5 ms·
This article doesn't add much to the discussion. Very little is done to describe what the proposed "parallel automation" should look like, even though it is bei
by com2kid 9y ago
This article doesn't add much to the discussion. Very little is done to describe what the proposed "parallel automation" should look like, even though it is being held up by the article's author as the holy grail of driver assistance technology.
Sensors that prevent running into pedestrians are already being deployed. Collision avoidance is getting better and better.
Not driving into walls should be the next pri0 feature cars implement, but aside from that I see little actionable improvements being proposed here.
- taneq 9y agoThey're just talking using the same technology to add back-up responses and leaving the driver primarily in charge, instead of making the technology primarily in charge with the driver only there as a failsafe. So they're advocating automatic emergency braking, lane departure warnings, etc. rather than autosteer and adaptive cruise.
- shkkmo 9y ago> aside from that I see little actionable improvements being proposed here. There were three concrete and actionable proposals at the end: Ban all active lane keeping Mandate geofencing of all series automation Mandate Driver Monitoring Systems, to include both camera and capacitive touch
- com2kid 9y agoNone of those are "new technologies". They are, at best, temporary measures until current tech gets better.