3 ms·
It'd be especially cool if it took both front and back radar into account. If nobody is behind you break more liberally but otherwise exercise more caution. (
by adamsmith 17y ago
It'd be especially cool if it took both front and back radar into account. If nobody is behind you break more liberally but otherwise exercise more caution.
(It does seem like there would be room for such an "aggressiveness" parameter, since you can't predict the future breaking behavior of the car in front of you and it might have stronger or weaker breaks.)
Either way I hope all of this stuff works out to be a net win. We should know more in a year or two!
- jacabado 17y agoI just saw a Top Gear episode where they tested the last Mercedes S which does just this. (talk about serendipity and having new ideas!)
- electromagnetic 17y agoWouldn't the ideal step be to harmonize the radar/lidar technology and have a system enabled that forces a safe driving zone. It's all too common on highways that vehicles can't stop within a safe distance if the vehicle in front of it stops, which leads to 5 vehicle pile ups. You'd only need a moderate percentage of vehicles with the radar/lidar technology to keep a highway reasonably spaced. EG if you're tailgating, your vehicle will brake, if someone is tailgating you it will speed you up (within the speed limit) to get you to a safe distance, or (when capable) shift you safely into a different lane when you're in cruise. Eventually you could simply have vehicles communicate, so when the guy in front of me brakes, my vehicle gets instructed that it's approaching a decelerating object. It'll be small 'safety' steps that will eventually remove human error from vehicle accidents.
- TeHCrAzY 17y agoI don't think increasing your speed will avoid tailgaters, rather it (in my experience) makes them go all the faster, to continue with thier tailgating ways.