backtop


Print 40 comment(s) - last by popopo.. on Feb 23 at 10:17 AM


Toyota has developed and tested new technologies to safeguard drivers, dubbed Integrated Vehicle Systems. These new safety technologies will need government recognition in safety ratings and infrastructure investment, though, to really take off.  (Source: Toyota)

One example of an IVS technology Toyota has implemented is an autobraking feature that allows the car to communicate with wireless-equipped traffic lights to prevent running lights via autobraking.  (Source: Toyota)

Another example involves sensors that detect pedestrians and offer warnings and then autobraking in the vehicle to stop the driver from hitting them.  (Source: Toyota)

Yet another example of an IVS technology is Toyota's "Green Wave Advisor" which involves the car communicating with a string of traffic lights to determine the optimal speed to go to make them all. The speed required is shown as a green bar on the speedometer. The result is greater fuel efficiency.  (Source: Toyota)
We catch up with Toyota on their efforts to bring new "smart road" technologies into the mainstream

At CES 2010 we had a brief discussion with Jeff Lovell, an engineer in Toyota's Integrated Vehicle Systems (IVS) group, located in Ann Arbor, Michigan.  That discussion eventually led to us getting the chance to get a personal briefing on Toyota's IVS efforts.

Amid quality concerns and recent recalls, Toyota is looking to improve the safety of its cars.  Toyota, however, is not alone in that objective -- across the industry, many companies are trying to come up with solutions to safeguard drivers from their own errors, and additionally help guide drivers to the optimal speed to prevent traffic congestion and fuel waste.

The answer to these problems may well lie with integrated vehicle systems.  Integrated systems on a most basic level consist of wireless devices that let cars "talk" to each other and to roadside devices in order to take safety precautions or give the driver advice.

Toyota is a participant on CAMP (Crash Avoidance Metrics Project), a project organized by the Vehicle Safety Communications Consortium 3 (VSC3) [PDF], an automaker alliance that is comprised of Nissan, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai-Kia, Ford, General Motors, Mercedes-Benz, and Volkswagen.  Toyota is also a member of Intellidrive, which contains the same players minus Hyundai-Kia and with BMW and Chrysler added.  VSC3 handles more of the tech development, while Intellidrive champions the business and policy side of the technology.

Jeff Lovell describes Toyota's personal progress in the field describing, "Maybe you saw an out of control car coming." He says the company has demonstrated systems, including a 2008 New York Auto Show demo, which apply the brake in such a scenario, assuming the car has access to communications with the other vehicle or roadside sensors.

Toyota is making an effort to give the driver as much flexibility as possible.  The driver will first get a set of increasingly urgent visual and audio warnings.  If they ignore them, auto braking may be applied to prevent an accident, but even then the driver can retake control.  Describes Mr. Lovell, "If auto braking were to start, if the users applies the brake or throttle all [automated] braking is canceled."

Toyota's IVS team tells us that their goal is to "equip every car" with IVS safety features, from the cheapest Toyota models to the highest end Lexus luxury vehicles.  However, it won't be easy.  Stakes Hideki Hada, the group's manager, "Someone needs to work really hard to make something like this happen."

The communications standards are already well established by industry groups according to Toyota's IVS group members.  An IVS today consists of wireless transmitters built into cars, communicating on the IEEE 802.11p standard and the 1609.x standards.  They pass messages in the format SAE J2375.  The hardware used is all standard -- the IVS software can be loaded onto a preexisting automotive embedded microcontroller, or a second ECU.  The only extra component needed in terms of hardware is the wireless transmitter.

The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Research and Innnovative Technology Association (RITA), the two U.S. government groups overseeing the technology, will make a critical decision in 2013 that will affect whether these safety features will make it into cars in the short term.  The groups will rule whether to acknowledge if the technologies have advanced sufficiently to make a difference the crash safety ratings.  Without this acknowledgment, most manufacturers will not put the systems in the vehicles as the majority of customers will not know about or be able to appreciate the extra investment in each vehicle and, more significantly, in roadside infrastructure.

If the 2013 verdict is in the favor of IVS systems like Toyota's, a variety of technologies could be implemented.  Toyota showed us one example that applies the brakes if vehicles signal to each other that they are getting too close.  Another example applies the brakes if the driver is going to run a red light or hit a pedestrian on a cross walk.  A final example is a signal between the driver and road lights which tells the driver the speed to follow to make a string of green lights.

The technology certainly sounds promising both for making driving more efficient and safer.  However, it will come at a major cost.  Initial deployment would likely involve installing communications devices and sensors on highway entrance ramps and traffic lights in major cities.  Eventually the technology would spread across much of the rest of the nation's roads making for "smart" connected roads and vehicles.

A common question among 
DailyTech readers is when cars will be able to "drive themselves".  Lorenzo Caminiti, Toyota's IVS Assistant Manager says that the focus is now merely on safety, but once the infrastructure for these basic IVS technologies was in place, richer applications like automated driving would become more feasible.

Ultimately, the group expressed a mix of optimism and concerns about the pace of adoption here in the U.S.  IVS technology has already been deployed to Japanese roadways, starting with Tokyo, thanks to a major Japanese commitment.  Toyota's Japanese models now have some of these auto braking features built in, and they are already helping to save lives.  The U.S. trails Japan, according to the team, but they are actually ahead of China and the European Union -- both of which currently are only in the beginning stages of considering IVS.

In the end, the entire world and the global industry is headed to the same place according to Toyota's engineers. A smart global road system that can communicate with cars and supports relaying intercar signals.  That's something to look forward to in coming years.

DailyTech would like to thank Jeff Lovell and Toyota External Affairs Specialist Cynthia Mahalak for setting up this interview.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I Believe
By Reclaimer77 on 2/17/2010 9:37:45 AM , Rating: 2
I believe you can put too much technology into the automobile. We've already seen how something as "simple" as Drive-by-wire can lead to fatal accidents and record setting recalls. In, ironically, Toyota's vehicles. Now they claim they can make cars that can drive themselves when they can't even assure that electronic gas pedals won't get stuck ??

This is just going too far in my opinion.




RE: I Believe
By bhieb on 2/17/2010 9:52:43 AM , Rating: 3
And traveling more than 100 mph will kill you.

Just because technology is moving too fast in your opinion does not mean it should stop all together.

I do appreciate your point, but we should not stop progress, what should happen is stricter testing standards before they are brought to market. I'm all for a car that will drive itself, and drive by wire would be fine as well, but not at the cost of safety. Better testing would have prevented Toyota's recent problems.

Personally I find the tech going into modern cars astounding even compared to 10 years ago, and have no problem with it progressing with proper testing.


RE: I Believe
By nvalhalla on 2/17/2010 10:05:06 AM , Rating: 3
"And traveling more than 100 mph will kill you."

Really? Wow, I'm pretty sure I've driven more than 100 MPH before, haven't died yet.

The difference is that I went 100 MPH, the car didn't do that for me. I knew when it was safe to do so, the car doesn't. The poor family who's accelerator got stuck and they were all killed? Yeah, the car did that for them. That's the difference.

This will only last until the first poor schmuck has his cars brakes applied at the wrong time and he's killed.


RE: I Believe
By bhieb on 2/17/2010 10:13:57 AM , Rating: 2
It was a joke. When cars first came and old wife's tale was that if you went over 100mph the human body would not be able to handle it. But low and behold progress was made and it was of course false.


RE: I Believe
By Souka on 2/17/2010 4:41:39 PM , Rating: 3
All these IVS systems add one new element...wireless... which opens up the whole security issue.

It'd be pretty scary to think someone could blast a signal that would engage IVS with false data... or worse yet, drivers become dependent on them and have the IVS not work.

I REALLY LIKE the idea of IVS... the concept of cars automatically braking to reduce dammage during a collision is an excellent example as a crash WILL happen, so there's a reduced risk of IVS doing harm... but what if that "crash alert" is false? oh man, lawyers are going to have field day...


RE: I Believe
By bhieb on 2/17/2010 10:15:41 AM , Rating: 2
More to my point to the OP progress should not be stopped all together, rather there should be tighter standards.


RE: I Believe
By Reclaimer77 on 2/17/2010 11:43:00 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
More to my point to the OP progress should not be stopped all together, rather there should be tighter standards.


Automation isn't progress. That's just your opinion. I refuse to argue my point based on YOUR premise of what "progress" is.


RE: I Believe
By bhieb on 2/17/2010 12:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Automation isn't progress. That's just your opinion. I refuse to argue my point based on YOUR premise of what "progress" is.


You mean you refuse to argue your opinion based on YOUR premise of what "progress" is.

Potato Patato

Both are opinions. I am not saying it should ONLY drive itself I thoroughly enjoy driving, and I think that most, if not all, of these systems should have an OFF button for when you want to have some fun.

I love the roar of a big V8 and the smell of burnt rubber (that's why I drive a CTS-V). But do I want my 16yr old to have a PROPER safety net like brake assist and stability control, hell yes I do even if I turn it off. Key word there is proper, and as I said Testing/validation is the way to get that. NOT letting OEM's rush gizmos to market that are unsafe as Toyota has done.


RE: I Believe
By Reclaimer77 on 2/17/2010 11:41:08 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The difference is that I went 100 MPH, the car didn't do that for me. I knew when it was safe to do so, the car doesn't. The poor family who's accelerator got stuck and they were all killed? Yeah, the car did that for them. That's the difference.


Bingo

Look accidents will happen. But believing you can make a car that safely can drive itself is just ASKING for accidents.

Also what about the big picture ? What happens to the overall accident rates when we have a society that is much less skilled with automobiles because over 50%-75% of the time they are driving themselves ?

"Just because we CAN do something, doesn't mean that we should"


RE: I Believe
By EasyC on 2/17/2010 12:30:10 PM , Rating: 2
Did you listen to the 911 call for the 120MPH crash. The guy was on the phone for 51 seconds before crashing. You're telling me you can't shut a car off in 51 seconds?

I'm not condoning the problem with the cars, but those deaths could have been avoided with common sense... "Hmm, car won't stop accelerating...maybe I should turn it off?"

I've had the issue happen to me where a rubber coupler fell apart and lodged itself in the throttle of an 11 second car. So I was gaining speed rather quickly. Guess what I did?


RE: I Believe
By theapparition on 2/17/2010 1:43:12 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree with you in that my first actions would have been to put the car into neutral and/or shut it off, but I speculated in another thread that this may not have been possible depending on the control systems that Toyota/Lexus may have in place. They may have a serious design error that can override those safety systems. I find it hard to belive that a highway patrol officer (who was driving) wouldn't know what to do in this situation.

It may not be possible to put the car into neutral or shut it off. Additionally, this was a push button start vehicle and not many people know that you have to push and hold the button.


RE: I Believe
By EasyC on 2/17/2010 4:27:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, I'm not a fan of push start systems. For this exact reason.


RE: I Believe
By marvdmartian on 2/18/2010 9:22:09 AM , Rating: 2
But just think how handy it will be, when two Toyotas approach each other on the road.

Toy 1 - "I can't stop!!"
Toy 2 - "That's okay, I can't steer! Hold on, I'll veer into you so we crash, and then we'll both be okay!!"

Ain't modern technology just so fine?? ;)


RE: I Believe
By Reclaimer77 on 2/18/2010 11:28:25 AM , Rating: 2
lmao, exactly.


RE: I Believe
By popopo on 2/23/2010 10:17:40 AM , Rating: 2
Thanksgiving gifts... and Christmas gifts..

http://goph3r.com/su


sorry, couldn't resist
By Gul Westfale on 2/17/2010 8:51:06 AM , Rating: 5
toyotas that communicate... so they can all suddenly accelerate together! :)




RE: sorry, couldn't resist
By Lord 666 on 2/17/2010 9:33:50 AM , Rating: 2
I was thinking a horn that said "Look out!"

There were many times I was tempted in trading in my Jetta TDI for a Camry Hybrid due to dealer issues, but glad I stuck it out.


RE: sorry, couldn't resist
By theapparition on 2/17/2010 9:55:08 AM , Rating: 2
I love how all Toyota's lies are starting to come out. The NHTSA has been tracking "sudden accelerations" in Toyota's since 2004!!!

Even when Toyota issued the recall on the floor mats, they knew about issues with the pedals, yet didn't tell the NHTSA. Finally, despite everyone thinking that Toyota voluntarily stopped selling cars for being so proactive, it was the NHTSA that told Toyota that if they didn't stop selling those models to fix the problem, they would suspend sales of every single Toyota and Lexus model in the country. Just completely shut them down in the US.

If this was GM or Ford, they'd be torn apart in the media. Glad to see that Toyota is finanlly getting the bad press it deserves.


RE: sorry, couldn't resist
By fuzman on 2/17/2010 10:16:19 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
If this was GM or Ford, they'd be torn apart in the media. Glad to see that Toyota is finanlly getting the bad press it deserves.


Ford and GM are protected by the US gov't because they don't want to hurt the economic recovery.

Maybe if Ford received the same publicity about the 4.5 million vehicles that it recalled in October 2009 because of a potential fire in the cruise control, with or without the engine running, then it would be a different story.I might mention that it included the 1992-2003 Windstar which many families own..

Heres the link to check it out yourself @ NHTSA..

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/recalls/results.cfm?r...

And don't forget the thousands of Pontiac Vibe owners that are not being taken care of...because GM doesn't care about them, even thought they have the same defective CTS gas pedal...


RE: sorry, couldn't resist
By theapparition on 2/17/2010 12:13:28 PM , Rating: 3
Difference is that as soon as Ford found the problem, they reacted to it. Toyota tried to cover it up.

Recalls happen all the time. That is not, nor has ever been the issue. The issue at hand is how Toyota knew about the problems and did not disclose to the US government as they are required to do by law.

quote:
And don't forget the thousands of Pontiac Vibe owners that are not being taken care of...because GM doesn't care about them, even thought they have the same defective CTS gas pedal...

Complete BS. Toyota included the Vibe in thier recall and the fix is being honored. One of my employees owns a Vibe and has already got her car fixed.

So, nice try.


RE: sorry, couldn't resist
By EasyC on 2/17/2010 12:33:59 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know a single person with a 2004+ Toyota (out of about 15 or so) who have ever had this issue.

The government has a vested interest in GM right now, remember that. I wonder had they not bailed GM out, if this would have been blown to the proportion it has been.


RE: sorry, couldn't resist
By theapparition on 2/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: sorry, couldn't resist
By EasyC on 2/17/2010 2:02:49 PM , Rating: 2
Michael Moore is that you?


RE: sorry, couldn't resist
By smilingcrow on 2/17/2010 7:16:30 PM , Rating: 2
Voice of onboard computer: “OMG, I can’t control the brakes or accelerator, YOU’RE ALL GOING TO DIE”.

60 seconds later: “Is anyone still there? There’s a great documentary starting on Radio XYZ in 2 minutes that I highly recommended. It’s a biography of James Dean”.


autobrake feature
By tastyratz on 2/17/2010 10:16:01 AM , Rating: 2
Toyota seems to have an issue with braking... why stop now?

Couldn't help myself.

On a serious note that's just a crap feature. Warnings bells lights and whistles should go off fine... but autobrake?
What if there are traction issues such as snow?
What if there is an emergency vehicle trying to get by?
What if the traffic lights are faulty?
What if your on the way to the hospital?
What if your avoiding someone behind you in another Toyota so they don't rear end you?




RE: autobrake feature
By EasyC on 2/17/2010 2:19:09 PM , Rating: 2
or how about a car that just runs to begin with?


RE: autobrake feature
By DM0407 on 2/17/2010 3:29:51 PM , Rating: 2
This is why all Toyota's surpass the 300k mile mark. Most the time there is no one driving.


RE: autobrake feature
By EasyC on 2/17/2010 4:25:10 PM , Rating: 2
Calm down buddy.

I wasn't knocking Toyotas. This guy was trying to be funny when his car runs maybe 1 month out of the year.

My Toyota has 212k and puts down twice the factory spec of HP. I'm with you on that.


RE: autobrake feature
By tastyratz on 2/17/2010 5:46:25 PM , Rating: 2
yup nothing to get excited about - just a lame irrelevant personal attack from someone with a big old sour frowny face. Not something dailytech readers would really care about which is why I didn't bother to reply till now. Wont bother elaborating beyond that but Chris if it makes you feel big have fun :-)


RE: autobrake feature
By EasyC on 2/17/2010 6:34:40 PM , Rating: 2
Turn that frown upside down. No personal attack, just helping you realize your post wasn't funny :).


RE: autobrake feature
By BikeDude on 2/18/2010 4:25:08 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
What if there are traction issues such as snow?


Having recently spent an evening driving 300km in snow using winter tires dated 1992, I can sort of relate to what you're trying to say, but: Modern cars have ABS and ESP. And most are FWD. Snow should not be a problem. Pure ice can be a problem (especially if you exit the car and try to walk), but if the system wants to stop the car due to an obstruction then I see little choice (the driver would have to apply the brakes no matter what). This assumes you have chosen a vehicle that can cope with snow (good FWD is key).

OTOH I drive a Saab, and Saabs tend to cope better in the snow than other cars.

quote:
What if there is an emergency vehicle trying to get by?


Its progress will not be helped by you driving your car into something.

quote:
What if the traffic lights are faulty?


Granted, a situation could occur where you want to speed out of harm's way, but few have the reactions/training to do so, no? (I find that bicycling helps, because then you associate speed with greater balance and safety, hence the first reaction eventually becomes "speed up" to avoid danger/harm) It still seems like a corner case to me.

quote:
What if your on the way to the hospital?


Still not a good reason to physically hit something or someone with your car.

quote:
What if your avoiding someone behind you in another Toyota so they don't rear end you?


Ah, you got me there. For this reason we have insurance. And some of us drive cars with active headrests that protect against whiplash.


Heard this on a plane...
By Lord 666 on 2/17/2010 11:21:22 AM , Rating: 2
A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.




RE: Heard this on a plane...
By whiteyd on 2/17/2010 2:14:43 PM , Rating: 2
Fight Club is awesome


RE: Heard this on a plane...
By EasyC on 2/17/2010 2:17:43 PM , Rating: 1
The first rule of Fight Club is you DO NOT talk about Fight Club.


RE: Heard this on a plane...
By DM0407 on 2/17/2010 3:28:53 PM , Rating: 2
The STFU


Possible issues
By tigz1218 on 2/17/2010 9:45:10 AM , Rating: 2
"Another example applies the brakes if the driver is going to run a red light or hit a pedestrian on a cross walk. "

I can forsee some negative effects to the red light case. What happens if behind you is a big truck that is moving fast, which you know can not stop in time for the red light? In this case you would have to move to avoid being killed. I know this because this happened to me once, and luckily i was able to get out of the way.

If they enable a feature like this, it would have to be in ALL vehicles on the road, otherwise there will be many issues.




RE: Possible issues
By DM0407 on 2/17/2010 3:31:53 PM , Rating: 2
+1

Anything that takes control away from the user can be dangerous.


Twenty years without an accident
By drycrust3 on 2/17/2010 11:04:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
to safeguard drivers from their own errors


When I did my very first Defensive Driving Course (early 80s) the tutors told us there were taxi drivers who had either driven twenty years and never had an accident, or had driven twenty years and never had an "at fault" accident. When I first heard that I was very sceptical, however now that I am a bus driver I do believe this is possible, but to achieve it you need to do two important things: 1) obey all the road rules; and 2) drive with plenty of space in front of you.
Yes, there are justifiable reasons why you "need" to speed every time you get behind the wheel; yes, there are justifiable reasons why you "need" to drive 5 meters (15 feet) behind the car in front on the freeway / expressway / motorway / highway; etc. But that isn't good driving technique. Do you know the minimum stopping distance of your vehicle at the average speed you travel?
There are two easy ways to make roads safer: 1) Drivers choose to drive safely; or 2) Governments will demand all cars have safe driving devices installed. I personally would prefer option 1, but if we don't, then it is only a matter of time before governments around the world will choose option 2.




By iFX on 2/17/2010 2:52:48 PM , Rating: 2
...like making their throttles, brakes and gear selectors actually work.




@@*!!in Betty
By Spookster on 2/17/2010 6:27:49 PM , Rating: 2
telling you "Your gas pedal is stuck, prepare for impact".




"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki