GM Working On Wi-Fi Direct-Equipped Cars To Detect Pedestrians and Cyclists 111
cylonlover writes "General Motors is working to expand upon its vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) and vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication systems that allow information to be shared between vehicles and infrastructure to provide advance warning of potential road hazards, such as stalled vehicles, slippery roads, road works, intersections, stop signs and the like. The automaker is now looking to add pedestrians and cyclists to the mix using Wi-Fi Direct technology so a car can detect them in low visibility conditions before the driver does."
Self-Driving cars (Score:5, Interesting)
As a motorcyclist, hell, I'd trust a TI-85 with a camera to steer, over the uncomfortably large percentage of SUV drivers that occasionally interrupt their texting sessions by glancing up at the road. Anything that improves the technology to prevent careless accidents is good in my book, and I would think the most beneficial application would be in respects to the self-driven cars, like the ones Google is developing [wikipedia.org], no?
Re:Bad idea (Score:4, Interesting)
If it is reasonably reliable - say >80% or so - it has the potential for people to take it for granted and rely on it, thereby encouraging people to drive too fast. OTOH, we already have plenty of idiots who do that without any obstacle warning gizmos, so in these situations it would certainly help. I guess to really know which effect is bigger, someone would have to do a study on how this technology changes people's behavior.
Here's the funny thing about all of this... (Score:4, Interesting)
The funny thing is that almost none of this will matter at all. Over the last 4 decades we've employed a variety of engineering improvements like air bags, anti lock brakes, better tires and suspensions, backup cameras, crush zones and so forth. This reduced the accident and death rates through around 1990-1995. Since 1990, those rates have remained almost exactly the same, year on year.
This means a couple of things. One is that cell phones had no effect on accident rates, because they've remained the same from 1990-2010. It also means that the crusade on drunk driving had no results as far as reported accidents. It also means that this system will have no beneficial effect until the driver is removed from the equation and the technology is perfected to a level where its significantly better than the driver it replaces.
Driving is boring to most people that have been doing it for a while, so they seek distractions from the boredom. Doesn't matter what distraction or tool you add to or remove from the equation, we'll fix our boredom somehow. In the 70's when I almost got run over by someone in a parking lot, you couldn't scream "Put down the %$@#ing phone!", it was "Damn woman driver!" or some such.
Further most people are simply unaware of the simplest rules of the road like right of way, proper turning, safe following distance and so forth.
So if you don't know what you're really supposed to be doing and you're actively looking for escape from the primary activity, adding some iffy technology that can't do much better than 70-80% in effectiveness will simply further reduce our interest in paying attention to driving.
And $10 says we'll get the same exact accident rate if and when this technology is deployed.
Re:Self-Driving cars (Score:4, Interesting)
As a fellow rider I concur wholeheartedly.
However one question does occur to me... when self-driving cars become the norm, at some point won't it be obvious that regular cars are a hazard and the sale of non-autonomous vehicles is banned? Where does that leave motorcycle enthusiats?
Then again, daytime running lights STILL aren't required on new cars sold in the U.S. (and those would definitely save lives) so I'll probably be an old man before they even start thinking about it.
Re:Why not use heat sensors? (Score:4, Interesting)
It should probably use a variety of sensors so that it can decide what to hit, too. Radar plus infrared might be a good way to go. Better to run over a bush than a crouching pedestrian. That combo would let you get an idea of the density (well, with THz sensors anyway) and the temperature of your potential targets...
occupant deaths went down, ped/bike deaths up (Score:5, Interesting)
Over the last 4 decades we've employed a variety of engineering improvements like air bags, anti lock brakes, better tires and suspensions, backup cameras, crush zones and so forth. This reduced the accident and death rates through around 1990-1995. Since 1990, those rates have remained almost exactly the same, year on year.
Meanwhile, pedestrian and cyclist deaths have gone up because US road safety consists of "make crashes as survivable as we can for the people in the cars, because we've felt they are inevitable." As a result, the death rates for peds and cyclists is 5-10x that of countries where there are vulnerable user laws. Basically: if you hit a pedestrian or cyclist - you have to prove it was their fault, and if you can't, YOU are assumed at fault. Not the other way around, where we assume it was the fault of the pedestrian or cyclist. Such an injury or death is also a criminal matter.