Yup!
BMW is developing a system that would intervene if your car was about to hit an object from any direction, and it just may come to market in a few years.
Luckily, German electronic systems are not prone to failure or difficult-to-diagnose problems…
;-))
Yup, faultless, until it isn’t!
They aren’t the only ones with systems to avoid stationary objects. I’m sure you’ve seen the MB commercial where the woman driving the Benz SUV has to avoid a stove dropped off the back end of her Mad Max neighbor’s truck. I believe I’ve seen Volvo ads touting similar capabilities.
^
Actually, The IIHS gives their top rating for this type of system to Subaru’s Eye Sight collision avoidance system.
However, all of the existing systems react only to obstacles directly in front of the car.
BMW claims that their system will also prevent collisions with objects that are not directly in front of the car.
Soon , we’ll all be driving round bumber cars.
^Just make the whole world out of Nerf. Problem solved!
I was watching a show the other night about aircraft and a Turkish airliner smacking the ground hard during the landing. Luckily (sort of) only 9 died and the rest survived with about half of the survivors being badly injured.
Apparently the radar altimeter and computer controls were acting up during the approach and the flight crew was absorbed with an earlier part of the checklist. The flight crew all died.
I’m sure that automotive electronics will be infallible though… 
The problem with things like this is a basic misunderstanding. Cars don’t crash. Drivers crash. All the safety equipment in the world won’t effectively counteract a stupid driver.
Why doesn’t everyone just pay attention to what they’re doing? Have some personal responsibility.
Speaking of automated computerized systems, cars and planes; There was also mention of another landing problem when the pilot had to take over when the landing gear failed and he had a hard time doing so because he hadn’t had much of any practice landing on his own.
It is going to be like driving a stick shift car, only a few would be left that are actually able to avoid objects in front of them with human operated controls (AKA the steering wheel and brakes).
The crash proof car…it’ll never happen
I can not see a car driving itself in the near future.
Many say that radar beams will direct the car and there will be sensors to tell the car that it’s on the road and where the next intersection is. Then add GPS to the mix and that’s a lot of technology to sell the average car buyer.
But even with all these sensors, pin point GPS, and computer controls …there will be things that the cars computer just cannot comprehend.
Will a property owners flag, on a low pole…be interpreted by the computer as a pedestrian.
Will the computer interpret the mail delivery car as traffic…not pass, because 3/4 on the car is in the roadway and you stop at the next 7 mailboxes behind the mailman.
How will the computer interpret a property owner mowing with their rider within a few feet of the road.
Just a few examples, but I could think of hundreds of moving objects that you and I will ignore along the roadway because we can understand it as “Not a threat”.
Yosemite
Will a property owners flag, on a low pole...be interpreted by the computer as a pedestrian.Will the computer interpret the mail delivery car as traffic…not pass, because 3/4 on the car is in the roadway and you stop at the next 7 mailboxes behind the mailman.
How will the computer interpret a property owner mowing with their rider within a few feet of the road.
Those examples would be EASY for it to interpret.
Where I think it will fail is driving in heavy traffic in areas like Boston…especially where you have drivers that constantly weave in and out…where when you leave a proper distance between you and the car in front just means it’s ample space to put a delivery truck in. I think the first time it drives in Boston traffic it’ll either be rear ended or driven off the road.
There is one way to make a car crash proof with today’s technology, and only one way. Remove all the gasoline and park it in a very secluded area no other car can reach. Lot’s of trees do a good job. Just like traction and stability control, these devices “help” but can be overwhelmed by stupidity.
Now matter how many airbags and crush zones are built into a car, it is much safer to be in the car that avoids the accident. While this new technology may not be foolproof (nothing is fool proof in the hands of a fool), if it helps reduce the number of accidents, then it will reduce the number of fatalities and serious injuries as well.
This technology will be a boon for the elderly who may live in isolated areas not served by public transportation. It will probably work much better in rural and small town situations, enough to allow those seniors the occasional trip into town for groceries, medications and doctor visits.
I’m sure it’s gonna be expensive.
I have to admit that some of the technology being demonstrated lately can drive a lot better than some of the nuts I see on the road every day. And electronics doesn’t drink.
But I fear Tony is right… it’ll get expensive. My biggest fear is that the feds will mandate it anyway, and new cars will take that final step toward being totally unaffordable to all but the financially well off. That’ll include us elderly, although I like Keith’s post.
A car is still going to require a certain number of feet in a stopping distance or an evasive maneuver to avoid a collision. It seems to me that no matter how fast and well the electronics work there are going to be a lot of situations in which the brakes and tire limits are going to be exceeded or there just isn’t enough wiggle room to escape a crash.
Say that motorist who sits at the stop sign and decides at the last second to pull out anyway in front of a vehicle moving 50 MPH with only 3 car lengths between the two.
Get a few crashes into the system with with all sides pointing fingers about what went wrong with the help of an army of attorneys and the financial ramifications will be sky high and non-stop.
Will the computer interpret the mail delivery car as traffic....not pass...No, I think it is a good test for a computerized car, because it *isn't sufficient* to detect a car ahead: you need to identify it as a mail delivery vehicle and alter your strategy based on the likely behavior of a mail carrier stopping at every mailbox vs a vehicle not specifically identified as a delivery vehicle.Those examples would be EASY for it to interpret.
What about this: in a residential neighborhood, a basketball bounces across the road ahead. The coast is now clear. A human driver has enough knowledge of human nature (who typcially plays with balls, the fact they might not look twice before chasing after it, etc) and begin slowing down IN ANTICIPATION of a child darting into traffic.
Would a computerized car do anything more than compute: “object in path; object clears path; object no longer a factor”?
What about this: in a residential neighborhood, a basketball bounces across the road ahead. The coast is now clear. A *human* driver has enough knowledge of human nature (who typcially plays with balls, the fact they might not look twice before chasing after it, etc) and begin slowing down IN ANTICIPATION of a child darting into traffic.
These systems don’t start out as DUMB systems and then learn as they go. They start out as SMART systems and then continue learning.
What I mean by smart system…they’ll program in a lot of knowledge that we already know. Red-light - means stop. Bouncing ball - means caution possible child running behind…Delivery vehicles…people mowing lawns…deer…other cars driving erratically…etc…etc
They can’t account for ALL possible scenarios, so that’s where the learning part comes in.
After watching the computers crash in my mother’s X3 more than a dozen times, I really don’t want BMWs playing with crash avoidance…