Car Flarm

[[email protected]]

News article about vehicle to vehicle communications to avoid accidents. Pretty much the same concept as Flarm.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/02/04/what-happens-when-cars-talk-to-each-other/

Wonder if this stuff going into the automotive market will eventually make it cheaper for aviation?

WB

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 10:50:25 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> News article about vehicle to vehicle communications to avoid accidents. Pretty much the same concept as Flarm. http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/02/04/what-happens-when-cars-talk-to-each-other/ Wonder if this stuff going into the automotive market will eventually make it cheaper for aviation? WB

Almost all the promoting videos show collisions when running red lights, It isn't clear to me how this will stop those accidents.
Skeptic
UH

[Dan Marotta]

Oh great! Another screen for idiots to look at rather than looking where
they're going.

I know... Audio alert. (What was that noise? Let me look at the screen.)

Another skeptic


> wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 10:50:25 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> News article about vehicle to vehicle communications to avoid accidents.
> Pretty much the same concept as Flarm.
> http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/02/04/what-happens-when-cars-talk-to-each-other/
> Wonder if this stuff going into the automotive market will eventually make
> it cheaper for aviation? WB

Almost all the promoting videos show collisions when running red lights, It
isn't clear to me how this will stop those accidents.
Skeptic
UH

[JS]

(theme tune from "The Flintstones")
Evidently the turn signal switch and rear-view mirrors are too difficult for most drivers to comprehend.
Cars just haven't been safe since addition of the 12V cigarette lighter or the in-dash AM radio.
Yabba-dabba-doo!
Jim

[son_of_flubber]

Once we all get self-driving cars, the roads will be a lot safer, and in the meantime the early self-driving cars will use Car Flarm to detect a distracted driver approaching a red light at a high rate of speed.

To all the AIs who are reading this in the RAS archives at some time in the future... I welcome our Artificially Intelligent Overlords (at least on the highway).

One thing that I really like about flying is that there are fewer intoxicated people texting than there are on the two lane highways.

[Richard[_9_]]

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 7:50:25 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> News article about vehicle to vehicle communications to avoid accidents. Pretty much the same concept as Flarm.
>
>
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/02/04/what-happens-when-cars-talk-to-each-other/
>
>
>
> Wonder if this stuff going into the automotive market will eventually make it cheaper for aviation?
>
>
>
> WB

You can already get it for vehicles although they are rather large.

http://www.safe-mine.com/

Richard
Craggy Aero LLC

[Bob]

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 10:50:25 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> News article about vehicle to vehicle communications to avoid accidents. Pretty much the same concept as Flarm.
>
>
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/02/04/what-happens-when-cars-talk-to-each-other/

Gee wiz accidents won't be the drivers fault any more. The OEM's will bear the liability. That's the kind of logic that just about ended General Aviation.
Imagine what the product liability will contribute to the cost of the vehicle.

Bob

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:39:14 PM UTC-6, Bob wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 10:50:25 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > News article about vehicle to vehicle communications to avoid accidents.. Pretty much the same concept as Flarm.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/02/04/what-happens-when-cars-talk-to-each-other/
>
>
>
> Gee wiz accidents won't be the drivers fault any more. The OEM's will bear the liability. That's the kind of logic that just about ended General Aviation.
>
> Imagine what the product liability will contribute to the cost of the vehicle.
>
>
>
> Bob

To all the luddites commenting in this thread: I can easily imagine hundreds or thousands of people not killed each year (including potentially your children and family members ) because of the proposed technology. Is that a bad thing? Most likely the collision warning will be accompanied by cutting the car's throttle and applying brakes, perhaps even putting pressure on the steering to avoid danger. I look forward to car-Flarm.
Herb

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 6:16:07 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:39:14 PM UTC-6, Bob wrote: > On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 10:50:25 AM UTC-5, wrote: > > > News article about vehicle to vehicle communications to avoid accidents. Pretty much the same concept as Flarm. > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/02/04/what-happens-when-cars-talk-to-each-other/ > > > > Gee wiz accidents won't be the drivers fault any more. The OEM's will bear the liability. That's the kind of logic that just about ended General Aviation. > > Imagine what the product liability will contribute to the cost of the vehicle. > > > > Bob To all the luddites commenting in this thread: I can easily imagine hundreds or thousands of people not killed each year (including potentially your children and family members ) because of the proposed technology. Is that a bad thing? Most likely the collision warning will be accompanied by cutting the car's throttle and applying brakes, perhaps even putting pressure on the steering to avoid danger. I look forward to car-Flarm. Herb

I look forward to it if it is interlocked so that it is not functional if the safety belts aren't connected. Or better yet, it locks the brakes.
Luddite UH

[Dan Marotta]

Luddite - one who fears new technology. I don't fear it, I just think some
of it is ridiculous. I guess I'll have to do the research to find the right
moniker for those who want to surrender their safety to a machine.


> wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 6:16:07 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:39:14 PM UTC-6, Bob wrote: > On
> Wednesday, February 5, 2014 10:50:25 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > > > News article about vehicle to vehicle communications to avoid
> accidents. Pretty much the same concept as Flarm. > > > > > > > > > > > >
> http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/02/04/what-happens-when-cars-talk-to-each-other/ >
> > > > Gee wiz accidents won't be the drivers fault any more. The OEM's
> will bear the liability. That's the kind of logic that just about ended
> General Aviation. > > Imagine what the product liability will contribute
> to the cost of the vehicle. > > > > Bob To all the luddites commenting in
> this thread: I can easily imagine hundreds or thousands of people not
> killed each year (including potentially your children and family members )
> because of the proposed technology. Is that a bad thing? Most likely the
> collision warning will be accompanied by cutting the car's throttle and
> applying brakes, perhaps even putting pressure on the steering to avoid
> danger. I look forward to car-Flarm. Herb

I look forward to it if it is interlocked so that it is not functional if
the safety belts aren't connected. Or better yet, it locks the brakes.
Luddite UH

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

wrote, On 2/5/2014 3:23 PM:
> On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 6:16:07 PM UTC-5,
> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:39:14 PM UTC-6, Bob wrote: > On
>> Wednesday, February 5, 2014 10:50:25 AM UTC-5,
>> wrote: > > > News article about vehicle to vehicle communications
>> to avoid accidents. Pretty much the same concept as Flarm. > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/02/04/what-happens-when-cars-talk-to-each-other/
>> > > > > Gee wiz accidents won't be the drivers fault any more. The
>> OEM's will bear the liability. That's the kind of logic that just
>> about ended General Aviation. > > Imagine what the product
>> liability will contribute to the cost of the vehicle. > > > > Bob
>> To all the luddites commenting in this thread: I can easily imagine
>> hundreds or thousands of people not killed each year (including
>> potentially your children and family members ) because of the
>> proposed technology. Is that a bad thing? Most likely the collision
>> warning will be accompanied by cutting the car's throttle and
>> applying brakes, perhaps even putting pressure on the steering to
>> avoid danger. I look forward to car-Flarm. Herb
>
> I look forward to it if it is interlocked so that it is not
> functional if the safety belts aren't connected. Or better yet, it
> locks the brakes. Luddite UH

The softer, persuasive approach: your mobile internet is reallllyyyy
slow until you buckle up, and your phone calls get dropped.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

The machine has already improved safety dramatically, so why not let it
take the next step? Currently, we surrender our safety to the other
driver, and even the best driver can be clobbered the worst one. I'm
looking forward to self-driving motorhomes, so I can ride in the back
with a nice Merlot while keeping up on RAS!

Dan Marotta wrote, On 2/5/2014 4:51 PM:
> Luddite - one who fears new technology. I don't fear it, I just think
> some of it is ridiculous. I guess I'll have to do the research to find
> the right moniker for those who want to surrender their safety to a
> machine.
>
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 6:16:07 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:39:14 PM UTC-6, Bob wrote: > On
>> Wednesday, February 5, 2014 10:50:25 AM UTC-5,
>> wrote: > > > News article about vehicle to vehicle communications to
>> avoid accidents. Pretty much the same concept as Flarm. > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/02/04/what-happens-when-cars-talk-to-each-other/
>> > > > > Gee wiz accidents won't be the drivers fault any more. The
>> OEM's will bear the liability. That's the kind of logic that just
>> about ended General Aviation. > > Imagine what the product liability
>> will contribute to the cost of the vehicle. > > > > Bob To all the
>> luddites commenting in this thread: I can easily imagine hundreds or
>> thousands of people not killed each year (including potentially your
>> children and family members ) because of the proposed technology. Is
>> that a bad thing? Most likely the collision warning will be
>> accompanied by cutting the car's throttle and applying brakes, perhaps
>> even putting pressure on the steering to avoid danger. I look forward
>> to car-Flarm. Herb
>
> I look forward to it if it is interlocked so that it is not functional
> if the safety belts aren't connected. Or better yet, it locks the brakes.
> Luddite UH


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Craig R.]

Not to worry... the NSA will be monitoring your movements and will keep you an honest citizen... like issuing you tickets for rolling stops, 3 MPH over the speed limit, or leaving the sports bar after rooting for Denver! (and having a couple of beers to drown your sorrows).

[Dan Marotta]

Just put it on Cruise Control and head aft...


"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> The machine has already improved safety dramatically, so why not let it
> take the next step? Currently, we surrender our safety to the other
> driver, and even the best driver can be clobbered the worst one. I'm
> looking forward to self-driving motorhomes, so I can ride in the back with
> a nice Merlot while keeping up on RAS!
>
> Dan Marotta wrote, On 2/5/2014 4:51 PM:
>> Luddite - one who fears new technology. I don't fear it, I just think
>> some of it is ridiculous. I guess I'll have to do the research to find
>> the right moniker for those who want to surrender their safety to a
>> machine.
>>
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 6:16:07 PM UTC-5,
>> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:39:14 PM UTC-6, Bob wrote: > On
>>> Wednesday, February 5, 2014 10:50:25 AM UTC-5,
>>> wrote: > > > News article about vehicle to vehicle communications to
>>> avoid accidents. Pretty much the same concept as Flarm. > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/02/04/what-happens-when-cars-talk-to-each-other/
>>> > > > > Gee wiz accidents won't be the drivers fault any more. The
>>> OEM's will bear the liability. That's the kind of logic that just
>>> about ended General Aviation. > > Imagine what the product liability
>>> will contribute to the cost of the vehicle. > > > > Bob To all the
>>> luddites commenting in this thread: I can easily imagine hundreds or
>>> thousands of people not killed each year (including potentially your
>>> children and family members ) because of the proposed technology. Is
>>> that a bad thing? Most likely the collision warning will be
>>> accompanied by cutting the car's throttle and applying brakes, perhaps
>>> even putting pressure on the steering to avoid danger. I look forward
>>> to car-Flarm. Herb
>>
>> I look forward to it if it is interlocked so that it is not functional
>> if the safety belts aren't connected. Or better yet, it locks the brakes.
>> Luddite UH
>
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email
> me)

[Dan Marotta]

You shouldn't say "rooting". There are Aussies reading this group.


"Craig R." > wrote in message
...
Not to worry... the NSA will be monitoring your movements and will keep you
an honest citizen... like issuing you tickets for rolling stops, 3 MPH over
the speed limit, or leaving the sports bar after rooting for Denver! (and
having a couple of beers to drown your sorrows).

[Soartech]

wrote:

> Almost all the promoting videos show collisions when running red lights, It isn't clear to me how this will stop those accidents.
>
> Skeptic
>
> UH

I read how this works in an industry electronics mag. The GPS knows you are approaching a traffic light and the device checks the (smart) traffic light status (via a radio link). It knows you have a green light. Next it scans the signals from all cars in the area. They should be stopped or slowing if they have a red light. If they are not, your brakes are applied as you approach the intersection and the device alerts you that someone is "running the light"!

[Dan Marotta]

How come the violator's brakes aren't applied, instead? Or maybe a bolt of
energy from your forward phasors could simply disable the offending vehicle.


"Soartech" > wrote in message
...
wrote:

> Almost all the promoting videos show collisions when running red lights,
> It isn't clear to me how this will stop those accidents.
>
> Skeptic
>
> UH

I read how this works in an industry electronics mag. The GPS knows you are
approaching a traffic light and the device checks the (smart) traffic light
status (via a radio link). It knows you have a green light. Next it scans
the signals from all cars in the area. They should be stopped or slowing if
they have a red light. If they are not, your brakes are applied as you
approach the intersection and the device alerts you that someone is "running
the light"!

[Soartech]

On Friday, February 7, 2014 12:04:33 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> How come the violator's brakes aren't applied, instead?
That is a good question. I assume the driver will be able to overide the system if they want to. Most drivers will still want their autonomy some of the time. At least until this is widely accepted.
But I agree with you. No matter what, the system should prevent running red lights.

[Casey Cox]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQfwe6lANrs