3 ms·
That would make sense if the radar is stationary. In this case, the radar system itself is moving... including moving relative to stationary objects. So I don'
by natch 8y ago
That would make sense if the radar is stationary.
In this case, the radar system itself is moving... including moving relative to stationary objects. So I don't see how what you say makes sense.
Not saying you are wrong. Just saying I don't follow your explanation.
- ummonk 8y agoRight. Besides, pulse doppler can detect stuff that is stationary relative to the radar anyway. The real issue is false positives from things like soda cans on the road, signs next to the road, etc. Can't have the car randomly braking all the time for such false positives. As a result, they just filter out stationary (relative to the ground) objects, and focus on moving objects (which are assumed to be vehicles) together with lane markings. This is why that one Tesla ran right into a parked fire truck. Interestingly, I've discovered one useful trick with my purely camera-based car (Subary equipped with Eyesight): if there is a stationary or almost stationary vehicle up ahead that it wasn't previously following, it won't detect it and will consider it a false positive (as it should, so it doesn't brake for things like adjacent parked cars), but if I tap the brake to disengage adaptive cruise control and then turn the adaptive cruise control back on, it will lock on to the stopped car up ahead.
- uncoder0 8y agoSame thing happens in my BMW wrt toggling the adaptive cruise to recognize a stopped car.
- btilly 8y agoThe problem is not whether the object is moving relative to the radar. It is whether the object is moving relative to all of the stationary objects behind it that might confuse the radar.