9 ms·
Toyota automatically stops car before it can hit pedestrian
Toyota automatically stops the car before it can hit a pedestrian
- joejohnson 15y agoHmmm, but is there a way to override this? What if I'm trying to run my car into mannequins?
- mashmac2 15y agoThat could be a really fun trend... start attaching mannequins and cardboard cutouts to random street signs and light poles as close to the road as possible and see when the Toyota reacts.
- gmac 15y ago... except that if it scuppers a life-saving innovation, it will thereby cost lives.
- tryke 15y agoWhat if I'm being carjacked and my car won't let me get away?
- LeafStorm 15y agoPerhaps there should be a button under the dash labelled "Manual Control" that disables all automatic driving features.
- athst 15y agoWhenever I almost get hit by a car while I'm walking around San Francisco, I'd say that 8 times out of 10 it's a Prius... so this is definitely welcome.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- gte910h 15y agoI've had like 4 cyclists ride into my Prius. It's like a magnet for the unaware.
- aplusbi 15y agoThose things sneak up on you! It's surprising how much cyclists and pedestrians rely on engine noise.
- rubinelli 15y agoI wouldn't be surprised if groups that work with visually impaired people, for example, lobbied to get a minimum noise level added to regulations.
- gst 15y agoThat's exactly the wrong approach. Better approach: Install a small wireless sender in the car that broadcasts at a given frequency. Then allow people who want a minimum noise level to buy a small receiver that broadcasts those signals (or another type of indication signal) to a headset. This allows you to keep the noise level down and at the same time provides "notifications" to the visually impaired.
- DrewG 15y agoThat puts the onus on the visually impaired and safety-conscious to protect themselves, and I don't think thats something you want to do.
- ceejayoz 15y agoNeat idea, but two significant problems. 1. Blind folks generally rely on directional sound. Knowing a car's nearby is better than nothing, but you can't tell how fast it's approaching you, from what direction. 2. In a city, it'd never stop beeping at you.
- mdasen 15y agoVolvo has similarly come out with a pedestrian detection/braking system (http://www.boston.com/cars/newsandreviews/overdrive/2010/07/volvo_s60_pedestrian_detection.html http://www.boston.com/cars/newsandreviews/overdrive/2010/07/...) and Volkswagen has been showing off a self-driving car (http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1062073_volkswagen-shows-off-self-driving-auto-pilot-technology-for-cars http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1062073_volkswagen-shows-...) in addition to the Google Car. Cars are going toward driving themselves. The Google car is impressive, but it will likely be a while before people become comfortable with the concept and for the cost to come down. Mainstream auto manufacturers are inching their way toward these features (mostly on their more expensive models), but I keep hearing people say, "well, what if it stops me when I can go forward." I think manufacturers are trying to get consumers used to the idea that technology might be the way to go for a lot of driving systems. People need to get the idea that self-driving technologies enhance safety. I think that's why they're starting with braking. As people become comfortable with and grateful for their car taking control in emergency-ish situations like that, they'll similarly become comfortable with the car taking control during normal driving. At least that's the thought.
- encoderer 15y agoVolvo has this feature -- dubbed City Safety -- already on the road. It may seem snobbish to some, but I'd never let myself, my wife, and my future children drive anything but a Mercedes or Volvo. Between the two of them, they've been behind nearly every safety system developed in the last 40 years. I feel good about knowing that our hard work has let us put my wife in a car, for her 30 minute commute, that has 12 airbags, that monitors her blindspot and will prevent her from changing lanes when it's occupied, that monitors her alertness and sounds alarms if she begins to fall asleep at the wheel, that vibrates the steering wheel if she accidentally begins to drift out of her lane, that watches for stopped traffic or obstacles in her path and will apply full force braking in microseconds in a way that her human reflexes just cannot, that has seats designed to prevent whiplash, and seatbelt pretensioners, and an extra firewall in the engine compartment to prevent intrusion. Not to mention, compared to the often under-engineered competition, it has handling and performance capabilities that can plausibly prevent accidents where any of those things would be necessary in the first place. Neither of us has ever yet, to our knowledge, counted on these things to save our lives. But knowing they're there, makes me feel much more comfortable when she leaves home.
- jzycrzy 15y agoHave you considered working for either Volvo or Mercedes Marketing department?
- acangiano 15y agoI'll buy my first car in a few months (at the tender age of 31). I was eyeing Mercedes already, and your comment only confirms everything I've read about it. Do you know if these features are available in their class C cars, or do I need to get an E class?
- encoderer 15y agoActually, yes. Most of those will be available on the C class starting MY 2012. If you live in North America you can probably expect 2012's to be available in September and October. You can pre-order now, of course. Including a wonderful option where you go to Germany, pick the car up as it rolls off the line, drive it around Europe for up to 30 days, then drop it back off to them to have it shipped to the US: And you get the car at dealer invoice less 8%. That's a little involved for a first time Mercedes buyer, but I wanted to make you aware of it, it's a very great program they've got there. The C is a great car. We've got one in our family. If you have any questions, http://mbworld.org/forums/c-class-w204-83/ http://mbworld.org/forums/c-class-w204-83/ is a great C Class forum. I'm active there under the same handle.
- Julie188 15y agoYikes. I like safety features like airbags and strong cages that won't collapse on the driver in a crash. I don't want my car making driving decisions for me. It may be done in the name of safety but until they invent a car that can't break, I don't trust it not to cause more problems than it helps.
- lutorm 15y agoI somewhat sympathize with your thinking. However, why do you like airbags then? Accidental airbag release can kill you a lot easier than sudden brake application can.
- Daniel_Newby 15y agoVolvo has this already and it cuts low-speed collisions by 25%. http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2011/07/20/safety-group-says-crash-avoidance-system-works-well/ http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2011/07/20/safety-group-sa...
- drcube 15y agoLuddite. :P Seriously, would you prefer a car that was built by a robot or a human? Personally, while I see where you are coming from and share your reservations about unproven technologies, I also foresee a time - within our lifetimes and hopefully sooner than later - where cars are 100% computer controlled and roads are at least an order of magnitude safer. Imagine if every drunk at the bar could just press "home" on the dashboard of their car and then sleep it off during the trip?
- mhb 15y agoBut what does it do if five pedestrians jump in front of the car and it has to turn and kill a different one in order to save the five?
- jrockway 15y agoIt explodes, killing only the environment-ruining automobile driver. (Please note: tongue-in-cheek.)
- epochwolf 15y agoOnly on the electric models, the gas ones will fly over the pedestrians using a rocket booster.
- Daniel_Newby 15y agoPeople will need to be RFID tagged with their net present value.
- seles 15y agoAlerting driver of potential pedestrian = good Automatically making a decision (that the human is better at making) and potentially causing an accident due to a random sudden stop = bad
- lutorm 15y agoAre you saying it's worse to potentially cause an accident due to the sudden stop than to certainly have an accident as you run someone/thing over? I'm not sure I agree with you there.
- ceejayoz 15y agoEspecially considering the difference in injury for a rear-end accident versus mowing down a pedestrian. Even if we assume that 100% of the time the car behind you will hit, the death toll is still likely much reduced.
- fr0sty 15y agoThis line of argument hinges on the assumption that braking input is the only means by which to avoid an accident. Cars have steering wheels and swerving is often an effective maneuver when attempting to avoid an accident. Incidentally, heavy breaking reduces a car's ability to corner which may end up causing accidents which could otherwise be avoided.
- lutorm 15y agoAt below 22mph or whatever they said, and at the distances they show in the movie, I'm almost positive that braking is the correct action. In that situation, stop distance is short and it's too late to swerve. (It's true that swerving becomes a progressively better option as speed increases.)
- seles 15y agoThis would be "certainly" only if the system worked perfectly. I think there will way more false positives than actual preventions (at least in the near term).
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- alexitosrv 15y agoDoes anybody else remember this demostration of a Volvo featuring a similar characteristic and utterly failing? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNi17YLnZpg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNi17YLnZpg These technologies need to gain the trust of the drivers before they can become mainstream.
- galenward 15y agoToyota has clearly never considered the parable where one is required to run over 1 pedestrian in order to stop another car that is about to take the lives of 5 other pedestrians.
- moheeb 15y agoYeah this would have definitely been the least popular vehicle in Carmageddon.
- bh42222 15y agoThis is great! But why does this (as well as Volvo's) car AI require no special permission from the law, but Google's car AI did? Is it because we welcome an AI which breaks, but not one which drives? Why? Because passive AIs are less scary than active ones? And active breaking is still perceived as a passive action?
- tinman 15y agoI don't get it. Why is there a giant "Lexus" on the side of the car if Toyota is making this technology?
- bradleyland 15y agoToyota owns Lexus.
- orijing 15y agoWill insurance companies adjust rates in response to this, as it will likely lower expected costs?