Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Honda Crash Detection System

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the pre-crash,-that-is dept.

Technology 868

MImeKillEr writes "MSNBC is reporting that Honda Motor Co. unveiled an early crash-detection system for one of their vehicles. The system is unique in working even before the driver responds. A radar in the front of the car stashed behind the Honda logo detects vehicles within a range of about 300 feet ahead. It then taps the brake and tightens the seatbelt. A buzzer goes off and a light on the dash is illuminated. If the driver responds, the braking power is boosted. If the driver fails to respond, the system kicks in and brakes more while also tightening the seat belt. Unfortunately, Japanese regulations don't allow for the system to fully stop the vehicle."

cancel ×

868 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I R all up in you again.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6243019)

wit dis new and improved fristy ps0t!

DOes it work ? (5, Informative)

dargaud (518470) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243023)

Now I write radar software and I really don't have a clue how such a system can work reliably. A non-moving car 100m ahead ? That happens every time there's a parked car in a curb. Car radars are not like aircraft radars. The latter only has to see something ('anything') in the middle of a big mass of air. Nothing else around. A car radar would have to sort out lots of echos at various doppler: the ground is coming towards you (when it's far ahead), other cars going the same direction (slower in the right lane, faster in the left lane), cars coming the other way, parked cars, things hanging overhead (bridge, street lights. advertisement...)

Just imagine driving on a mountain road and out of a right curb comes a car driving the other way. The radar sees it right in front of you, coming your way. How does it react ? I'd hate to see it break suddenly, particularly if the road is wet or snowy.

Re:DOes it work ? (5, Informative)

Brento (26177) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243068)

Just imagine driving on a mountain road and out of a right curb comes a car driving the other way. The radar sees it right in front of you, coming your way. How does it react ?

It works fine. Check out the radar-based cruise-control [mercedes-benz.com] from Mercedes, now available on a few models. You can set your cruise to follow a vehicle ahead automatically. You just steer, and the two (or more) of you can pass cars and go through tunnels just fine without the cruise control panicking.

Re:DOes it work ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6243099)

indeed, it only responds to fast moving cars..just like the active cruise control in the new bmw 5series

Re:DOes it work ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6243119)

You can set your cruise to follow a vehicle ahead automatically

Think about that for a minute.

Now, how would this cruise control work if it was supposed to follow something that's not there?

It doesn't panic, because it's not expecting the car in front of you to disappear for a long period of time, and then suddenly re-appear out of nowhere.

There's a huge difference in the design of these two systems.

Re:DOes it work ? (-1, Redundant)

fataugie (89032) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243132)

You can set your cruise to follow a vehicle ahead automatically

Oh great, now my car will drive just like that ricer i'm following, weaving in and out of traffic, squeezing into little spaces between other cars.....

Re:DOes it work ? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6243117)

You're assuming this is an all or nothing, one-time decision. This thing probably re-evaluates the situation 40 - 100 times per second.

I doubt it will jump to any rash decisions. If a car pulls out in front of you a ways a way, the system knows that in 2.4 seconds there will be an impact if things don't change. It taps the brakes (no big deal) and tightens the seatbelts in preparation for that possibility, then reassesses the situation another 100 times before it makes any decisive action.

I think it's great. I'd have it in my car in a second. Honda is one of the best innovators there is in the car industry, and one of the safest and most reliable (yes, I drive a Civic). They wouldn't release something that's half-baked. They simply don't have a history of doing it. They're also about the only company that has a viable upright-walking robot, and have been for 10 years. They have the technology.

Re:DOes it work ? (2, Interesting)

Fred IV (587429) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243194)

I doubt it will jump to any rash decisions.

I'm not sold, it jumping to even one rash decision is one too many.

I drive on the NJ Turnpike to and from work. Drivers there are always moving at high speed, making sudden lane changes and/or tailgating.

If it thinks someone suddenly pulling in front of me is good enough reason to hit my brakes, there's going to be a thirty car pile-up behind me as all of the tailgaters come smashing into me at 90 MPH.

No thanks.

Re:DOes it work ? (4, Insightful)

Twylite (234238) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243232)

It taps the brakes (no big deal)

Wrong. This is a huge deal if you happen to have seen the problem 125m ahead and are taking evasive action other than braking, for example changing lanes or even swerving. The slightest braking during a sharp direction change can throw your car into a skid.

It is illegal in most (all?) countries to interfere with the driver and/or the car's controls. Why should techology -- with less sensory input and a poorer decision making ability -- be permitted to do this?

Re:DOes it work ? (1)

WARM3CH (662028) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243125)

I think there are ways to reduce false alarms a lot. But basically the way is to have a very narrow antenna pattern. On the other hand, how many accidents are of the type that you hit something directly in front of you? Also what if you're sleepy and suddenly a tree 'jumps' in front of the car? All in all, while I think it's possible yet I don't think it can be very helpfull considering all possible scenarios.

Re:DOes it work ? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6243144)

It only has to save my life during any one of the possible scenarios before it's worth it to me...

Re:DOes it work ? (1)

letxa2000 (215841) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243224)

What if it brakes unnecessarily because of a false positive of an anticipated crash, and you get smashed by the semi following you? It only takes one false positive to potentially END your life.

Re:DOes it work ? (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243150)

Yeah, something like this scares the living sh*t out of me...I just don't trust a car to do the driving for me...

First time I came across an ABS system, was in the '97 C5 Corvette...When I hit the brakes in that thing the first time at speed...and it started clattering, and I didn't know what was going on...thought it would never stop!!

I just don't think that we're far enough along to have the car make judgements....what if a weird situation comes up...and the car starts braking at the wrong time..I'd hate to have this thing malfunction and lock it up in the middle of an intersection or train tracks...

I'm perfectly happy in my older 1986 car......Porsche 911 Turbo...no airbags, no ABS...not much computer at all...just a car that handles like it should and stops on a dime when you need it. And...it is now up to just over 10 mpg!!! The Vette had WAY too much computer in it....alas, I think this is the way of things in ALL new cars......

ABS Works (1)

vasqzr (619165) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243190)


ABS stops shorter than non-ABS. It's been proved hundreds of times.

Still using carburators?

Re:DOes it work ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6243209)

stops on a dime when you need it
If it doesn't have ABS, it may stop on a dime when you need it, but it won't stop on a dime when you really need it.

Re:DOes it work ? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6243214)

This just in... driver happy with turbo porsche! ;-)

Re:DOes it work ? (3, Insightful)

valkraider (611225) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243230)

I just don't think that we're far enough along to have the car make judgements

Couldn't we say this about ANY technology? "I dunno about them newfangled self-powered wagons. Seems dangerous. I don't think we have the technology. We should just stick to old reliable horse drawn wagons."

We have to gain the experience *somewhere*.

Limited to Cruise control? (2, Insightful)

PhinMak (630548) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243152)

This system would be most useful to people who are traveling on highways and have their cruise control on, methinks. Just last night I had to let my girlfriend drive us home because i was about to fall asleap at the wheel. Maybe all the seatbelt tugging is to wake us up? I might buy into this safety device...

I immagine the system would have to have an on/off switch anyway. And that it would have to have some kind of limitations so that when I'm driving around a mountain road i don't take a flying leap over some cliff.

Re:DOes it work ? (1)

daviddennis (10926) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243173)

This is a pretty interesting problem, but remember that the system can be fed inputs from the steering as well. So the radar can constantly adjust to check the angle at which you are driving. That's still not good enough for twisty roads, on which it would probably shut itself off.

I think most people can stay awake when they're on twisty roads; the big hazard is the freeway. Most drivers spend a lot of time on freeways, and a lot of it is spent when tired. In those conditions, the system can quite literally be a lifesaver, so I think it's a cool idea even though it won't work in all conditions.

D

Re:DOes it work ? (1)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243195)

There's no doubt that this presents enormous technical obstacles. But taking a look at this [attbi.com] should give you at least a little confidence in Honda's engineers.

BTW, the wipers in the above movie activate automatically when the windshield gets wet...

Re:DOes it work ? (1)

servicepack158 (678320) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243225)

Umm maybe it's not air born radar, but fixed narrow radar. :) Or even a laser they are calling radar (hint). The point is, if a parked car is in front of you 100m it's not going to apply the breaks unless you're headed for it AND there is a dramatic approach vector. Mercedes has this in the AMG line already but it's more of a smart cruise control so u don't have to reset it all the time.

Blar EP (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6243025)

Early Post for DrunkenMAsters Everywhere

EMO Pirates and Apple for not distroing FC4 to PC

Question is... (0, Offtopic)

jkrise (535370) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243028)

Can I get one for Windows XP?? I'll need 2 secs to hit Save!

Whatever happened to Volvos being the safest? (1, Offtopic)

Brento (26177) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243034)

I bought my C70 a couple of years ago based on Volvo's safety features. At the time, it was the safest sports car out there - whiplash protection seats, airbags all over the place, stability control, great brakes, etc. Today, the safety advances you hear aren't from Volvo - they're things like Mercedes-Benz brakes that dry themselves off in the wet, laser-based cruise control from Lexus, and now this radar-based braking from Honda. C'mon, Volvo. Get back in the race and make me proud.

Re:Whatever happened to Volvos being the safest? (-1, Troll)

sputnikid (191152) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243078)

since when has a volvo ever been considered a "sports car"?

Re:Whatever happened to Volvos being the safest? (1)

Gortbusters.org (637314) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243100)

Do you have references for the quote "safest" car out there? If you pull up consumer reports many cars have had awesome safety reasons for years. Of course those little mazda convertibles look like death-traps to SUVs on the roads, but non-sports cars in general have had tons of safety features put into them.

I believe Volvo had superior marketing for a long time, such that it's become this social/cultural belief that Volvo = safe. Ask anyone what they think of when they think of safe car, they'll say Volvo. Personally, I say F-150 truck, but hey.. different strokes for different folks! ;)

Re:Whatever happened to Volvos being the safest? (2, Informative)

AlinuxNCSU (589202) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243164)

If you recall, Volvo was purchased by Ford. I don't have anything against Ford (my family has owned three Tauruses), but they don't have the same reputation that Volvo had. It was at that point that Volvo's styling began to change, going from a less boxy style to the more consumer-friendly styles of today.

Since then, Volvo has shut down it's Swedish offices and moved headquarters to California. They have always had the reputation as safe and conservative in design, but Volvo is not the same company as before -- they are a Ford-owned American car company that uses the Volvo name. I won't pass complete judgement, not having followed Volvo's production for the past couple years, but I would venture to guess these basic facts have something to do with your complaint.

-ALinux

Re:Whatever happened to Volvos being the safest? (1)

Jens_UK (615572) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243167)

Volvo has developed Roll Stability Control (RSC) [volvoxc90.com] , which is the first application of normal stability and traction controls to avoid the potential for rollover.

Re:Whatever happened to Volvos being the safest? (2, Insightful)

luugi (150586) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243184)

Maybe Volvo doesn't have that technology because it's not safe yet.

Great... (-1, Troll)

doppleganger871 (303020) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243038)

...leave it to Honda to make everyone a lousy driver. "Don't worry about driving skills, just sit down, hit the throttle, and turn that round thing."

Yeesh.

Re:Great... (1)

turgid (580780) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243073)

A lot of people are already lousy drivers. What they also need is a system that detects the proximity of cars behind, to prevent tailgating (the number of times some w***er has been driving 3 feet behind me on the motorway and nearly killed me...). It would use a radar to detect approaching cars and put on the brake lights (not the brakes) to make the maniac approaching slow down and back off when he got too close for safety.

Re:Great... (2, Funny)

fataugie (89032) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243198)

Wrong...what we need is an AssHole Detector (TM) installed in every car.

The car could record your driving habits over a period of time (week, month, whatever) and make a decision as to whether or not you are an AssHole(TM).

If you fall into the AH catagory, the car/truck/suv uses it's built in ejection seat to remove the problem...so there would never be anyone following you close because they would be ejected.

See how simple that would be? Excuse me while I make my way to the patent office....

Damn! (5, Funny)

Gortbusters.org (637314) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243042)

And here I bought a new 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid. I hate when ya buy something and then they come out with new features.

Re:Damn! (1)

Brento (26177) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243124)

And here I bought a new 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid. I hate when ya buy something and then they come out with new features.

Buddy, if you're a Civic Hybrid buyer, you're not in this car's target market. The car alone is $30k, not including the option.

Being cut up (2, Interesting)

rf0 (159958) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243043)

What about if you are driving along then you get cut up...how hard will the system engage the breaks? enough to make you skid?

Rus

Re:Being cut up (1)

brakk (93385) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243113)

get cut up?

Re:Being cut up (1)

tommck (69750) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243172)

That happens when you're being carjacked... the guy whips out a knife and cuts you up... right?

Re:Being cut up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6243169)

I think I know what you're trying to say, but your idiom is foreign to me. When you say "cut up" are you referring to another car suddenly swerving into your lane?

Re:Being cut up (2, Informative)

AlinuxNCSU (589202) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243191)

For those of us not familiar with the idiom you're using, we would use the term "cut off".

Re:Being cut up (1)

Jens_UK (615572) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243210)

I wouldn't worry about skidding; the vehicle would probably have abs in the event that it invokes that much braking.

Re:Being cut up (1)

luugi (150586) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243212)


What about if you are driving along then you get cut up...how hard will the system engage the breaks? enough to make you skid?


I'm sure the car has ABS.

Honda system (1)

stanmann (602645) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243044)

Great, now I can afford a car with this system, As opposed to the other cars running On the Order of $75K.

Re:Honda system (1)

daviddennis (10926) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243081)

Actually, it sounds like the Honda system is slightly more advanced than the Mercedes system, which just adjusts your speed to reflect the car in front of you. I don't think it applies the brakes.

D

Re:Honda system (1)

stanmann (602645) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243114)

Both the Mercedes, Volkswagon and GM systems will apply the brakes. I remember reading about it in Consumer reports. But for some reason, I couldn't google any useful information.

300 ft ? (0)

dink33 (264420) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243048)

300 ft? that's aweful far away, or unnecessarily prudent. I would think for like 3 ft or 10 ft would be more reasonable.

Re:300 ft ? (1)

SnowDog_2112 (23900) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243147)

The system is somewhat more sophisticated than described in the MSNBC article.

According to this article [honda.com] on Honda's site, it factors in:
the distance between the vehicles, the relative vehicle speeds, and the anticipated vehicle path to determine the likelihood of a collision.

It describes the setup a bit more:
1. Buzzer/light goes off
2. Seatbelt tightens a couple of times, brake is tapped
3. (System determines collision unavoidable) Seatbelt tightened drastically, brakes applied forcefully

Re:300 ft ? (2, Insightful)

letxa2000 (215841) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243157)

3-10 ft at 50mph is about .04-.13 seconds. Even a computer needs more time to brake than that. With the object at 300 feet there's about 4 seconds reaction time to determine if the object is a potential threat and then to brake if necessary.

That said I see too many problems with this in terms of many driving conditions resulting in conditions that might look like a potential crash that are really "normal"--and I don't see how such a system could distinguish between the two.

Hrm... (-1, Offtopic)

Rinikusu (28164) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243050)

I wonder how this will affect bumper-to-bumper traffic? With the amount of DUMB MOTHER FUCKING CELL PHONE YAPPING NO TURN SIGNAL USING CUT ME OFF SO YOU CAN SLAM ON YOUR BRAKES COCK SUCKING ASSHOLES (insert -'s where appropriate) out there, maybe there'd probably be less accidents to start with.

Re:Hrm... (1)

webmaker (635678) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243138)

no more coffee for you... Road rage king

Re:Hrm... (1)

qqtortqq (521284) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243231)

I think you may have a case of road rage. Sorry about cutting you off last tuesday, I wasn't paying attention because I was talking to my mom on the phone, and didn't see that there was someone right in front of me. Thats why I slammed on the brakes.

In other news... (5, Funny)

NetDanzr (619387) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243052)

...drivers in New York suddenly face a severe shortage of parking space, as they are unable to parallel-park more than one Honda within 300 feet of each other.

Control over the vehicle (4, Insightful)

notque (636838) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243056)

Unfortunately, Japanese regulations don't allow for the system to fully stop the vehicle

Because what I want is to have less and less operation value, and rely more on technology!

We are slowly devolving into a society that not only has no common sense, but cannot operate anything without help.

No thank you auto stop. I have breaks. I know how to downshift. I'm fine.

I feel much safer knowing the control is in my hands, than an arbitrary machine anyway.

Is it just me?

Re:Control over the vehicle (1)

mattdm (1931) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243197)

For now, you may be right. But the "arbitrary machine" can react a lot faster than you. If the technology is solid (no 1.0 for me, thanks), it can only be a good thing.

Re:Control over the vehicle (2, Funny)

EyeSavedLatin (591555) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243211)

Hopefully the "breaks" you speak of aren't taken while braking... otherwise you'll really need this system!

Re:Control over the vehicle (1)

brakk (93385) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243217)

And what happens if you see the car and intend to stop, but since the car is already braking for you, you miss the brakes and hit the gas?

Re:Control over the vehicle (5, Funny)

fred_sanford (678924) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243222)


HAL: "Let me put it this way, Mr Amer. The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error."

Finally!! (4, Funny)

enigma971 (593043) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243059)

They can't get this installed in my girlfriend's car soon enough!

Re:Finally!! (5, Funny)

thriemus (514728) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243174)

Funny this system sounds like my girlfriend!!

It gives me notifaction to brake when a car is hundreds of feet in front of me... even when doing 15 mph.

So (2, Funny)

mrgrey (319015) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243061)

So you don't die from the crash, you die from suffocation or from being cut in half by the seat belt.

If the driver fails to respond, the system kicks in and brakes more while also tightening the seat belt

300 feet? (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243062)

I already hate the fact that seatbelts are too tight and that there are laws mandating their use (especially here in MN where you can be ticketed for not wearing one while having no other violations).

So at 300 ft the car is going to start hitting the breaks? What about freaking rush hour or the morons that slam on their breaks in front of me? Isn't this going to hinder my already exceptional response skills?

Concentrate on getting the car to drive for us not deciding when I am tailgating.

Yes please, more security (3, Funny)

cwernli (18353) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243065)

If the driver fails to respond, the car brakes more and tightens the seat belt further to soften the blow of the crash.

The system should be expanded such that a driver who fails for, say, three times to brake when she should is not allowed to drive anymore. Or not allowed to accelarate to more than 25 mph. That should increase the drivers awareness instantly, shouldn't it ?

Does that mean.... (1)

zoobaby (583075) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243066)

I can't tale gate anymore? Really 300 ft is a long distance. Hell when I leave 10 to 15 feet between cars someone will cut in. Good idea but not practical at distances discussed.

yea but.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6243071)

Will it run on open scorces?


linsux need all the help it can get

Gotta love loopholes... (5, Funny)

PseudoThink (576121) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243072)

It then taps the brake and tightens the seatbelt...If the driver fails to respond, the system kicks in and brakes more while also tightening the seat belt. Unfortunately, Japanese regulations don't allow for the system to fully stop the vehicle."
But fortunately there is a loophole in the regulations, allowing them to gradually strangle the driver with his seatbelt until he stops the vehicle on his own.

forgot to subject it. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6243074)

This is a great idea.... for my hamster.

He has a problem with his ball rolling into things, perhaps he can get a brake radar system.

So how long until you're trying to ride someone's ass on the eway to get them to speed up and you're back there buzzing and braking like a retard.

Worst Idea ever. Just make marshmellow airbags, and we'd be set.

How is this going to work? (4, Interesting)

Zerbey (15536) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243075)

You mean to tell me whilst I'm driving on I-4 every morning every time some idiot kid in a tricked out Honda (stupid large muffler, big fin, silly rims... pet hate :)) cuts me off I'll be rammed in the back by the his idiot friend who happens to be tailgating me because my car decides it needs to brake?

Finally (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6243076)

Finally, my Narcoleptic buddy and I can take that booze cruise through the mountains again.

Goody! (3, Funny)

OrangeGoo (678478) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243082)

Goody! Now I don't have to be bothered taking my foot off the gas pedal and putting it on that pesky brake pedal, unless of course I need to come to a complete stop! But who does that? Stop signs might as well says "slow down a little and look both ways." If they park a car next to it, this system will handle it for you! Yay!

300ft? (1)

ender_wiggins (81600) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243084)

That would be anoying. what about when i am tailgating someone on the interstate! What about that jerk that cut me off and there is only 5 feet where there were 300 before? sounds like a bad idea to me.

Sounds good ....but (1)

curtisk (191737) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243085)

I can't see why this would be reliable, wait, well maybe it would be too reliable, to the point of annoyance.

Is that vehicle 300ft ahead parked? What if a squirrel runs in the road, how sensitive is the radar? Is there a large tree or light post on the highway ramp (on the curve) that the radar has mistaken for a vehicle?

How can I tailgate with such a system?! Aggressive driving is a god-given right! :D

Geeze ... (2, Funny)

SuperDuG (134989) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243087)

... this is going to make it even harder for wives to run over their husbands now ...

... as if that whole legal and moral thing wasn't enough, technology enters into the game.

Re:Geeze ... (1)

dex22 (239643) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243226)

I can see it now...

Your honor, how was I to know the system would fail? I fully expected the car to stop. How was I to know that my late husband's sun-block also absorbed the radar signals? I'm gonna sue the company!

Mercedes System already does this (4, Informative)

servicepack158 (678320) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243088)

The AMG benz's come with a cruise control system that when active will slow down if a car in front of you is going slower then you, and speed back up to cruise speed when they get out of your way. It can apply up to 20% of the breaking force of the vehicle too if there is a sudden stop. you can look at it and watch a flash presentation on the website. To the dork programmer who doesn't understand how it works: That's why honda didn't hire you for the project :) You only activate such a system above certain speeds. So basically it's an autopilot system for a car, but people always change lanes without looking so now they need to invent something to lock the steeringwheel :D

hmmmm.... (-1, Flamebait)

deadsaijinx* (637410) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243094)

I think the system is inherently flawed. I do not want my vehicle applying the brakes everytime I'm 300 ft behind someone. And how can it tell the difference between a car and other objects? And the belt tightening and the buzzer going off? Fucking annoying. Fortunately, the technology has no plans for the US.

As usual (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6243098)

As usual the Asians continue to innovate while the Americans just try to sue and bully their backwards products onto the market (killing the kyoto protocol etc.)

I can picture this... (4, Funny)

selderrr (523988) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243104)

one car suddenly brakes and all honda drivers behind it are strangled by their auto-tightening seatbelts.

4-point seatbelt wearers are castrated rather than strangled.

Nice (1)

Cackmobile (182667) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243105)

THis is what old people need. I have been rear ended 3 times by old people now. And idiots who talk on their mobiles. But they really should learn how to drive not rely on an automatic system. Never going to happen so this is the next best thing. GO Honda.

traffic jams? (1)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243109)

thats gonna work real well during rush hour.. not!

Tailgating? (1)

svenjob (671129) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243110)

Say goodbye to tailgating... and my drivers license.

Hmmm... (2, Insightful)

leviramsey (248057) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243111)

Am I the only one who thinks 300ft is a mite bit too far to look ahead to get reliable results? What was the old drivers ed rule, one carlength spacing per 10 miles per hour of speed? A typical car is what 20 ft., tops? 300 feet is reasonable then if the vehicle in question is going c. 150 mph.

Since most traffic is less than half of that speed, I can only shudder at the number of false positives this system's going to come up with.

Honda: at least do this: make this system by default only operational when running in cruise control (which at least takes out the cases of heavy traffic false positives).

Brakeing isnt the solution (3, Insightful)

snack (71224) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243123)

90% of the accidents i've seen are from people just SLAMMING on their brakes. They cant stop in time, and careen into the back of another vehicle, or T-bone them.

The solution is more drivers education. You have to learn that you have more than just 1 dimention of freedom, and can change lanes to avoid a collision. More education, Less 'toys' in the car to distract the driver.

-Tim

Tora Tora Tora ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6243126)

Yeah, that pesky Kamikaze legislation passed in the '40s, requiring that you plough straight into the car in front!

Hope there are no bugs in the tightening mechanism (1)

dave_mcmillen (250780) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243127)

If the driver fails to respond, the system kicks in and brakes more while also tightening the seat belt.

"Seatbelt . . . too tight . . . got to swerve . . . urk." [ slumps unconscious]

Too bad.. (4, Funny)

MImeKillEr (445828) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243128)

.. they don't have an early warning system for when you've exceeded the maximum number of ricer mods (R-Type stickers, neon, over-sized wing). I'd find that just as useful.

Re:Too bad.. (1)

caffeinex36 (608768) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243155)

If I had 100 Mod points. They would all go to you my friend.

Rob

Seatbelt tightening (1)

germinatoras (465782) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243133)

And if, at 15 feet, you continue to move forward, the seatbelt will tighten even further, until an Audio sensor detects a human voice screaming, "AAahh! AAAH! OH God you're KILLING ME!!" at which point the seatbelt will release tension slightly.

Adaption for the LA market (1)

Dr_LHA (30754) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243134)

As an adaption for for the huge LA car market, Honda have announced that the car will also automatically wildly swerve into the should a crash about to occur. Also adjusted in the LA model will be the radar's range which will be reduced from the highly redundant 300 feet, to a much more practicle and efficient 5 feet.

What astonishes me.. (4, Insightful)

popeydotcom (114724) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243135)

Is the number of "300 yards! what about rush hour" posts here.

Think about what you've just said guys! Do you REALLY, honestly think that they would release a car that stamps on the brakes when *anything* is in range. Give it some intelligence.. Sheesh.

turns? (1)

lovebyte (81275) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243145)

What about driving in the mountains. Turns, clift, 300ft, brakes. I don't think those would mix very well.

End of Tailgaitors? (1)

OS24Ever (245667) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243146)

Man that'd be funny in rush hour traffic for those folks that come running up on you in a lane when you're doing a reasonable speed for the amount of traffic.

If you modded it? Could you have a switch that would tighten up the seat belt on the SO when they're complaining about your driving? heh.

I can't breathe! (1)

geoffeg (15786) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243156)

I would really hope that the system doesn't have some kind of bug that continually tightens the seat belt. I can just see it now, the emergency workers find a guy in a car, stopped in the middle of the road.. His car is perfectly fine but he has been cut in half by his seat belt.. What an amusingly tragic sight that would be.

Geoffeg

another funny thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6243159)

would just be to throw big objects infront of it like ... a news paper, and let the driver be stickened with seatbelt cuts and brake checks... hahah

Just walk around throwing those orange suction cup darts to the front so the radar things its right on something...

ah, the enjoyment.

Instead of braking... (1)

sfled (231432) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243163)


Instead of activating the brakes, how about just an alert chime - a kinder, gentler version of the ground-proximity alarms in aircraft?

Either way, I smell lawsuit if the thing fails or causes the driver to claim (s)he lost control.

Here's a link to more info from Honda (5, Informative)

zptdooda (28851) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243166)

Hereâ(TM)s more from Honda:

CMS [honda.com]

So itâ(TM)s more than just the 300 ft test, which would be arbitrary. It looks at "distance, speed and and anticipated path".

Sounds worse than a backseat driver though.

Production will be limited (2, Funny)

Boyceterous (596732) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243168)

since they can only run the assembly line with the vehicles 300 feet apart.

"Crash Detection"? (3, Funny)

schon (31600) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243175)

The title reminds me of a body shop near my work.

It was called "Certified Collision"

I always wondered - so you get in an accident, call these guys, they come over and say "Yup, you hit him!"

Now, maybe it's just me, but I think "Crash Prevention" would be much more desirable than "Crash Detection" :o)

Anything that improves safety is worth it. (3, Interesting)

FFFish (7567) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243179)

I mean anything. Traffic accidents are one of the biggest killers in America (#1 killer of kids, I do believe). And yet it is so unnecessary to allow driving to continue being so dangerous.

Regular driving exams, say every three to five years: great idea.

Graduated licensing programs: great idea.

Mandatory driver training: great idea.

Black boxes reporting accident data: great idea.

Automatic safety systems: great idea.

Photo radar: great idea.

Hell, GPS tracking of vehicles would, if it reduced traffic deaths by a few percent, would be well worth the loss of privacy.

I'm at the maximum safe driver discounts. I haven't even been close to being in an accident in some fifteen years (arsehole ran a red light!). I maintain an attitude of defensive driving.

I'm not worried that I'll be the cause of an accident. But I'm scared shitless of your driving, because you are, in all probability, one of the drivers who is a threat to my continued well-being.

I'm quite willing to jump through some annoying hoops -- the repeated testing, the black box, the privacy invasions -- in order to save my life. I treasure my freedoms and privacy, I detest government interference, etcetera... but I value my life more than all that.

So bring it on.

Let's get our streets safe.

Does it cater for a swerve? (1)

Placido (209939) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243206)

I was once doing at least 70mph on a motorway overtaking a slower car and a lorry when the slow car decided to pull into my lane to overtake the lorry.

Unfortunately there was another car overtaking me in the fast lane. I was aware that the car overtaking me was still slightly behind me and accelerated as I swerved into the fast lane. It was all a bit hairy but luckily there wasn't a crash, just some serious adrenaline.

But it might have turned out differently if my car decided to brake!! I'd like to see how this thing works in real life.

Are owners forced to use this "feature"? (1)

Chucow (572393) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243213)

It seems to me that Honda should, at the very least, have some way for the driver to disable this feature. Particularly since it is not available on its own, but only in a package.

From article: The system comes as part of a package of options and is not priced separately.

And after the accident... (1)

antin (185674) | more than 11 years ago | (#6243219)

A helpful sound recording says "told ya so :P"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>