backtop


Print 18 comment(s) - last by JKflipflop98.. on Jul 7 at 8:59 PM


Intel's system could allow the car to take over in the event that the driver makes foolish decisions on the road.
Some of the tech would report to authorities and take control from a driver in some instnaces

The spotlight over the last year has been on the automotive industry as massive recalls have been issued by Toyota due to faulty throttle pedals and other systems that caused vehicles to accelerate out of control in some cases. The resulting recalls were some of the largest in automotive history.

Another result of the recalls has been a push by automakers and the federal government to include new safety features on vehicles that include things like brake overrides and airline-style black boxes to record crash data. Chip making giant Intel is working on technology for intelligent cars that could take advantage of sensors installed on vehicles already on the road to report a wide variety of things to insurance companies and authorities.

The technology would use sensors and recording capability to capture and transmit video and other information to police and insurance companies in the event of an accident to make it easier to find the cause of a crash. Intel even envisions the technology allowing the car to take over from a driver in the event that the motorist loses control.
Telegraph reports that Intel has been in talks with automakers to integrate this sort of tech into vehicles.

The proposed camera systems in the car would record video footage inside and outside the vehicle. The video would also allow the car to recognize street signs. If a driver was trying to go the wrong way down a one way street the car could take over and stop the vehicle before an accident occurred. One nice feature of the intelligent vehicles would be using GPS and sensors on the car to detect potholes and turn the location of the potholes in to maintenance depots for repairs.

The smart technology would also allow the drivers to lock and unlock their vehicle via a smartphone or a computer and the car could also be started using the tech.

Intel's Justin Ratner said, "We are looking at a whole range of enhancements that will improve the driving experience, safety and security of vehicles. The intelligent vehicle is what we are talking about here. Once a car is connected, more or less on a continuous basis, all sorts of interesting possibilities present themselves."



Comments     Threshold


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

Negative
By Runiteshark on 7/5/2010 9:40:00 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
allowing the car to take over from a driver in the event that the motorist loses control.


I've avoided so many accidents with good driving and controlled slides its not even funny. Denver is a hellhole when its snowy. Its like a minefield, except instead of mines there's 6000lb SUVs piloted by women on phones who think they're invincible because they have 4wd, on and on ice.

I don't want a car to ever take control from me. Sure, the video idea is neat, it would be nice to take videos from all those hit and run people and get an idea who did it to turn it over to the cops, or use it to clearly point out who was the cause of an accident, but no thanks on the control thing.

Also, before anyone mentions cruise control or any other electronic/mechanical aide, I can disable them if I choose to, this sounds like it'll be a daughterboard combined with the ECU.




RE: Negative
By Solandri on 7/5/2010 3:28:06 PM , Rating: 3
Unfortunately, whether or not this sort of stuff is mandated will be disproportionately based on the driving ability of bad drivers. For example, say making it mandatory results in 1000 idiot drivers saved from their own stupidity, while 10 exceptionally good drivers are killed because they did not have full control of their car. It will be seen as a net benefit (990 lives saved!). Good drivers by definition do not show up as often in accident statistics, so they have less influence on imposed safety standards.


RE: Negative
By YashBudini on 7/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Negative
By Runiteshark on 7/5/2010 9:06:56 PM , Rating: 2
Don't get me started on bad drivers.

After being to Germany and a few other EU countries, I am pissed that we have the ridiculous lax rules, regulations and the seeming non-requirement for defensive driving and actual understanding of the vehicle you're piloting.

I'd honestly love for the Autobahn to be implemented here without any of the training and prereq's that they have. I'm sure millions would die the first few days, weeding out the bad drivers and tragically taking out a few of the good ones as well.

Or we could just be much more stringent on the prerequisites to get a license and force mandatory retesting over a certain age but that would be much too easy.


RE: Negative
By The Raven on 7/6/2010 10:54:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or we could just be much more stringent on the prerequisites to get a license and force mandatory retesting over a certain age but that would be much too easy.


Yes this is always the dream, but unfortunately drivers (good and bad) vote and spend money. Also, accidents and injury/death creates jobs, etc. and there is no way that politicians/unions/corporations will allow this to happen.

The politicians are supposed to keep some of these forces in check but unfortuanately they just do whatever the voters (who want the ability to drive) want. That is why the retesting older driver measures are always defeated.

Luckily the line at the DMV keeps bad drivers off the street lol.


RE: Negative
By tastyratz on 7/6/2010 9:35:47 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed.
This tech will be pulled the first time it "assists" someone veering away from a crowd of school children into the only possible other direction, oncoming traffic lane.

Sensors notice the double yellow line you cross, and are ever so kind as to "assist" you staying in your lane.

Make it a bell or a little dash light so you can sound ever so heroic in commercials, but don't you DARE take my wheel.


yeah
By knutjb on 7/5/2010 5:57:20 PM , Rating: 3
Great, more big brother to trample my rights and invade my privacy under the guise of a benefit to society...




RE: yeah
By jeepga on 7/5/2010 7:44:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The proposed camera systems in the car would record video footage inside and outside the vehicle


And guess who gets to pay for all this sh*t that we don't want? I won't buy a vehicle that has this big brother crap in it. I hope that any company that voluntarily puts this in their vehicles goes out of business.


here we go...
By crleap on 7/5/2010 11:10:00 AM , Rating: 2
here we go with more complexity to an already uncontrollable product. i miss the days of my '93 car, where if something broke (which wasn't often) it was a quick trip to autozone for a part to replace it. now, it's replace this system (for 5x the cost), reboot this chip, readjust this, yaddda yadda. and the quality is so downhill. we're designing such complex vehicles that our lackluster manufacturing cannot keep up with the QA. i bought a 2004 car to replace my 93, and it fell apart promptly at the point the warranty ran out ( before it was paid for). even the backlight on the radio stopped working.

cars today are POS, and it scares me to think they're making them even more complex before they can reliably manufacture the design complexity of 5 years ago.




RE: here we go...
By lelias2k on 7/5/2010 6:36:11 PM , Rating: 2
I respectfully disagree.

Maybe you had a bad experience, you picked up a lemon, or just chose a bad car, I'm not sure. But I've had a couple of recent cars (2004 & 2007) that haven't presented any problems. My only maintenance was the general oil change, brake pads, air filter, etc. (which I have done myself.)

I have friends with cars way over 100k miles and still going fine.

A lot of the complex systems you complain about are there to make the vehicle more efficient and/or safer. I'll take that any day of the week over having the option to fix it myself.


time to reconsider
By lucyfek on 7/5/2010 12:14:36 PM , Rating: 2
my mobile cpu preference and switch entirely to amd;)




RE: time to reconsider
By JKflipflop98 on 7/7/2010 8:59:30 PM , Rating: 1
In that case, you'd be dead in a ditch with the fire barely smoldering by the time the airbags deployed.


No Thanks
By pattycake0147 on 7/5/2010 9:43:19 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds like they don't want me to drive my car. I'll take my driving intuition over a computer's decision when my life is at stake. Not to mention that this is just going to lead to a new way for Uncle Sam to gain more information about me.

I'll pass.




Not Developing Tech
By GTVic on 7/5/2010 1:23:32 PM , Rating: 2
Just semantics but the technology to do all of this already exists. What they are doing is more like systems integration.




Avoid the logical solutions.
By drycrust3 on 7/5/2010 3:16:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
new safety features on vehicles that include things like brake overrides and airline-style black boxes to record crash data.


About two months ago I heard of a device that is like a governor on an engine that can be easily installed as on most new vehicles. Here is the website of one such company (this one is in the UK):
http://www.speedlimiter.org.uk/
The point being that restricting the top speed of vehicles is not only a currently available technology, it will save lives as well.
The following report shows that for a 60 km/hr speedlimit area, every 5 km/hr of speed above that limit doubles the chances of a casualty accident.
http://users.tpg.com.au/users/mpaine/speed.html
The ideal solution would be to have a GPS type system which limits the speed of the car to that of the road, but I think currently the cost per user is too high, but there isn't any reason why the top legal limit can't be introduced, and have it made a condition of the licence for repeat speed offenders (i.e. caught driving a non-limited car = jail time).
As I've said before, accidents should be considered in the same way parts for a car made: when you tighten up the manufacturing tolerances on components then the chances of a breakdown go down. Using the same logic, by tightening up on the tolerances drivers are given, then accidents will go down.




By Daniel8uk on 7/5/2010 9:42:40 AM , Rating: 1
I'd rather people be in control of the machines than the machines try and act themselves.

Imagine if a car is coming head on and you swerve to the side to avoid it, the car thinks you've lost control and automatically puts you back in centre of the road, that's not a super example I'll admit but there are potentially unlimited instances in which you'd never want the car to automatically take over control.

Also not to mention you wouldn't want cameras recording inside the car and sending all of that information to a black box which your insurance company can nosey through and I'm sure they will find a method of taxing people on certain roads via the GPS technology.




Smart?
By HostileEffect on 7/5/2010 10:20:06 AM , Rating: 1
When they make the car smarter than me, I'll cede control and pay it to shuffle me around, until then, I can get the rebuilding manual for the model and happily remove all these systems.




By BZDTemp on 7/5/2010 4:31:58 PM , Rating: 1
I think much would be gained by a system which looks at the driver to detect if said driver is looking out the window or focusing on the radio/phone/pizza and so on.

Also while I'd hate to have it in my car a system which prevented people from speeding and running red lights would help as well.

Mandatory driving tests every second year or so would help people stop getting bad habits and also ensure all drivers are informed on the the changes in traffic laws. I looking at my license right now and it is valid for decades on until I turn 70. That is insane.

As roads are getting more and more crowded I guess we need to be smart and realize everyday driving is for transport not for fun.




"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki