Ford's New Smart Headlights For Tracking Objects At Night 192
An anonymous reader writes: Headlights have been around since the 1880's, and while the source of their light has changed over the years, their functionality has remained virtually the same, until now. Ford has unveiled a new advanced illumination system that should make driving your car at night a lot safer. The new headlight system uses a standard and infrared camera to detect objects near the road. The new technology can locate and track up to eight people or animals up to 12 meters. Ford reports: "Building upon Adaptive Front Lighting System and Traffic Sign Recognition, the system interprets traffic signs to better illuminate hazards that are not in the direction of travel, and uses GPS information for enhanced lighting when encountering bends and dips on a chosen route. Where GPS information is not available, a video camera detects lane markings and predicts the road’s curvature. When next the driver uses the same road again, the headlights adapt to the course of the road automatically. We expect this technology to be available for customers in the near term."
Umm (Score:4, Insightful)
[...] and uses GPS information for enhanced lighting when encountering bends and dips on a chosen route [...]
What about those of use who are really looking at least 1 turn ahead of the current turn/bend/dip? Nobody who can actually drive is actually looking at the current turn, so why highlight it?
It's even worse than I thought! (Score:4, Interesting)
The system spotlights hazards for the driver with a spot and a stripe on the road surface and highlighted objects are displayed on the screen inside the car
So... the driver has to take their eyes off the road (where they should be looking) to look at the screen inside the car?
“Many people who drive at night have had to quickly react to someone or something suddenly appearing in the road – as if from nowhere. Ford’s Camera-Based Advanced Front Lighting System and Spot Lighting help ensure the driver is quickly alerted to people or animals that could present a danger,” said Ken Washington, vice president, Ford Research and Advanced Engineering.
Yes, and you won't be able to do that when you're losing 500ms to 15 seconds of potential response time by looking at the screen in the car.
Re: (Score:2)
The system spotlights hazards for the driver with a spot and a stripe on the road surface and highlighted objects are displayed on the screen inside the car
So... the driver has to take their eyes off the road (where they should be looking) to look at the screen inside the car?
Yes, and you won't be able to do that when you're losing 500ms to 15 seconds of potential response time by looking at the screen in the car.
Did you take those annoying mirrors off your car? You know, the ones you have to look at every once in a while?
Re: (Score:2)
Did you take those annoying mirrors off your car? You know, the ones you have to look at every once in a while?
I don't typically use the mirrors to spot driving hazards in front of me.
How about the one's behind. Like the one passing you? Maybe an ambulance coming up on you at a high rate of speed. Do you want to pull into the passing lane while he's trying to pass you? Or backing up. Suddenly those mirros looking out the back become pretty handy. That's why they are there
Maintaining a safe environment while driving involves knowing what is happening all around you, not just what is in front.
Re:It's even worse than I thought! (Score:4, Informative)
Mirrors still allow one to use peripheral vision to keep a view of the road.
Read the article. There's no requirement to stare at the screen. Which by the way, is showing a vew of the road. Even then the same peripheral vision can allow you to see the screen.
But as I said, you never have to look at the screen. The smaller light under the main headlamps, swings over to illuminate whatever is on teh side of the road. Without you doing anything. You can preserve your highway hypnosis.
People gotta try discarding this "It's new, so I hate it!" mentality Because it gets you to make knee jerk ractions that end up making you argue for not putting light on something you might run into.
Re:It's even worse than I thought! (Score:5, Informative)
Did you even watch the video? Or the part of the summary you yourself fucking quoted?
The system spotlights hazards for the driver with a spot and a stripe on the road surface and highlighted objects are displayed on the screen inside the car
So no. The driver does not have to take his eyes off the road.
This is extremely useful functionality, because it also highlights cyclists who often do not have adequate lighting and are thus a huge source for (death!)scares for many drivers, at least in the Netherlands.
Please leave Slashdot and take your anti-new technology kneejerk reactions with you. That also goes for everybody who was stupid enough to mod you up.
Re: (Score:2)
Only people who have never driven a car and encountered a bicyclist without lighting would say this. I used to think exactly like you. Then I got my driver's license and almost pissed my pants.
The first reaction of every new driver who experiences this is "Fucking christ, that is dangerous as FUCK. I almost killed the fucking guy!" (then they honk to get rid of a bit of fear, anger and frustration)
BTW, I don't own a car anymore, but have driven one regularly for years. I ride my bicycle everywhere now. The
Re: (Score:2)
There's no reason this couldn't be implemented in a HUD that's projected onto the windshield.
Re:Umm (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody who can actually drive is actually looking at the current turn, so why highlight it?
You should learn to drive before you lecture other people. Never outdrive your headlights. If that means you have to slow down to less than the posted speed limit, so be it. That's how you avoid driving over road obstacles at night, like rocks or animals. Now, in the future, watch where you're going.
Re: (Score:3)
You misunderstand what I am said. The current corner/dip/bend is always there but it's basically an extension of the NEXT bit of road which you should be looking at and anticipating. Yes, of course the current corner/dip/bend must be illuminated so that you can see what's there... but the headlights should not concentrate themselves on that corner/dip/bend because your mind has already processed pretty much all that there is to see; although your current reactions are fast-forwarding to what's coming next t
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstand what I am said. The current corner/dip/bend is always there but it's basically an extension of the NEXT bit of road which you should be looking at and anticipating.
This is a standard thing in motorcycling - do not look into the turn you are on at the moment. Look well ahead of it.
You needed to make your driving decisions for the turn you are in well before you got there, When you are there, it's way too late.
Peripheral vision can take care of you for the space you are already in at the moment.
With the extra leaning and goings on for motorcycling, it's more critical to look ahead, but the same basic concept holds for automobiles.
Re: (Score:2)
2 of those should not be on the road.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's called inattentive blindness
Then perhaps the driver should be less inattentive. I doubt that focusing attention on a screen in the car instead of the road, and what's on it, is going to improve this.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that focusing attention on a screen in the car instead of the road, and what's on it, is going to improve this.
That's because you don't understand what's going to be on the screen. There are examples of systems like this already on the road. The purpose is to highlight objects which are difficult to see. A warning tone plays, an animal standing in the road is picked out by an IR camera and drawn on the screen in false contrast, usually with a big red box around it. But by the time you've looked down at the screen, you have already decelerated, because a warning tone has played. Therefore, not only is it making you m
Re: (Score:2)
Don't invent things to be mad about, especially when it comes to technologies that are already in use on the road saving lives.
I haven't seen this much creeping codgerism since everyone knew someone who knew someone who's life was saved because they weren't wearing a seat belt.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called inattentive blindness
Then perhaps the driver should be less inattentive. I doubt that focusing attention on a screen in the car instead of the road, and what's on it, is going to improve this.
And you don't have to look at the screen. You can see the person/animal when the little headlight under your main headlight moves to illuminate the object. Or is illuminating objects you might run into a bad thing?
Re: (Score:2)
Clown on a unicycle
One interesting experiment displayed how cell phones contributed to inattentional blindness in basic tasks such as walking. The stimuli for this experiment was a brightly colored clown on a unicycle. The individuals participating in this experiment were divided into four sections. They were either talking on the phone, listening to an mp3 player, walking by themselves or walking in pairs. The study showed that individuals engaged in cell phone conversations were least likely to notice the clown. This experiment was designed by Ira E. Hyman, S. Matthew Boss, Breanne M. Wise, Kira E. Mckenzie and Jenna M. Caggiano at Western Washington University.[24]
I postulate that paying attention to a display in the car instead of on the road is pretty similar to this. I rest my case.
Re: (Score:2)
I postulate that paying attention to a display in the car instead of on the road is pretty similar to this. I rest my case.
Trouble is, you're arging the wrong case. Now again, I wonder how many people have been killed because they looked at the speedometer, or the oil or electrical gauges? Tiny little distractions. Jesus Christ, not taking youe eyes off the road ahead is really bad. My Mother in law, would not do anything, not turn on teh heater, teh radio or anything but look directly ahead when she drove. She was dangerous, because she was hynotized. You could wave at her when she was coming the opposite way, and she wouldn'
Re: (Score:2)
Slow down? Are you insane? At night you go faster faster FASTER! OMG I am soooo important I need to do 90!
Even at 70mph you are outdriving your low beam headlights on a modern car. High beams are required for speeds above 50. Yet 90% of the drivers on the road do not understand this and fly into the night at 80-90mph with low beams on and they get all pissy at the smart drivers that use their high beams.
Re: (Score:2)
Slow down? Are you insane? At night you go faster faster FASTER! OMG I am soooo important I need to do 90!
Even at 70mph you are outdriving your low beam headlights on a modern car. High beams are required for speeds above 50. Yet 90% of the drivers on the road do not understand this and fly into the night at 80-90mph with low beams on and they get all pissy at the smart drivers that use their high beams.
Unless you live out in the country, streetlights are ubiquitous. I find that the only time I ever need to turn on my high beams is when I am out on country roads, which is very rarely. In fact, I have not used the high beams on my most recent car, which I bought 18 months ago. I can go faster in my car then I could comfortably stop within the headlight distance, but the fact is that I can see beyond the reach of my headlights due to all of the streets being illuminated.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you live out in the country, streetlights are ubiquitous. I find that the only time I ever need to turn on my high beams is when I am out on country roads, which is very rarely.
wow, we should just throw out all our surveys and statistical information and just go with your experiences because clearly we all live just like you do
Re: (Score:2)
This is actually the biggest single advantage of the modern headlight technology that is starting to appear, IMHO: these lighting systems do effectively run on full-time high beam at higher speeds except that they have mechanisms for cutting out specific part(s) of those beams to avoid dazzing other road users. They do it different ways -- BMW have been advertising something like this Ford system for a while, and the Audi matrix headlights are another interesting variant -- but the overall effect is still m
Re: (Score:2)
With a new car, if one of those matrix bulbs blows or if the sensors that detect other traffic to adjust the lights isn't working properly, I expect the bill from the dealer will be astronomical
Most of the fancy lighting techs use lasers or LEDs, the systems are actually quite similar either way in implementation to existing HID lighting systems; there's a power module and then a cord to whatever the lighting element is. There's a brisk trade in replacement modules in the aftermarket for the HID systems already...
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so much the lighting parts themselves I'm worried about, but the sensors, control systems, and the need to calibrate the orientation of potentially a whole set of very bright lights and the related sensors much more accurately than aligning the old dipped and high beam bulbs.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with night time is with nothing in the road for lights to reflect off of, you have no depth perception. You can see the road surface that is illuminated, but that's a very short distance. Most of the light from the headlights goes off into infinity. If there is any amount of fog or precipitation in the air, I can easily see my max range, but when the air is clear, there is no distinct end to one's rage.
Re: (Score:2)
How fast do I need to be going to out drive my headlights? I thought C was pretty quick :/
You should follow drinkiepoos advice - then you wouldn't need to ask stupid questions. You need to drive no faster than a speed that will allow you to stop within the distance lit by your headlights. If you can't work out what that means, then don't fucking drive you quibbling fool.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh!
Re: (Score:2)
You need to drive no faster than a speed that will allow you to stop within the distance lit by your headlights.
Depending on the conditions, even that speed may be unreasonably high. Consider a narrow country road where your lights are the only major source of illumination. A cyclist may be close to invisible until you have a direct line of sight to any lights they have on and/or your own lights hit their reflective clothing, but they could still be moving at considerable speed towards you. And on a narrow country road, they may well be cycling in unusual road positions to avoid other hazards as well.
Even a motor veh
Re: (Score:2)
That's why good drivers use common sense.
The technology is here to help improve driving at night, not to save you from an unavoidable accident.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but hitting an oncoming cyclist because you were driving too fast isn't an unavoidable accident. Unfortunately a lot of otherwise responsible drivers have never really thought this one through and assume that as long as they can stop within what their own lights cover they are OK. Physics doesn't work like that.
Re:Umm (Score:5, Funny)
it's okay to out drive your headlights, it's when you drive faster than your angel can fly that you run into troubles.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, drivers who plan ahead and drive within their and their vehicles' capabilities do have a much higher chance of living long enough to become grandparents...
Pass (Score:3)
I'll stick with my regular headlights, thanks just the same, Ford. I can only speculate as to how many additional things could go wrong with "automatic traffic sign recognition". All I currently need to worry about is making sure the bulb isn;t burned out.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll stick with my regular headlights, thanks just the same, Ford. I can only speculate as to how many additional things could go wrong with "automatic traffic sign recognition". All I currently need to worry about is making sure the bulb isn;t burned out.
So you probably don't even have a sensor to turn on the yard light you use to keep those damnable teenagers out of your lawn! Well played, codger. Have you considered carbon arc lamps?
Re: (Score:2)
I'll stick with my regular headlights, thanks just the same, Ford. I can only speculate as to how many additional things could go wrong with "automatic traffic sign recognition". All I currently need to worry about is making sure the bulb isn;t burned out.
So you probably don't even have a sensor to turn on the yard light you use to keep those damnable teenagers out of your lawn! Well played, codger.
Have you considered carbon arc lamps?
No sensor for the yard lamps, correct. Damn deer are more trouble than the kids could ever be.
But seriously, the possibilities for failure (and by failure, I mean not having light where I need it to be) are almost endless. If the smart headlights' computer guesses wrong, doesn't illuminate a bike rider on the side of the road, and I hit them because I couldn't see them, whose fault is it?
Re: (Score:2)
"If the smart headlights' computer guesses wrong, doesn't illuminate a bike rider on the side of the road, and I hit them because I couldn't see them, whose fault is it?"
Your fault because you are driving on the side of the road. Try looking down the road and keeping your car in the lane.
Re: (Score:2)
But seriously, the possibilities for failure (and by failure, I mean not having light where I need it to be) are almost endless. If the smart headlights' computer guesses wrong, doesn't illuminate a bike rider on the side of the road, and I hit them because I couldn't see them, whose fault is it?
Your fault, if found. Same as it would be if you hit them without the help. These things are there to help you, not as some sort of majick device that will keep you from ever doing anything wrong. Like a back-up camera, most of the time they are of no use at all. But they are darned helpful when your kid is in back of the car. I personally know two people that squished one of their kids while backing up.
Even so, you need to read the FA, because your main headlights stay right where God wants them. A rotat
Re: (Score:2)
It's two *extra* lights. The headlights do what the headlights have always done, and the 2 spotlights shine toward objects of importance, like street signs or warm bodies. Worst case, they don't, and you have the exact same functionality you've always had.
Re: (Score:2)
If those motion activated yard lights kick off at the wrong time or don't perform normally 99.999% of the time its just a minor inconvenience. When your car headlights do the same chances are above 50% that you're traveling down an unlit road at fairly high speed and you're now very distracted or effectively blind. Its like comparing the trigger reliability on a water gun to that on a Glock 45, one has to highly reliable (both in terms of firing and not firing) and one doesn't matter.
Tell me, how does one smaller moveable headlight below your main headlights - which don't move at all - make your main headlights turn off, or somehow move?
People really need to RTFA, because they are arguing something that isn't happening. There's a little light under the headlights that swings to directly illuminate whatever it is on the side of the road.
Your main headlights stay where they need to be.
Not for USA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
not to mention the thousands of lawyers looking for class action lawsuit money when it fails.
Re: (Score:2)
not to mention the thousands of lawyers looking for class action lawsuit money when it fails.
Or all the people off the side of that road who get blinded when the oncoming car swivels it's high-beam spotlight at them... I'm guessing (hoping?) they've thought of that, but I don't see how it will work if the road the attention-deficit automagically swivelling headlights is on, is higher than the side-roads.
Re: (Score:2)
not to mention the thousands of lawyers looking for class action lawsuit money when it fails.
What will happen when it fails?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's OK, even at 30 MPH, you won't have time to stop for anything the headlights might highlight for you. You won't even have time to get the brakes applied. If they can at least triple the range of detection to 36 meters, they might occasionally help you.
Re: (Score:2)
That's OK, even at 30 MPH, you won't have time to stop for anything the headlights might highlight for you.
Good point. A 12 meter range isn't going to be very useful.
Re:Not for USA (Score:5, Informative)
Turns out TFA and TFS are wrong. Press release says 120m.
Don't need (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Would that be a bug or a feature?
"Great for spotlighting deer too!"
Cool! Remote control headlights! (Score:2)
Automotive-oriented headline I'd like to see... (Score:4, Insightful)
.
But I doubt if I'll ever see that headline in my lifetime....
Re: (Score:2)
I absolutely agree, nonsarcastically - do you know how awesome a self-driving RV would be? Pretty awesome.
I don't want any of that crap in my regular boring 4 door commute-to-work car, granted, but I am absolutely ecstatic about the idea of a google/tesla partnered self-driving electric RV - retire in style, see the whole country, sleep at night while your RV drives through the boring bits and not pay for a hotel. Sounds amazing.
Re: (Score:2)
.
That would definitely harsh your mellow as you view the country in your "self-driving" RV...
Re: (Score:2)
Not good at all, but that isn't what the person I responded to was snarking about.
I absolutely agree, I would not ever buy a self-driving car where *any* features essential to driving safely - wheels, brakes, acceleration, maps, etc. - were hooked up in any way to any system that was remotely accessible from outside the car in any way, no matter how much it was promised that they "take security seriously". Air gap or nothing.
I can see this going disastrously wrong (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine you are coming up to a point in the road where the road bends to the left. However this is mostly obscured by bushes, ans something, maybe a drainage ditch looks a bit like a road bending to the right. Usually you will sense that something's not quite right, slow down and see what happens. Now imagine that the car's headlights illuminate the false road, leaving the real route in relative darkness. Also imagine that hundreds of hours of driving had conditioned to believe that the car would illuminate your path. It could end in disaster.
Imagine someone making up shit to try to make a point.
1. Regular headlamps stay right where they are, They do not move at all, ever, unless they are being aimed at inspection time.
2. A little headlamp under the regular headlamp that comes on as needed, ansd swivels as needed. 3. More light. 4. more light is bad? Oh wait, I know what your argument can be. A retroreflective sign might be on the side of the road, causing you to be blinded, and you run into a gas station pump, causing it to blow up and
Wait... It remembers? (Score:4, Interesting)
"When next the driver uses the same road again, the headlights adapt to the course of the road automatically."
Which means that it remembers everywhere we have driven. I don't think I like the sound of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the gps capabilities I mind. It is the sharing/selling of the accumulated data that I mind.
you are aware that there are video cameras on most roads today, snapping pictures of your license plate as you drive by?
you are aware that every police car is covered with sensors that record the license plate of every car that comes near it, even when it's not running?
so you are complaining about something you already lost a long time ago
Infrared cameras are expensive (Score:2)
I was going to rant about how this thing is going to dazzle pedestrians, but fortunately, the video shows that it will mainly lighten up their legs. Wheelchair riders beware, though.
Anyway, the system as described uses thermal IR cameras. I'd say that technology is way too expensive even for high end cars. Thermographic cameras capable of around 200x150 pixels are commercially available for around 5 kEUR and I suspect that that resolution is still too low to recognize a pedestrian at 50 m distance and at th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, the system as described uses thermal IR cameras. I'd say that technology is way too expensive even for high end cars. Thermographic cameras capable of around 200x150 pixels are commercially available for around 5 kEUR and I suspect that that resolution is still too low to recognize a pedestrian at 50 m distance and at the same time have a reasonably wide field of view. You can get 80x80-resolution systems for around 1 kEUR, but those will definitely be useless for the present purpose.
You don't use high-resolution cameras for this job. You use a highly sensitive normal camera and then you use the thermo camera right next to it for object detection and for gain control on the primary camera. The system doesn't have to see in absolute darkness.
Re: (Score:2)
That would sound plausible, except that the image that they show in the video clip (0:28) is a fairly high-resolution fully thermal image [youtube.com] without blending with a visible-light image.
Great (Score:2)
adaptive headlights (Score:4, Informative)
Headlights that turn have been around a while. Citroen & BMW seem to have had them. The American car, Tucker, had many such innovations. BMW also had side lights that help in tight turns. Here are some links:
1948 Tucker- great photos: http://www.laubly.com/1948tuck... [laubly.com]
How Adaptive Headlights Work: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/... [howstuffworks.com]
1934 patent US1952346 A: https://www.google.com/patents... [google.com]
Interacting with a car or motorcycle on a country road or mountain curve can be a pleasure, a form of meditation sometimes. We will lose that as vehicles get smarter and more independent.
Re: (Score:2)
My 2011 BMW has them, and they work pretty well.
french Citroën cars did this 40 years ago... (Score:2)
or maybe 50 indeed. ;-)
I for one have seen, and have driven, Citroëns geared with small headlights that just were mechanically associated with the wheel (or, at least, so I expect), this resulting in the next bend fully lighted each time one would rotate the wheel
Full mechanical system without GPS nor camera -way more reliable, I'd say
Re: older cars (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes older cars are easier to maintain but the newer ones are outlasting them. Current average is almost 11 years before scrapping compared to under 7 in 1930. Sure you could fix the old cars up but with all that sheet metal rust was a major concern. I know old guys complain about the new plastic boxes on the roads these days but you hardly ever see rusted cars anymore.
Don't go throwing reality in here, ya whipper snapper! Back when I was growing up we had points and plugs, and sealed beam headlamps. I'm still pissed off they made us put turn signals on cars. And them damn seat belts? How ya gonna get your best girl's dress off when ya go parkin'?
Whoa sorry about that!
It is nothing short of amazing any more. A presumed tech site, where as soon as a technical innovation is announced, the slashdotters pounce on it like crocodiles on a wildebeest, and loudly proclaim how
Re: (Score:3)
that increase is not because of technology. It's because car makers are forced to do corrosion control on the body and important parts. I wish the feds forced the car makers to use stainless on the brake lines. #1 failure of any northern car is rusted brake lines because they use the cheapest soft steel they can get .
Re: (Score:2)
that increase is not because of technology. It's because car makers are forced to do corrosion control on the body and important parts. I wish the feds forced the car makers to use stainless on the brake lines.
Sure it is. The reason that cars get about double the engine life is because today's technology allows them to essentially make stock engines "blueprinted". Better quality control of materials helps a lot too.
Also, one of the best defenses against rust, is not "rustproofing" them. That old tarry crap they used to spray on cars, held in salt and moisture, as well as made for a lot of weight.
Re: (Score:2)
Really old cars could be maintained! Prey war stuff had nice thick sheet metal that would never rust thru unless it was really abused, like you did not bother to keep paint on it. If that stuff does get a whole there is plenty of structurally good stuff near by to anchor putty or lead to or ideal weld an new section in.
Its the 1960s-late eighties stuff that is shit. Once rust gets to far along on any of those there is little you can do but replace a whole damn panel. Sure you can patch and if your goal
Re: (Score:3)
Yes older cars are easier to maintain
Eh, hit and miss. The only thing that's provably more of a PITA today is actual auto body, and with the coming prevalence of aluminum that's going to be more of a thing and not less. The good news is that the Aluminum body is even more recyclable than the steel that cars are made out of now; it takes less energy to do so, and the resulting alloy is more similar to the original than with steel.
People are complaining about having to hook a computer up to their engine... a computer that will tell them in detai
Re: (Score:2)
Current average is almost 11 years
Actually, it has increased to [18].
I gotta a feeling that's going to be a peak. There's no doubt that things like electronic fuel injection, electronic timing (basically replacing all of the mechnical components) have been great in allowing cars to run longer, I have to wonder about the new things that get added that aren't necessary. Do I really need two or more mode for my suspension, all wheel drive, electronic vents. I had a 2002 Chev that the alternator died and when it was repaired, nothing worked on the dashboard except the engine controls. They "reprogrammed" the thing and I lost the high speed on the fan, my heater would only work on at "hell" level or not at all, and my CD player didn't work. My electronically controlled AWD control unit was replaced three times. And the electronic seat failed (despite me not using it). Go ahead and blame Chevy, but when I look at BMWs and Mercedes I cringe.
So mechanically cars might last longer, it's just going to suck to drive them unless you sink money into it.
As long as the car still runs people will keep it. It is inconvenient and that all of the cheap electronic gizmos stop working and possibly unsafe to drive with some of them inoperable, but fixing all of the gizmos would cost thousands of dollars per year in maintenance that owners of older cars can't afford.
Re: (Score:2)
When talking about statistical averages, the first thing to do is to emphasize that your one data point is much more important and interesting than the rest of them.
Re: (Score:2)
I also fear the current trends will be a peak, but more because car manufacturers will abuse the new technology both to build in obsolescence and to spy on drivers in order to market newer cars to them.
Technology in cars is a double-edged sword indeed. Modern systems for things like fuel injection, ABS and AWD have brought significant improvements in both efficiency and safety, and in most cases if anything does go wrong they can give ample warning and fail to safe. But all the communications and interactio
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Show us on the model car where the headlight touched you.
Re: (Score:2)
My wifes car has headlights that turn with the steering wheel.
Those aren't smart headlights. Quite dumb actually.
Just fucking stop trying to make things so smart, you're being really stupid.
This tech doesn't sound ready for launch. But that doesn't mean they should stop trying to make them smart enough for us to use. Maybe they would succeed and you might actually like the result.
Re: (Score:2)
That was my first thought. Great, I can clearly see the thing I will inevitably run over rather than the thing far enough ahead that I can stop for it.
Re: (Score:2)
It.s 120 meters. TFS and TFA are wrong.
From the actual press release:
"Spot Lighting – currently in the pre-development phase with Ford engineers in Aachen – uses an infra-red camera in the front grille to simultaneously locate and track up to eight people and bigger animals, including larger dogs, at a range of up to 120 metres." (my emphasis, source: http://www.at.ford.com/news/cn... [ford.com] )
Re: (Score:2)
That makes a lot more sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, TopGear did tests with sports cars and the distance was like 70 feet. It took the reasonably priced car going 115mph to stop in 240 feet.
It's reaction time (notice and react) + braking time. If you're paying attention it's 1/4 to 1/2 a second to notice, and another 1/4 to 3/4 of a second to react - then add the braking time.
At 100kph (~60mph) in dry conditions with good brakes in an ordinary car that's about 18.3m (60ft) to start braking, another 59.4 (195ft) to stop. A total of 77.7m (255ft), One and a half Olympic swimming pool lengths.
Which is why I hate tail-gaters.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. That means that even at 30 MPH (44 ft/sec), these headlights will only highlight things you will inevitably hit.
Re: (Score:2)
So unless you plan to hit a brick wall or mountainside and stop instantaneously, they don't need to be able to completely stop within that following distance.
As long as the lead vehicle is stopping as a whole, as distinct from something falling out/off and potentially decelerating much more quickly, there is some truth in that.
But a lot of tailgaters on the motorway in the UK would likely be seriously injured or dead from the impact before they even registered the brake lights coming on as the car in front executed an emergency stop. Sadly, so would some or all of the occupants of the car in front.
These days, I no longer consider it extreme to slow down until th
Re: (Score:2)
Things that fall off generally decelerate much less quickly than a vehicle can, because a) they are skidding, and skidding is not the fastest way to decelerate, and b) they usually aren't made out of material that deforms to the shape of the road surface to maximize traction, like tires.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the smaller the distance, the less you will have decelerated before the car behind you hits you, making the impact less severe!
(Note: I'm not defending tailgaters -- I would rather do without any collision, large or small -- but someone following a safe distance and not paying attention is a bigger risk, because you will have slowed significantly more before they rear end you.)
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine. Most Americans don't want anything to do with that metric shit anyway. How many tons in 234,670lbs anyway (let alone tonnes)
117.335 short tons, 104.763393 long tons, 106.444521 tonnes. Have you heard of the internet?
Re: (Score:2)
But it's still there just disabled. you can easily re-enable it with coding.
Volkswagen as well (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know the low beams lights are brighter, but someone out there has to be telling people to drive in the city with their high beams on because when people are behind me, their lights shouldn't be brighter than mine.
When I am driving at night, I get at least one person flashing their brights at me, or even more annoying turning their brights on "in retaliation" and leaving them on. Thing is, I never use my brights. I have factory Xenon bulbs which are quite bright for normal low beams.
Which reminds me, hopefully Ford can design a light system that stops bright lights from hitting you straight in the eye.
My 1979 Ford Granada had that technology, but it was manual. My newest car (which is still 5 years old) automatically adjusts the rear view mirror tint so that you don't get brights in your eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
Which reminds me, hopefully Ford can design a light system that stops bright lights from hitting you straight in the eye.
My 1979 Ford Granada had that technology, but it was manual. My newest car (which is still 5 years old) automatically adjusts the rear view mirror tint so that you don't get brights in your eyes.
I think he's talking about auto-leveling headlights, which are already a thing. A lot of luxury cars have them. There's a suspension height sensor in the rear that's used to diddle a servo in the headlight so that when you load up your trunk you don't blind people.
Re: (Score:2)
My newest car (which is still 5 years old) automatically adjusts the rear view mirror tint so that you don't get brights in your eyes.
Our car has that and I don't really like it much - sometimes it fails to dim when I want it to, and my wife said that it dims too easily for her liking. A mirror with a manual lever mirror worked better for us. (Our truck has it, too, but the cap over the bed with tinted windows means that headlights are never bright enough to trigger it.) It's not something I actively hate, but if our next car didn't have it, I wouldn't mind.
What I would like is a way for the headlights of oncoming cars to be blocked
Re: (Score:2)
If people are flashing their high beams at you because of your factory xenon low beams, maybe you should have your car checked by the dealer. There are a lot of cars out there with dangerously bright xenons. Some, like certain Acuras, are a bad design, but I assume most are mis-adjusted somehow.
It's not like the lights are shining in their eyes. They shine forward and down like they are supposed to. But people are used to hazed over and dirty headlamps so that the low beams put out about the same intensity as parking lamps.
Re: (Score:2)
Due to all of the tech in cars now, they are too fucking expensive. That's why most people lease cars -- because they cannot hope to actually pay for one outright any more. This is only going to exacerbate that problem. Until auto-makers can make cars that will last generations of drivers can they expect us to pay for them over generations.
The current average retail price of a new car is now $33,560 [usatoday.com] or about 64% of U.S. Household income [deptofnumbers.com]. In 1980, it was $7,200 [thepeoplehistory.com] or 44% of 1980 median household income [davemanuel.com]. The further back you go, the more affordable cars were. Compound that with the fact that most households used to be single income, and now most households are dual income means that the real rate of increase of car prices is even more out of control than it looks.
Re: (Score:2)
The current average retail price of a new car is now $33,560 [usatoday.com] or about 64% of U.S. Household income [deptofnumbers.com]. In 1980, it was $7,200 [thepeoplehistory.com] or 44% of 1980 median household income [davemanuel.com]. The further back you go, the more affordable cars were. Compound that with the fact that most households used to be single income, and now most households are dual income means that the real rate of increase of car prices is even more out of control than it looks.
And back in the good old days, we bought them more often. Last vehicle I bought was to replace a ten year old one. When I started driving, in ten years, you were on your third vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
And back in the good old days, we bought them more often. Last vehicle I bought was to replace a ten year old one. When I started driving, in ten years, you were on your third vehicle.
Well, that was definitely the case with me. My first car was an 8 year old 1979 Ford Granada that was already unreliable and ready to be disposed of. A couple of years later, I "upgraded" to my mom's old car, a 1980 For Fairmont that was slightly more reliable, but still well past it's prime.
About year after that I bought a 2 year old 1988 Toyota MR-2 that I never had any issue with and even when I sold it in probably 1995 or so, it had nothing on the squawk list at all. So I guess I had 4 cars in my firs
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And you forgot to mention the subsequent retraction and unconditional denial that this was actually the case, even though it's mentioned in the exact same article you linked to. They could just be lying to cover themselves, of course, but usually when companies try to cover themselves like that they do it with weasel words and half-truths to mitigate potential lawsuits.