Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

A Smarter Car

IBM wants to improve communication between cars, roads, and drivers.

By Clark Boyd

Friday, July 06, 2007

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Vehicles are getting smarter all the time, thanks to a combination of sensor and wireless communications technologies. Car manufacturers say that tomorrow's drivers will be assisted by a wealth of safety information generated by vehicles that can talk to not only each other but to the roadway itself. But with so much data often comes information overload. And that's why computing giant IBM has launched a project to help the driver get the right information at the right time.

Road rules: Traffic in Haifa, Israel, where IBM researchers will be studying possible ways to erase danger and congestion on roads, particularly at junctions.
Credit: Dana Hoffmann

IBM calls the research initiative collaborative driving, and the company says it's designed to prevent accidents and reduce traffic congestion. The work will be spearheaded by the IBM lab in Haifa, Israel. "More than a million people die on the roads every year around the world, and people waste a lot of time and money sitting in traffic jams," says IBM researcher Oleg Goldshmidt. "You would like to help with both problems in any way possible."

For IBM, that doesn't necessarily mean creating new safety gadgets. Instead, it means bringing the principles of computer science to bear on the different systems already making their way into vehicles. "We start with the assumption that in a relatively short time, vehicles and roads will be equipped with sensor and communications technologies," Goldshmidt says. He notes that there are already projects in the United States, Europe, and Japan that are testing roadway sensors that can wirelessly relay information about accidents, traffic congestion, and weather to an onboard interface in the car. "Let's say your car is now more fully aware of what's going on around it. The question is what information is most important to the driver, and how that information gets relayed.."

Goldshmidt says that through a combination of computer modeling and driving simulations, the company can better determine how all the data generated by today's high-tech cars and roadways can be gathered and organized, then processed and prioritized in a way that's most helpful to the driver. He uses the example of two smart cars approaching an intersection: "Maybe there's an algorithm that figures out the safest, most efficient procedure to let those vehicles pass through without danger or conflict. We're trying to find that algorithm."

Story continues below

IBM isn't the only company searching for that algorithm. Jim Misener, transportation-safety-research program leader at Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways, administered by the University of California, Berkeley, says that there is an entire field devoted to this kind of research: it's called arbitration. He points to the U.S. Department of Transportation's Integrated Vehicle-Based Safety Systems. The IVBSS system, Misener notes, "takes data from autonomous sensors" and then tries to prioritize, or arbitrate, among the various pieces of information.

But figuring out how to prioritize all this road data is no small task, according to Mike Gardner, director of Intelligent Systems Research at Motorola. His group has been dealing with similar issues as it tries to develop handheld devices that can interact with smart-car technologies. "A smart vehicle has to collect all this raw sensor data, fuse it, and then analyze it with something like pattern recognition," says Gardner. "Then it has to decide, 'Is that a person in front of the car, or is that just fog?'"

Comments

  • response time
    I always get annoyed when I go to the city and wait in line at a traffic light and I'm at the end of the line. By the time each driver responds to the vehicle moving in front of them  the light changes I havn't moved yet. If all the cars in the line up could move at once by command from the roadway or the vehicle in front traffic flow could be increased dramatically. If there is twenty cars in the lineup and there is a three second delay in response time for each driver, then a minute has gone by before the last vehicle moves. This seems like it would be a simple place to start easing congestion, and improving traffic flow.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    farmboy
    07/06/2007
    Posts:2
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    • Re: response time
      That mode of starting cars by sending signal from the car ahead will be years to come. And besides that, there should be some degree of cognitive control left with the driver while kicking the car off. What if the sensor detects the car ahead move and triggers the motion in your car without your full awareness directed to the front.. and the car ahead stops all of a sudden and the cushion is not large enough and you have not acquired full senses to focus on the incident.. and there is a thump!

      What could be done is to make these signal systems have more intelligent sensors, which could talk to indivudal cars as well. Right before the green light comes up, the sensor at the light should send a signal to the first car which could be relayed down to the car number 10 in the queue telling that it should be the last one to pass the green with a latency of 5 seconds - that should be a awareness signal enuff to trigger a better activated motion across the signal. (there could be so many more such ideas!)

      http://innovech.wordpress.com
      Rate this comment: 12345

      evolvingwhee...
      07/06/2007
      Posts:5
  • Ideas for integration
    While visiting FIAT to drive one of the new Alfas for the press a decade ago, I was told that the FIAT/Ferrari/Alfa engineers considered pollution control legislation the best think that ever happened to automobiles and their profession. Forcing them to understand the internal combustion engine allowed them to not only reduce emissions by 1000 times, but to make engines more powerful while burning less fuel.
    What is needed to make individual transportation safer and more efficient is a similar incentive. Today’s cars already are full of technology: microprocessors operating on networks control the driveline, handling dynamics and passive safety systems. What else do we need?
    I can name a few:
    1. Simpler instrument panels and controls.
    Sit in your car and look at all the gages, buttons and switches. What do you really need to know? Speed and fuel level but little else. The fact that the engine management system handles all the data means you can be warned if something is needing attention. Otherwise it’s ignorable. Climate control systems are an example of how to simplify systems – set the temperature and forget it. BTW, I drive a Mini Cooper S with a neat tach which I use in front of me with digital speedo. All I need. Other info is in the central dia. But why do trucks need tachometers and readouts of voltage, temperature and oil pressure? Did you know those minor instruments are faked on some cars – not real readouts. They are there for appearances only and will not read correctly unless something is amiss!
    What we need is one multimedia panel in the steering wheel or just behind it. How cool if it stayed level while the wheel turned, easy to do.
    2. Better entertainment systems
    In CA, reports I have seen say changing CDs is at least as dangerous as talking on a cell. The iPod is the best invention for auto entertainment since the radio. Select the tracks from the wheel-mounted controls. But if you must have a readout, make it readable and right in front of the driver.
    3. Integrated cell phones. If you must talk, do it without holding the phone in one hand. And no texting.
    4. Discourage eating and smoking. How many accidents have been caused by people dropping hot coffee in their crotch? How many wildfires start here in CA by people tossing lighted cigarettes out the window. I vote for smoke detectors in cars and no cupholders, but realize the futility of that request.
    5. Front collision systems. If you approach the car in front too fast, you car slows or stops to prevent or reduce the severity of collisions.
    6. Managed speeds. Bear with me on this one. I’ve raced sports cars most of my life and instructed for high speed tack training. I love going fast, but only on a track. There is no justification for cars that can go as fast as they do. All cars should be programmed to limit speeds: 90 mph for 30 sec, 85 mph for 5 minutes, 80 mph continuous. Like stability control, you can turn it off  (for track events) but it resets and starts each time you start the car.
    And while we’re at it, allow certain activities only to certain speeds. You want to drive 80, you can’t search for radio stations, dial cell numbers, etc.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    fiberman
    07/06/2007
    Posts:73
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Ideas for integration
      You had a lot of good points, but the one on the speed was ridiculous. Road condition, weather conditions, driver experience, driver CAPABILITY, these are all variables, and always will be. And that being said, the speed should NEVER be pre-programmed, especially in that phased/timing way you suggested. Talk about 'an accident waiting to happen'!

      If you want a max. speed, then it should be applied ACROSS THE BOARD at the manufacturing level!

      But also, the integration being discussed here would seem to require LESS attention from the driver, which would then seem to be at odds with your ideas about no cupholders, no smoking, yada, yada, yada.

      A LOT of people spend an inordinate percentage of their life driving hither and yon. It hardly seems "progressive" to turn back the clock on the creature comforts that we've been working so hard TOWARDS providing for drivers.

      If anything, as roads and cars become more intelligent, the goal should be to allow the drivers to become LESS so, and MORE safe in the process.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      cyberian
      07/07/2007
      Posts:2
      • Re: Ideas for integration
        Your argument, then, is to automate the car so the driver is no longer involved. Then the driver can eat, drink, talk on the phone, text msg, watch TV, etc.
        The argument against limiting speed - and read again how I suggest doing it - is the same knee-jerk argument the NRA has when anyone suggests that private citizens do not need to own howitzers.
        I happen to own a 143 MPH capable Mini Cooper. It replaced a BMW M3 that had many thousands of track miles on it - and was near its 155 mph limit often. I have seen 180 mph on the road 3 times. Don't know how many miles I've covered at high speeds on the autobahn or autostrada, or on the race track in my 45 years of driving.
        I've also studied auto safety in detail. Speed does not kill, stupid speeding, however, has the potential to do so. I live in So CA where getting on the freeway means dodging trucks and Priuses and many others driving over 90 - typically 20 mph over the average of traffic. I have seen over 20 single car accidents in the last 5 years, generally caused by loss of control, which is generally caused by insufficient attention to the task at hand.
        We all know that every American driver has exceptional capabilities, so they can ignore the realities of driving, right?
        Institute the German licensing system and maybe we can all drive 100!
        Rate this comment: 12345

        fiberman
        07/09/2007
        Posts:73
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
  • The "Experts" are wrong
    The younger generation, just like EVERY younger generation in history, has improved and enhanced capabilities to digest more data in less time.

    i-Pod anyone?

    Or cell phones, PDAs, handheld game consoles, etc...It's called evolution. They should stop worrying about 'dumbing down' this IT/transportation integration stuff to the lowest common denominator, which in this case would be grandma, who still remembers outhouses and no air conditioning!

    The kids coming up will be a lot more capable of adapting to whatever sensor array you provide for them than you suspect. Your problem will likely be, instead, providing them with ENOUGH data to compel them to want to pay for the extra instrumentation in the first place.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    cyberian
    07/07/2007
    Posts:2
    • Re: The "Experts" are wrong
      I agree with you regarding evolution and the different needs and capabilities of the next generation.  There is always the problem of the disconnect between how fast technology is evolving and how slow we are evolving.  We are still the same human beings we were, with the same five senses, the same restraints on attending to multiple simultaneous events.  We shouldn't assume that because the new generation are digital natives that they'll be more capable at dealing with the types of information delivery systems that are planned for the in-vehicle environment.

      I worked with fighter pilots who thought that they could attend to 10 tasks simultaneously without affecting the accuracy of their flying.  (God complex!) We were able to demonstrate that 2 events occuring simultaneously in the cockpit negatively affected the accuracy of their flying.  And these pilots are highly trained, tuned, flying machines.

      I don't know, I'm a Human Factors specialist, so my theory is keep it simple.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Avones
      07/08/2007
      Posts:1
      • Re: The "Experts" are wrong
        I've taught racing and high speed driving technique. One way we tell whether a driver has the capability of drive fast is how well they can concentrate. Anyone who thinks that doing distracting things does not affect your ability to drive is delusional!
        Rate this comment: 12345

        fiberman
        07/09/2007
        Posts:73
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
  • More projects in that direction
    Might be worth to take a look to another EU funded project called REPOSIT (www.ist-reposit.org) that deals with vehicle to vehicle communication, relative GPS positioning and Collision Avoidance Systems.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    mgilbir
    07/09/2007
    Posts:1

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Making 3D Maps on the Move
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
Featured Content
Sponsored by:
White Papers

Twelve ways to reduce costs with SQL Server 2008
Find out how to reduce costs and get more efficient

Download

Total Economic Impact of SQL Server 2008 Upgrade
Forrester reports on increasing productivity and management capabilities

Download 

Achieving Cost and Resource Savings with UC
How Office Communications Server R2 and Exchange Server can make your business smarter and more efficient

Download 

The Compelling Case for Conferencing
Read how you can improve workload support and find IT efficiencies

Download

How Windows Server 2008 R2 Helps Optimize IT and Save you Money
Read how you can improve workload support and find IT efficiencies

Download

Windows Server 2008 R2 Hyper-V Live Migration
See how Windows Server 2008 R2 and Hyper-V enable virtualization and Live Migration

Download
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.