A Smarter Car

Comments

• response time farmboy on 07/06/2007 at 12:47 PM

  Posts: 2 Avg Rating:

  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: (Reply)

  • Re: response time evolvingwheel on 07/06/2007 at 4:05 PM

    Posts: 5

    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: (Reply)

• Ideas for integration fiberman on 07/06/2007 at 4:52 PM

  Posts: 46 Avg Rating:

  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: (Reply)

  • Re: Ideas for integration cyberian on 07/07/2007 at 9:09 PM

    Posts: 2

    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: (Reply)

    • Re: Ideas for integration fiberman on 07/09/2007 at 1:51 AM

      Posts: 46 Avg Rating:

      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: (Reply)

• The "Experts" are wrong cyberian on 07/07/2007 at 9:00 PM

  Posts: 2

  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: (Reply)

  • Re: The "Experts" are wrong Avones on 07/08/2007 at 7:17 PM

    Posts: 1

    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: (Reply)

    • 	Re: The "Experts" are wrong fiberman on 07/09/2007 at 1:54 AM
      Posts: 46 Avg Rating:	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: (Reply)

• 	More projects in that direction mgilbir on 07/09/2007 at 5:16 PM
  Posts: 1	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: (Reply)