Future car tech Reg Hardware Car Week You are probably expecting me to start this feature with a hymn of praise to the electric car, but I’m not. The Nissan Leaf has been on sale for the best part of 12 months and all the e-cars on the horizon, from the Renault Zoe to the Tesla Model S, are simply variations on the theme. The electric car is …
I wish manufacturers would stop trying to put idiot sensors in their cars. This just encourages people to drive carelessly, 'Because the computer will save me'. You should be following the car in front at a safe distance. Remember the two second rule? If you do that, you won't need the auto stop system because you shouldn't be tailgating. You should also be paying attention to the road.
Can I have the spike sticking out the back for all the tail-gaters?
People are forgetting to take responsibility for their own actions. People currently step out in front of cars without looking. They know the driver will stop and if they don't the driver is at fault, not the moron who didn't look. Won't help the lifespan of the pedestrian when the sun is in the driver's eyes.
I suggest the front facing camera on the car. Someone steps out without looking round and its classed as suicide. No blame passed to the driver.
The front/rear facing cameras and a basic black box would also good for insurance claims (when others are at fault) and force better driving.
In the example of your typical iZombie (tm) walking into the road without looking, you could also sue them or thier estate for the damages they caused.
I've often thought about a spike in the middle of the steering wheel. Maybe they should only be mandated on idiots who have a track record of crashes and driving like idiots and serial speeders could be forced to not wear seat belts, and have their air bags disabled.
I know I drive more careful when I'm NOT wearing a seatbelt.
And while we're at it, let's get rid of tetanus shots. Only careless people cut their fingers on a nail/thorn, so we should make sure that's still lethal. And antibiotics for VD - if you can't keep your man satisfied, don't be surprised if he shags around, gets the clap and then you can't have kids. And safety guards on bandsaws and hydraulic presses, and protective clothing for using chainsaws, and steel toecaps.
And don't you dare install a firewall or anti-virus. If you've secured your PC properly, and you never open an email attachment, and you never download anything, you don't need it. Nor should you ever have your code reviewed, or even test it before you release it, because you do it perfectly first time, every time.
Alternatively, join the real world, and realise that shit happens and human beings aren't infallible.
> shit happens and human beings aren't infallible.
Whilst this is true, human beings tend to be a lot less fallible if there is a personal downside to them acting like total dicks.
So it's all well and good having this new tech to help, but the root of the problem is that drivers get away with doing dangerous things with cars that would have them jailed if they did it with any other implement.
As ever, the solution to the problem is multi-faceted, and any attempt at a "simple" solution is necessarily flawed...
Vic.
Well, given the improvements in death statistics despite improved vehicles and technology providing ever-increasing ability to drive like a complete twat I think I'll take all the advanced safety tech I can get.
Twat stat:
In the USA seat belt use is now around 80%.
Over half of people killed in accidents weren't wearing a restraint.
> > shit happens and human beings aren't infallible.
>
> Whilst this is true, human beings tend to be a lot less fallible if
> there is a personal downside to them acting like total dicks.
One would hope so, but from I've seen, that just isn't the case.
People seem to be _profoundly_ bad at estimating their own competence
and at assessing risk (and how their behavior affects risk). It
doesn't matter whether you're talking about buying and selling
collaterlized debt obligations or driving down the street in a car:
people always think they're a lot better than they really are and they
don't have clue #1 about the risk created by the things they do.
> People seem to be _profoundly_ bad at estimating their own competence
You're right, of course.
But cosseting such people in airbags and legal immunities does nothing to correct such behaviour - IMO, it actually promotes it.
If people were held responsible for their actions, there would be more of a tendency for them either to learn from mistakes (both theirs and others) and also for the learning-resistant to be removed from the road. Either situation is a win...
Vic.
I remember the Malawian lorry driver's strike, because power steering meant women would be able to drive them.
I remember myself railing against ABS, on the grounds that you couldn't feel the road under braking, and power steering myself because you couldn't feel the road. And Front wheel drive. It just encouraged people to drive into corners they hadn't thought out. Four wheel drive was just for people with no skill.
Self parking! Well it just encourages women onto the roads, doesn't it?
Alas, now, having three kids and a wife, and au pair, I wouldn't let them drive a car that didn't have these things.
Alas now using the road to get places to do things and meet people, rather than using a road as a hobby to demonstrate just how brilliant I am at oversteering round roundabouts, I find these things brilliant, when I'm tired, not concentrating and so on.
Yes. I know people shouldn't drive when they're not concentrating but everyone over the age of 25 does.
Let me guess. You're 23, male, and you just can't understand how anyone could possibly have an accident.
> I remember myself railing against ABS, on the grounds that you couldn't feel the road
When ABS was first introduced, it raised the insurance premium, because the car was statistically much more likely to be involved in a front-end collision.
Reducing the perception of danger from a driver's perspective just causes increased risk-taking.
> everyone over the age of 25 does.
And this is the problem with such behaviour being inappropriately punished.
Vic.
"Front wheel drive.
Horrible idea
Howabout front to steer and rear to drive. Much better balanced and much nicer to drive.
Yes I currently have a car driven by the correct wheels."
If your only purpose of the car is racing, then yes, rear wheel drive is best, but for general driving, especially in poor weather conditions, FWD is far superior. The ability to do powerslides is hardly required in day to day driving, and I'd much prefer a car that I can actually USE in the snow thank you very much.
Last time we had heavy snow, most of the cars that I saw that had got stuck were Beemers / Mercs, and ALL if the traffic jams were caused by them.
If you do drive a RWD and there's more than a few MM if snow on the ground, unless you have snow tyres / snow chains or a ¼tonne of bricks in the boot, please - stay the fuck off the roads.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
I hope you'll be able to switch the functionality of that SOS button off. My 2 year old's favourite game in a parked car is to press as many buttons as she can, and I don't fancy being charged for making prank calls. Obviously I could either just keep her strapped in or leave her out on the road while I'm waiting for someone, but where's the fun in that.
are you leaving a 2-year-old unsupervised in a parked car? Where I live (Adelaide, Australia), doing that generally results in Family and Youth Services removing your kids from your custody and charging you with neglect.
Given, part of the problem in Adelaide is that on our hotter days the inside of a car can top 65 Celsius which can (and has) kill(ed) a kid left inside within minutes, which is why we specifically have that law against leaving kids in cars; but one would imagine common sense would tell anyone to take their kids with them when they leave the car for any length of time.
<Pedant mode = ON>
RADAR (RAdio Direction And Rangeing) works using radio waves. The Focus uses an infrared laser for sensing distance for the 'low speed collision avoidance', so if you want to be accurate (and as a tech-site accuracy should be seen as 'a desirable attribute') then it actually uses LIDAR (LIght Direction And Rangeing).
<Pedant mode = OFF>
Mea Culpa! I applaud your upmanship score...
I checked the spelling, copied the text to the clipboard, then took five minutes trying to remember my password for posting. I posted the comment, and forgot to change the spelling. D'oh!
And you're right. The word 'it' does not contain an 'e'.
All this guff about putting sensors in the car to allow it to act "train car like" on the road is, IMHO, a step backwards - how about, you know, a REAL TRAIN? One engine rather than many, a much better coefficient of drag because it's a single long tube, much lower rolling resistance due to the metal on metal rails, the ability to have a catenary power feed. One set of equipment maintained by professionals, rather than many that may not even be maintained. And forget what happens when an older car that lacks this gear pulls in (what, are you going to ban all older cars and force people to buy new? The auto unions will love that, the people won't.) Or when a deer jumps out onto the road?
And the fact that if I can put my car on the train and sit in a decent seat, I can tolerate a smaller car on longer trips because I won't be in it? I can get up and wander to the dining car for food, I can go to the viewing car if the area is scenic.
You Brits and Euros have decent train systems - this is going to screw it up! Look what happened when we stopped funding our rail in favour of the interstates and airports - we almost totally killed our passenger rail service.
The problem with trains is the problem with all public transport, and the reason for the car's success. Unlike the car, trains rarely go exactly where you want to go exactly when you want to go, especially in rural areas.
Unless they solve this problem the best thing to do is improve cars, methinks.
The biggest problem with trains is capacity.
You couldn't shift a half of one percent of road traffic to rail without swamping the system. On the most popular routes/times they are already used to capacity. For typical UK distances it would probably never be worthwhile putting cars on trains - the capacity would be far better used for other purposes.
OK, real trains. I commute fortnightly to the office. The rest of the time I'm working at home where I don't emit (or not too much) carbon more than I would elsewhere. It is cheaper to fly there than it is to take the train, and it's 1 hour 10 mins opposed to 7-ish hours, for a start and you don't have to sit amongst the mentally ill for that time (don't know why this should be the case, but it is inevitably is).
But that is only the case for one person. Add one more and the economics are completely in favour of the car, and you get to go exactly where you want, when you want. I could drive door-to-door for £140, whereas the train is £125, but not quite door-to-door (extra £18 for taxis), so it is already pretty close, and the timings are roughly similar. The main problem with driving there is staying awake (which in former times would be solved with over-the-counter amphetamines). A car which could do, say, 50-ish to the gallon and drive itself mostly would probably win the entire argument for me, if it were sensibly priced. Which of course it won't be. If you can avoid the panel problems, a W210 E class Mercedes of a reasonable vintage costs stupid money (about £1,400) and will do 450 miles on a tankfull. In terms of "a much better coefficient of drag because it's a single long tube", in real cash, in the real world, I have some advice for the people running the railways as to where they can best put those virtues to use. And it ain't on rails. Of course, their profits come from the captive commuter market, and it shows. I'd love to use the train, but since it is expensive and sucks mightily, I don't. Buses are even less useful. Where I live, I can get to the nearest big city (17 miles) for £5 return. Station to office, £4, and I have to walk for 20 minutes, and they only run every 20 minutes. How anyone is taken in by the idea that we have a decent public transport system in this country anymore for the general traveller astounds me. It seems to be priced for the rich (who never use it), or people who have so much time to hang about waiting for connections that they cannot possibly be working for a living.
</rant>
No, as is usual now, it's a device to make money for the favoured, whilst having the appearance of being for the benefit of the public.
Best I stop now before I get onto the racket which is Car Insurance.
This technology is fitted to all Citroen C4 Grand Picassos, as long as they have the xenon headlamps option.
The most bizarre version of this is on the VW Tourag which lights up the appropriate foglight to illuminate the apex of a curve. If you only glimpse this in action briefly it makes it appear that the other side's bulb has burned out.
Followed the link to ecall (the euro SOS thingy) where I see the car makers and telcos agree it is do-able and should save lives (with the obvious proviso there will be teething troubles as some one has mentioned).
A bit disappointing, then, to see the completely negative comments of the UK gov.
The running costs must be peanuts on the network side once it is all set up - and on the vehicle, the average car will surely have gps and cellular kit as standard soon anyway Am I alone in being disappointed?
So electric vehicles are today's tech, whilst PHEVs are the future? What sort of ass-backwards world does the author live in? Just because we have a handful of weak city cars that are battery powered doesn't mean that's the extent electric is capable of. Once we have electric saloons comparable to Audi A4's, BMW 3-series etc. with 200+ miles of range, then we'll see inroads into the mainstream, and when that happens who is going to bother fannying about with expensive, maintenance, increased weight, and lowered reliability of having a PHEV car with two drivetrains and the other subsystems required of a conventional engine.
Driving demands wetware. If the human can't drive, take the human off the road. Seriously. Humans lived without automobiles for hundreds of thousands of years. They aren't necessary to life. Spending trillions of $CURRENCY trying to make autos autonomous is money that could be better spent elsewhere on the general human condition ...
Secondly, for those of us who actually can and do drive outside of bicycle distance, nothing comes close to the price/performance and TCO of good old heated & compressed treefern residue. Until this changes, electric vehicles are a fool's errand.
I won't get into the pollution caused by current battery tech ... other than to say that it's looming over the entire "green" set's shoulder, rubbing it's hands in anticipation of the inevitable.
Reading some of this "tommorrows technology" is like deja vue all over again.
"Road Trains" ... remember a presentation at a formal methods/verification conference (paper was covering how to ensure the software/protocols used were "safe") about 20 years ago that covered work that California Highways were doing in this area ... presentation was memorable as it was back in the days of overhead projectors and the person doing it had one of the LCD screens you could put on the OHP which not only display his slides but also showed a film clip of an autonomous road train driving down a coned-off lane on one of the Calif freeways.
Emergency SOS button etc ... again 20-ish years ago there was a GPS application that was going to do this which major car manufacturers were lined up to use ... only bit missing was the mobile connection to relay the GPS postion etc to the emergency centre (think there may even have been provision for audio connection to emergency centre as well). However mobile firms weren't interested unless car owners signed up for monthly tariff so system died and car manufacturers offered mobile phone as an option.
So some of these have been "coming soon" for at about 20 years ... so in true Tommorrows World style we can expect to see them in cars in about 10 years from now!
... reading these comments brought something to mind. Keeping uninsured, unlicenced and untaxed drivers off the road, all that information should be on a smart chip, if you don't have one, the car won't start. If you lend yours to someone, you get prosecuted for their crimes. If it was actually encrypted properly, it may even reduce car theft too.
Copyright me, if it does turn out to be genius, or you can have it for free if this post gets ripped to bits by people who have thought it through more than I have in the last 30 seconds.
MK
Make sense. Fuel economy is far better because the vehicles are at a mostly constant speed, and also the wind resistance of the train is far less than that of the sum of the vehicles. Mechanical wear would be less. These platoons wouldn't have to stop at junctions as often, either, since different platoons - or individual vehicles- can be co-ordinated in advance of the junction so they arrive at different times. However, the un-addressed issue is that of the driver adapting from automatic to manual control.
Safety would be better. That horrific pile-up on the M5 in Autumn 2011 would not have happened had the vehicles been linked. Do bear that it mind when making negative comments about 'idiot sensors'. I'm sure you have an I.Q of 185, but that doesn't mean your eyes can see through smoke.
Forget all this idiot-proofing; I just wish manufacturers would come out with a mechanism that will automagically hitch up a trailer and sort out the electrics/snatch-cable in the dark/rain/mud without me needing to get out of the car several times in the process.
"an infra-red night-vision windscreen would be kinda neat too).
The distinction is important. With a diesel-electric power train you use a diesel engine to generate electricity which is fed to electric traction motors. With electro-diesel you use electricity (from a battery, fuel cell, etc) to drive the traction motors, with a diesel generator as backup. Either way the traction motors should drive the wheels. We don't need a heavy mechanical transmission as well.
I'm waiting for a production version of the QED Mini.
I think diesel-electric (or possibly a small turbine) is a far better bet than our current path. Use the battery for immediate storage (1-2 miles, tops) and just run the turbine at a constant speed based on average power needs over the last couple miles. Engines are most inefficient when changing speeds, after all. Plus, when you need to floor it you'll have a decent supply of reserve power to use immediately while the turbine spools up.
Smaller, cheaper batteries = smaller cheaper pricetags on efficient vehicles.
Actually looking at things with Electro Diesel in their name.
Basically an electric locomotive with a lower powered Diesel engine when away from the 3rd rail. eg sidings.
2 classes of note
1 is about 1500 at rail on electric, with 600bhp English Electric lump.
1 was about 2500 at rail with 650bhp Paxman lump (all scrapped)
I think we need a continuous supply on the main roads, eg a trolly system
"Why would you name a car-based system after something associated with risk-taking and random chance?"
Let alone something that is likely to tumble arse over tit and could stop with any side uppermost.
There was a company called NICE, for "No Internal Combustion Engine" but I think it went tits up.
So if the car in front stops, your car is supposed to automatically stop. Which just means the guy behind you slams into your car instead. (Well, I guess that could have happened anyway...)
How sensitive is that laser sensor? It would be easy to see a car slowing down, but did it spot the football also in the same graphic? Could it work out that a bouncing ball which bounces across the road usually means a kid following it?
This kind of thing can't all be passed to a computer as a meat-bag should always have better all round awareness. Unless they get lazy and trained that the computer will stop the car.
Lot of old tech in this list.
Or old solutions ginned up in fancy clothing.
eCall == OnStar, only five years or more behind the times. But eCall still won't tell you where to find a good restaurant (OnStar can). Likewise, the 'severity' monitoring and automatic call for help are already standard and sell-developed features.
Swivelling headlights have been done since the 50s (Tucker) and the side-illumination feature was standard on Cadilacs years ago.
HUDs in civvie vehicles were available back when I was still wearing a uniform (a decade+ back).
Color me not much impressed with auto-designers imaginations.
While it was available, it (at least here in the US) was not commonly ordered; My best guess is that it was too expensive, limited to only the high end luxury cars, and most people who saw it as an option didn't bother wasting money on it. Manufacturers dropped it after a couple years of sitting along and unloved.
In all honesty, I don't think it would really be needed unless manufacturers decided to make it the <i>primary</I> system for the dashboard instead of an axillary like they did the first time around. Not holding my breath for it, in any case.
Wouldn't know about high-end cars. I was seeing the HUD in my G-Ride (GSA Fleet Vehicle) - a middle/bottom-end full-sized sedan. If the GSA was buying it for the cars they issued to Service Recruiters, then you can be sure it was pretty inexpensive - We got the crap end of things.
I attribute the low takeup on two factors - Cultural inertia, and the rather clunky display design - If the display isn't intuitive, people are going to ignore it. Clearly, the human factors guys were not consulted in the display design.
..is based on the technoloy invented by Rudolf Diesel a long time ago. The reason is a very basic principle of thermodynamics: Higher Process Temperature relative to exhaust temperature means higher energy efficiency. Nothing can beat a Diesel in that. Steam engines, turbines, Stirling engines, petrol engines - all less efficient.
Plus, Diesels are affordable, which all the battery contraptions are definitely not. Also, their efficiency is only marginally less than what the "hybrid" cars are quoted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlueMotion
Also, Diesels do not simply stop working because they are 10 years old and "depleted".
And, yes, the vehicle in front will be driven by a bulgarian halfwit trucker who has not slept for 78 hours, consumed several bottles of strong lager to keep awake, and will cheerfully turn down a railway line because he does not understand his satnav.
How are these devices to know how good the brakes and tires are on the individual vehicles, which of course would affect braking distance? How are they to know the total weight carried by the vehicle, which affects braking distance? How are they going to know how full your coffee and/or latte cup is, in order to avoid spilling the beverage in an abrupt stop? As for the spike on the steering wheel, i'll be sitting in the back seat, letting the car "auto-drive", while I drink my coffee and eat a few donuts.
Subsidies by the government or in the current high price. The vehicles last 5 to 10 years, at best,
with a batteries needing to be replaced in between. Add to that they are environmentally bad (mining the rare metals required to make them), and they are "not ready for prime time".
AND don't quote the sticker numbers, use the real world values instead. Like the Prius drivers I see on the highway going 70 MPH. Those are no more efficient than the comparable gas powered Toyota, Honda, or Nissan. The LECCY's cost more that the comparable diesel cars, which give consistent high mileage.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
