tailgate while waiting to pass, they cut off traffic because they stayed in the left lane (North America) too long and have to c

      • ...and you're about to get a serious neck injury. Past experience (when i was much younger) from being in a car at the front of 20 cars tailgating each other shows that my mother gained a very serious neck injury/whiplash from the subsequent crash. They may be at fault insurance wise, but you sure as hell won't be fairing too well.
    • But what happens to the car behind you who's too close and doesn't have this system and your car brakes sharply

      The idea behind the technology is that the computer knows that most the time the car infront of you stops it's not necessary to *slam* on your breaks. It knows immediately how slowly you can break so as to keep your driving smooth but also slow down fast enough.

      Bottom line, this technology would cut down on sharp breaks.

      • Bottom line, this technology would cut down on sharp breaks.

        It could also reduce freeway congestions if its use becomes widespread. I know there's a physical limit of how many cars can actually fit on a freeway, however in my experience, most of the congestion on the freeways is usually waves of braking at places where freeways merge or at popular exits (one car brakes hard because someone cuts over, then the car behind brakes, then this propagates back for a long distance).

        Then again, a more practica

  • I'd like to see that in the US (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wowbagger ( 69688 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @12:15PM (#11409488) Homepage Journal
    I'd like to see that in the US, along with logic to determine if the car is tailgating and has been tailgating for more than a couple of seconds.

    Along with the integration of a cattleprod in the driver's seat, of course.

    However, since they auto industry doesn't employ BAEFHs (bastard automotive engineers from hell), a simple "Warning - tailgating" or a beeper would be acceptable.
    • Only if the cars do the same thing when people drive well under the speed limit.
  • I think in iRobot the system there was ideal. Cars were directed to destinations by computers and the only input the human provided was where to go.

    Also I did like what appeared to be the drive system of the cars to be large balls that could move in any direction powered by magnets levitating the car off them and moving them around.
    • That is not likely to happen soon (50 years) because of the huge costs involved of changing ALL vehicles to support the system.

      The large balls were eyecandy. The power generators needed to magnetically levitate a car (around 1 metric ton) cannot be fitted even in a truck and no breakthrough is in sight.
  • Hopefully they'll be able to implement a system to ignore signals from, say, a device that puts out pulses the same frequency, at rapidly increasing intervals, tricking the car into thinking it's about to hit something.

  • Not so fun... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by stienman ( 51024 ) <adavis&ubasics,com> on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @12:20PM (#11409527) Homepage Journal
    Think of the cheap availability of radar jammers.

    Apply copiously to a stream of traffic to find the few cars that automatically brake.

    Watch the cars behind them plow into them.

    Profit! (If you're a body shop or tow truck)

    Of course, the signalling is going to be sufficiently difficult that you have to aim it at the car you intend to fool and send a special signal specifically designed to affect just the one car. If the system sees a car 50 feet ahead, then one a few inches ahead it'll probably ignore it is a spurious signal if the changre happens 'instantaneously'. If it sees a car move into its lane from the side the signal would be different, and if the car in front slowed quickly the signal would also be different.

    Still, I can't wait for people to start complaining about accidents that happened because they thought the car would stop, or rear end collision because the car did stop. There's so much liability that car makers are about 15 years behind where we could be.

    -Adam
    • What would happen in that case? The same thing that would happen if someone threw some nails out into the road or a cinder block. There are a lot of ways to screw up a car. People intentionally breaking each other's cars is not the problem.
      • There are a lot of ways to screw up a car.

        But only a few that can be done from a distance with no witnesses and absolutely no trace of the crime after you turn off your transmitter.

        -Adam
    • Still, I can't wait for people to start complaining about accidents that happened because they thought the car would stop, or rear end collision because the car did stop. There's so much liability that car makers are about 15 years behind where we could be.

      Which is probably why this is happening in Europe, where people are less litigious.

      (See the NYT story "Three things your automobile can't do [nytimes.com], which adresses this issue)

      You would hope that since Americans love their cars so much it'd inspire some tort
      • You would hope that since Americans love their cars so much it'd inspire some tort reform, but in the long run, what we'll get is some half-assed laws restricting liability.

        Americans love their cars, but it's not because of any technology. They love big, loud, gas-guzzling engines, and lately they love big, ugly trucks to put them in. Americans don't care about driving being easier, safer, or more convenient, or even about going faster. They just want to be noticed.

        Notice how popular Harley motorcycle
    • Perhaps if these jammers were available to the cops it might put a halt to high speed chases of joyriders and ensuing public damage?
  • As well as a form of oppression. Now, we will all have to suffer for the stupidity of others. Just like with cell phone bans and draconian drug measures, we pay for a group of complete morons/socioopaths who can't seem to figure out how to live in society.

    I wonder where the "acceptable" distance from the car in front will come from? Acceptable for whom? A distance that a young adult can stomach and handle is far outside the scope of your average geriatric. So will we force young people to feel like they're
    • Young people might get bored, but how will a system that brakes when it judges a collision imminent scare old people? Nothing will stop you from braking sooner.
    • What if...

      The brakes only cut in if you're using cruise control. If you're using cruise control, hopefully you're in a pretty safe environment already.

      Current cruise controls disengage if you touch the brake. The radar kind could also disengage if you hit the gas.

      The "acceptable" distance will probably come from physics - you need x amount of space to brake at y mph, plus a little more for reaction time.

      Finally, if you absolutely hate this idea anyways, you can always NOT USE IT. It is OPTIONAL.

      • > The radar kind could also disengage if you hit the gas.

        When are you not hitting the gas during freeway driving? You constantly switch between braking and accelerating. Radar braking during the former is redundant; during the latter, DOA (if accelerating is supposed to stop the braking).

        > The "acceptable" distance will probably come from physics - you need x amount of space to brake at y mph, plus a little more for reaction time.

        No offense, but is that how you drive? Binary? Either gun it or sla
        • > The radar kind could also disengage if you hit the gas.

          When are you not hitting the gas during freeway driving? You constantly switch between braking and accelerating. Radar braking during the former is redundant; during the latter, DOA (if accelerating is supposed to stop the braking).

          When I'm using cruise control, my foot is not on the gas - that's kind of the whole point, it maintains speed for me. Using the new radar cruise control, my foot would not be on the gas either. In regular cruise co

          • > I have no idea how you read "gun it or slam the brakes" out of my post

            See below.

            > Let's say you need 1 ft to stop for every mph you're going (50 mph needs 50 feet, 60 mph needs 60 feet)

            The use of the word 'need' here implies a minimum braking distance which implies a maximum braking force. Which is, not coincidentally, my point: your solution above means that the distance to which it is set can only be meaningful by slamming on the brakes. Since this is not the best idea, it would likely need m
            • If your solution is to use the absolute physical mimimum distance possible, that requires tha absolute greatest braking possible. If you've ever been in a near accident, you know that this is not a viable solution.

              As a matter of fact, I've been in several actual accidents. :)

              If there's a car in front of you at 55, and you're going 80, the car would obvioulsy NOT just run up at 80 until it had to slam on its brakes to drop to 55. It would go 80 until it was no longer safe, then drop to 79, then to 78, t

              • So, you have no answer to my question, then? I'm afraid it's not me here who "really still doesn't get it".

                If you enjoy having a motherboard drive for you, cool. I couldn't imagine trusting some dumbass engineer's handiwork with my life on the L.A. freeways, but...
                • So, you have no answer to my question, then? I'm afraid it's not me here who "really still doesn't get it".

                  I believe your original question was who decides the acceptable distance. My answer was that has to be a minimum from physics, but they could indeed make it larger. So the answer is that the car company's engineers would decide - actually have already decided, since radar cc is already available - the acceptable distance.

                  If you enjoy having a motherboard drive for you, cool. I couldn't imagine tr

    • What if you find yourself in a "guillotine" situation

      If you apply the brakes and someone hits you, it's their fault. Don't drive agressively, your life and others' aren't worth it.

      That's what I love about cars that will drive themselves: they'll communicate conditions, and drive safely and efficiently. And I would imagine they'd have coupling devices like trains, so they could conserve fuel. Commuting in cars is going to be just like the train (read/sleep/etc.), except that it'll be when I want

  • It is a particularly bad idea to suddenly apply the brakes if the road is icy. Or if you are in the middle of a turn. Or if you are merging onto a highway.
    • This will probably be put in place with things like anti-lock breaks, or maybe some sort of automatic threshold braking system. Remember thought, this isn't just going to apply the breaks in random fashion, its going to apply the breaks when your current speed and direction would result in a collsion. Its not going to apply the breaks when you're merging unless the guy in front of you is breaking.

  • This is like putting the cart before the horse.

    Honestly, 90% of the problems on the roads are not due to us not having enough techology in our vehicles. Alot of it is due to incompetent drivers.

    If people on the road started to pay attention to how they were driving, and drive within the bounds of caution, we wouldn't need all this fancy technology to protect us.

    Consider how many people get into collisions because they are busy chatting away on a cell phone, and are not paying any attention at all to

    • See this (relates to topic) [picpop.com]

      BTW, i just want to make sure you don't think I am trying to give a holier that thou speech. I've rolled stop signs, I consistently drive over the limit etc. However, I pay attention to my driving, and I believe that makes my driving alot safer than someone who stay well within the law, and doesn't pay any attention at all to what they're doing!

    • Its really not. Because humans are well... human. Most drivers are good drivers 99% of the time. Its just when that 1% of the time that youre not at full attention happens to coincide with someone else's 1% or some other string of events happens that leads to an accident. Not paying attention to the road happens, and EVERYONE does it sometimes. Computers however, can be fully functional 100% of the time, have a quicker reaction time, and can respond to data that human's don't have (IE when they are losing
      • This could also pave the way for higher speed limits. I personally do not see any downside to this at all.

        You're kidding, right? Why would governments ever want to raise speed limits? To do so would only reduce the amount of revenue they get from tickets.

        The timing of stop lights is already tuned to maximize the number of people running red lights, at intersections with red-light cameras. Any other changes governments make to traffic laws will have the same goal.

  • Remeber Ohio... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Caydel ( 851013 )
    This kind of reminds me of back when ABS was new.

    In Ohio, they had alot of troubles with ABS. What happened was that the state troopers got a new radio system. There was a small problem however. Whenever a trooper used a radio beside a newer Caddilac with ABS, the Caddy would start braking hard randomly as the driver was driving.

    When they eventually started looking into this, it turned out that the state trooper radio was tuned to the same frequency as that used to control the Caddilac ABS, therefore ca

    • At first I thought this couldn't be true. It took a lot of looking, but I did find some reports of this.

      From pages 10,11 of a NASA report [nasa.gov] on Electronic System Failures caused by Electromagnetic Interference. The cases related here are with aircraft and Mercedes automobiles.

      From another site [antony-anderson.com] that summarizes the above document:

      The NASA Report says that when Mercedes Benz first equipped their automobiles with Automatic Braking Systems (ABS) these vehicles had severe braking problems along a certain str

  • a technology of this can also be quite dangerous at times:

    imagine you're crusing down the street at 70km/h [44mph] and you drop your twinkie [or any other food or beverage you may happen to be consuming] onto the floor. naturally, you reach down to pick up the fallen foods, and imagine your breaks are automatically applied, bringing your head right into your steering wheel, causing an enourmous gash on your forehead, and you start bleeding uncontrollably and grip the steering wheel, and you swerve trying
    • Firstly, in such a situation you shouldn't even try to grab that twinkie if there is a possibility of needing to brake soon, and especially not at high enough speed to cause your head to bleed due to braking smacking it into the steering wheel.

      Secondly, read up on how these systems actually work. It seems they only truly apply automatic breaking when cruise control is on, otherwise they just flash a warning indicating that you may need to break, and even with cruise control on, it seems that the cars have
  • The radar operates on the same frequencies as weather satelites (as discussed here about a month or so ago) for precipitation detection. If such systems become popular, they'll essentially jam the entire weather monitoring network.


    Avoiding a car or avoiding an extreme thunderstorm. Hmmm. Tough choice.

  • Thanks, Topher, you saved me. I may be crazy, but I can't help but envision a scenario where I'm driving along, or, no, my wife or daughter is driving along at night with this installed, and someone decides that they want them stopped.(for whatever reason)

    Would this person be able to stop my wife's car entirely by simply getting in front of them and coming to a complete stop? If so, the implications of this are horrifying. (Sorry for the frightening scenario, but it could conceivably happen)
  • Are they going to trigger accidentally whenever they come near a car with this new collision-detecting radar? Some of them are already triggered by automatic doors in nearby shops.

    Will this make such radar-detecting devices useless, by giving too many false positives?

    PS. No, I don't own one, I'm just curious.

Slashdot Top Deals

Perfection is acheived only on the point of collapse. - C. N. Parkinson

Close