I wonder if they will also start to use artificial intelligent software that will start to learn different drivers and how they drive and where their weaknesses are. It's all very exciting. Good article.
TJ McDermott, I agree. When it comes to vehicle safety, I like to be in control as to some software running on a black box. I believe one key to vehicle safety is to pay attention to the road while driving.
Ghost in the Machine? Self realization of the machines?
I like the last line, "open up many doors and windows", does this imply that the car will 'sense' the owner and open the door. Open the windows as the occupant approaches drive-thru venues. Or is this just a play on words? Funny either way!
You know, there is a slippery slope on this topic. While there's no argument that electronics advancements have increased safety in vehicles over the years, (airbags & curtains, proximity sensors, back-up cameras and Bluetooth hands-free audio as a few examples) there are other electronic innovations that I simply just do not support; such as automatic braking in high end sedans currently. This type of "Safety" feature I think is more of a problem than a solution, lulling the distracted driver into a sense of security. And the Ford Focus that can parallel-park all by itself-? Fantastic technology, but it allows the incapable operator to climb behind the wheel. I can't support it.
Meanwhile, it was refreshing to see that the Delphi CTO had a short list of electronics advancement being developed that sounded more valuable to safety and performance than these two marketing gimmicks of auto-brake and auto-park.
It is an interesting assertion that somehow cars are becoming safer because of all of those unreliable electronic systems being added. They are unreliable because the primary design target is minimum cost to produce them, all other considerations are secondary. Even worse, the systems all are set up to protect the very most unskilled and ill-prepared drivers, which means that they will be constantly fighting against the experienced drivers, who probably are at least half of all drivers. On top of that problem, none of the vehicle safety features that I have come across is able to handle exceptions. The ABS system assures excessive stopping distance on loose gravel and when there are leaves or sand blown onto the road surface, and the stability control system assures that a very quick swerve to avoid something will not be done the way the driver intends it to be done. They will probably protect a 17 year old beginner driver, and possibly the 90 year old grandmother, that is true. BUT most drivers are not in either one of those groups.
UNFORTUNATELY we are no longer allowed any choice about which systems we will have operating in our cars. So a whole lot of us will be fighting with systems designed soley to protect that portion of folks who perhaps should not be driving at all. Is this a benefit for society?
I personally like Anti Lock brakes, and traction control, which both somewhat fall under the category of "black boxes" taking control. I think the actuarial data on antilock brakes would prove that the average driver is better of with them than without. If you drive on snow and ice you come to befriend traction control if you use it. I feel much safer on ice with traction control and antilocks. I attempt to drive in a way that doesn't cause them to work, but I take comfort in the fact that when I push a little too hard, the electronics kick in and correct.
Allison makes automatic transmissions for trucks now, and I'm sure that most "skilled" drivers would bad mouth the automatic over the "control" that a clutch (supposedly) gives them. Allison does pull-offs with experienced drivers using manual transmissions, pulling against inexperienced drivers with automatic transmissions, and the experienced driver with a clutch never wins against the automatic.
I understand the reservations about the black box thing, but in time the technology usually proves itself worthwhile.
Another example is the "launch" electronics in formula cars. Drivers first resisted it, but relented when the guys using the launch control were driving up their tailpipes on every start.
As for enabling idiots to get behind the wheel, we already do that. So you might as well make the car smart enough to drive, because many of the people we give licences to aren't.
Good points, William K. One of the questions we asked Jeff Owens was, "Why not take the cell phones and some of the other electronic content out of the vehicle, so that we don't need to be rescused by more electronics?" You'll have to listen to the radio show to get his answer.
Antilock brakes DO assure that you will slide straight into something when you can't stop, that is true. And occasilally they can be handy, BUT there is no simple way to make them understand that the situation is an exception and that stopping the whels is the only smart move. Perhaps a means to bypass the function if I mash down hard enough on the brake pedal, since I never do that in normal driving, not even in emergency stops. Hard braking yes, but not the two-feet-on-the-pedal kind. That level of effort should bypass the pulsing and lock those wheels.
That is the reason that I don't like all of those features, which is that they don't handle exceptions well, and I happen to get into a few "exceptions" , possibly more often than some others do.
And the reason that we can't get all those other distractions out of the vehicle is really quite simple: there is too much money to be made having them there. It matters not how many thousands get killed, there is lots of profit in cell phone use while driving, and so it can never be stopped. The phone companies have way more money to spend to assure that than the tobacco companies ever had. And if you have enough money you CAN buy what you want.
As energy efficiency becomes more and more a concern for makers of electronics devices, researchers are coming up with new ways to harvest energy from sound vibration, footsteps, and even electromagnetic fields in the air.
The government wants to study your brain, and DARPA wants to use similar information to give robots true autonomy beyond any artificial intelligence developed to date. Sound like science fiction? It's not.
A quick look into the merger of two powerhouse 3D printing OEMs and the new leader in rapid prototyping solutions, Stratasys. The industrial revolution is now led by 3D printing and engineers are given the opportunity to fully maximize their design capabilities, reduce their time-to-market and functionally test prototypes cheaper, faster and easier. Bruce Bradshaw, Director of Marketing in North America, will explore the large product offering and variety of materials that will help CAD designers articulate their product design with actual, physical prototypes. This broadcast will dive deep into technical information including application specific stories from real world customers and their experiences with 3D printing. 3D Printing is