Car Flarm

wrote, On 2/5/2014 3:23 PM:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 6:16:07 PM UTC-5,
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:39:14 PM UTC-6, Bob wrote: On
Wednesday, February 5, 2014 10:50:25 AM UTC-5,
wrote: News article about vehicle to vehicle communications
to avoid accidents. Pretty much the same concept as Flarm.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/02/...to-each-other/
Gee wiz accidents won't be the drivers fault any more. The
OEM's will bear the liability. That's the kind of logic that just
about ended General Aviation. Imagine what the product
liability will contribute to the cost of the vehicle. Bob
To all the luddites commenting in this thread: I can easily imagine
hundreds or thousands of people not killed each year (including
potentially your children and family members ) because of the
proposed technology. Is that a bad thing? Most likely the collision
warning will be accompanied by cutting the car's throttle and
applying brakes, perhaps even putting pressure on the steering to
avoid danger. I look forward to car-Flarm. Herb

I look forward to it if it is interlocked so that it is not
functional if the safety belts aren't connected. Or better yet, it
locks the brakes. Luddite UH

The softer, persuasive approach: your mobile internet is reallllyyyy
slow until you buckle up, and your phone calls get dropped.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

The machine has already improved safety dramatically, so why not let it
take the next step? Currently, we surrender our safety to the other
driver, and even the best driver can be clobbered the worst one. I'm
looking forward to self-driving motorhomes, so I can ride in the back
with a nice Merlot while keeping up on RAS!

Dan Marotta wrote, On 2/5/2014 4:51 PM:
Luddite - one who fears new technology. I don't fear it, I just think
some of it is ridiculous. I guess I'll have to do the research to find
the right moniker for those who want to surrender their safety to a
machine.


wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 6:16:07 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:39:14 PM UTC-6, Bob wrote: On
Wednesday, February 5, 2014 10:50:25 AM UTC-5,
wrote: News article about vehicle to vehicle communications to
avoid accidents. Pretty much the same concept as Flarm.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/02/...to-each-other/
Gee wiz accidents won't be the drivers fault any more. The
OEM's will bear the liability. That's the kind of logic that just
about ended General Aviation. Imagine what the product liability
will contribute to the cost of the vehicle. Bob To all the
luddites commenting in this thread: I can easily imagine hundreds or
thousands of people not killed each year (including potentially your
children and family members ) because of the proposed technology. Is
that a bad thing? Most likely the collision warning will be
accompanied by cutting the car's throttle and applying brakes, perhaps
even putting pressure on the steering to avoid danger. I look forward
to car-Flarm. Herb

I look forward to it if it is interlocked so that it is not functional
if the safety belts aren't connected. Or better yet, it locks the brakes.
Luddite UH


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

Not to worry... the NSA will be monitoring your movements and will keep you an honest citizen... like issuing you tickets for rolling stops, 3 MPH over the speed limit, or leaving the sports bar after rooting for Denver! (and having a couple of beers to drown your sorrows).

Just put it on Cruise Control and head aft...


"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...
The machine has already improved safety dramatically, so why not let it
take the next step? Currently, we surrender our safety to the other
driver, and even the best driver can be clobbered the worst one. I'm
looking forward to self-driving motorhomes, so I can ride in the back with
a nice Merlot while keeping up on RAS!

Dan Marotta wrote, On 2/5/2014 4:51 PM:
Luddite - one who fears new technology. I don't fear it, I just think
some of it is ridiculous. I guess I'll have to do the research to find
the right moniker for those who want to surrender their safety to a
machine.


wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 6:16:07 PM UTC-5,
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:39:14 PM UTC-6, Bob wrote: On
Wednesday, February 5, 2014 10:50:25 AM UTC-5,
wrote: News article about vehicle to vehicle communications to
avoid accidents. Pretty much the same concept as Flarm.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/02/...to-each-other/
Gee wiz accidents won't be the drivers fault any more. The
OEM's will bear the liability. That's the kind of logic that just
about ended General Aviation. Imagine what the product liability
will contribute to the cost of the vehicle. Bob To all the
luddites commenting in this thread: I can easily imagine hundreds or
thousands of people not killed each year (including potentially your
children and family members ) because of the proposed technology. Is
that a bad thing? Most likely the collision warning will be
accompanied by cutting the car's throttle and applying brakes, perhaps
even putting pressure on the steering to avoid danger. I look forward
to car-Flarm. Herb

I look forward to it if it is interlocked so that it is not functional
if the safety belts aren't connected. Or better yet, it locks the brakes.
Luddite UH


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email
me)

You shouldn't say "rooting". There are Aussies reading this group.


"Craig R." wrote in message
...
Not to worry... the NSA will be monitoring your movements and will keep you
an honest citizen... like issuing you tickets for rolling stops, 3 MPH over
the speed limit, or leaving the sports bar after rooting for Denver! (and
having a couple of beers to drown your sorrows).

wrote:

Almost all the promoting videos show collisions when running red lights, It isn't clear to me how this will stop those accidents.

Skeptic

UH

I read how this works in an industry electronics mag. The GPS knows you are approaching a traffic light and the device checks the (smart) traffic light status (via a radio link). It knows you have a green light. Next it scans the signals from all cars in the area. They should be stopped or slowing if they have a red light. If they are not, your brakes are applied as you approach the intersection and the device alerts you that someone is "running the light"!

How come the violator's brakes aren't applied, instead? Or maybe a bolt of
energy from your forward phasors could simply disable the offending vehicle.


"Soartech" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Almost all the promoting videos show collisions when running red lights,
It isn't clear to me how this will stop those accidents.

Skeptic

UH

I read how this works in an industry electronics mag. The GPS knows you are
approaching a traffic light and the device checks the (smart) traffic light
status (via a radio link). It knows you have a green light. Next it scans
the signals from all cars in the area. They should be stopped or slowing if
they have a red light. If they are not, your brakes are applied as you
approach the intersection and the device alerts you that someone is "running
the light"!

On Friday, February 7, 2014 12:04:33 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
How come the violator's brakes aren't applied, instead?
That is a good question. I assume the driver will be able to overide the system if they want to. Most drivers will still want their autonomy some of the time. At least until this is widely accepted.
But I agree with you. No matter what, the system should prevent running red lights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQfwe6lANrs