Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

The crash avoiding car likely to become mandatory in the U.S.

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by robsalvv, Feb 2, 2012.

  1. I don't believe that they believe what they say about drivers being the best sensors. Not a chance in hell they believe that.

    TCAS (traffic collision avoidance system) technology has been used in aviation for many years. The good systems share speed, altitude and directional information with each other before issuing an alert. Can this sort of system be made to work in cars particularly in dense traffic? How the hell would it cope with these scenarios?? What if you couldn't turn the alerts off?!


    How long before enforcement tap into the speed component of the car tcas system? :-k Is this Vicpol's wet dream?

    = = = = =

  2. Maybe they should be thinking about a crash avoiding financial system, while they're at it.
  3. Yes, I think they need to stop eating the Magic Mushies, Across the USA they have an infrastructure that is crumbling. Bridges, roads, etc. They have far better things they can spend their Chinese money on. :)

    The stats below saying stopping people drinking drain cleaner would be more effective.

    All injury deaths

    Number of deaths: 177,154
    Deaths per 100,000 population: 57.7

    Motor vehicle traffic deaths

    Number of deaths: 34,485
    Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.2

    All poisoning deaths

    Number of deaths: 41,592
    Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.5

    All firearm deaths

    Number of deaths: 31,347
    Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2

  4. Y'know, driverless cars are within the reach of current technology. GPS, wireless networking, object recognition... I don't think it'd even require much change to infrastructure (possibly even none, dependant on design). The only real barrier is cost... it would probably add tens of thousands to the price at the start. With greater adoption, though, the designs might actually get simpler; if each and every car is talking to the ones around it, they could work together and reduce the variables.

    And no, tunnels wouldn't be a problem. At worst they would be a minor one.
  5. :rofl: Love your work Chris!
  6. #6 Orb, Feb 3, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2015
    True we have the tech -
    There's still a long way to go before it is ready -

    GPS has issues as well. Last I checked the USA military still owned/controlled the GPS satalite network, and can at will introduce errors of hundreds of meters to confuse GPS navigation units.
    How many countries want to give the USA the ability to crash, hundreds, thousands or millions of vehicles at once?
    Up to 5 meters of error with a good signal isn't unusual either.

    Not sure of the limitations of the other tech that would be used.
  7. maybe the septics need to 'learn how to drive and think' far ker nell, they want their fat arses wiped as well??
  8. GPS, in the system I'm imagining, would actually be non-essential, mostly used for overall navigating (same as it is currently used). It would be easy enough to have the car 'see' where the painted lines are, so the GPS would only be needed to figure out when to turn and stuff. With sufficiently detailed maps, even that could be skipped. Alternatively, wireless transmitters could be used as streetmarkers -- the electronics involved would be relatively cheap and could be strapped to streetlights and power poles (only in cities, obviously).

    So there are a bunch of ways it could be done. And having it just for highways/freeways/etc. would reduce driver fatigue and (potentially) improve traffic flow, since that's some of the most un-stimulating driving in a person's commute/daily travels.

    I still think it's quite doable, it'd simply be too expensive to justify yet (car price and research cost, I expect). Once some of the component systems are in wide use, they can add a little here and there, and eventually the jump to full automation will be no more than a small step.
  9. A car company tried this about a few years ago now from Melbourne to Sydney.....was sent back oversea and told to go back to the drawing boards.....so I wouldn't be surprised to see it at some point down the track, imo it's a scary downhill slide once they perfect it though 8-[
  10. I'm not enthusiastic about it myself, but I see it as something that will happen, not something that might happen. Most people see driving as a chore, a way to get from one place to another. Why do it yourself when you can sit back and relax, but also be safer*?

    *The admission to/assumption of cruddy driving would go over most people's heads, I expect.

    The same kind of system for motorcycles would certainly be a challenge, but (assuming no worldwide collapse) I imagine that'll happen eventually, too. It may boggle the mind, but I can see ways for it to end up standard for all vehicles.
  11. Ah. I get ya now. Gaining consumer trust will be just a big a hurdle as cost I recon, especially with volvo's tech demo's (car slamming into truck for example)... Then again many won't care either if it means that can be that bit more lazy?
  12. When someone manages to build a crash proof computer, or any other software controlled device, maybe then they could attempt to do the same with a moving vehicle that I might be sitting in.
  13. So you'll not be flying on a commercial airliner at all then?
  14. To put it mildly, the automated trains in the paris subway have about as many incidents in a few years as cityrail does on a bimonthly basis.

    I still wish we had open travel between carriages in Sydney. That was the only way out of a train when a signal failure in Geelong would bring the system to a halt.
  15. Multiple redundancies/backups, trained crew and the money spent on safety and testing in the aviation industry all add up to different ecosystem than car makers trying to beat each other to market with the the cheapest system possible.

    Not that failures of this type haven't been blamed for air incidents and crashes, IIRC.
  16. To put another thing mildly, the difference between the organisational prowess of the French compared to Cityrail barely needs to be stated.

    Nor the signifigant difference between a train on rails and cars on the road.