Car Radar - An excuse for excess speed in the fog?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

I read the following article in The Guardian about a new radar warning device that can give
motorists advance warning of hazards before they become visible due to fog/rain/darkness.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,908194,00.html

Although this device can pick out a lorry at 30 metres, it will only spot a cyclist or pedestrian at
10m. That's only 1m more than the "thinking distance" for a car travelling at 30mph! (source -
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#105 )

What concerns me most is that motorists who use this device are going to compensate for a perceived
drop in risk and accident rates are going to rocket. How would an excuse of "My car didn't warn me
in time" stand up in court?

- --

RedBren www.stainbeck.net "A ray of bitter sunshine." - Scott Adams -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0

iQA/AwUBPmfgU4T+w6qfb3OeEQL5OwCg8B4+fS/XBwJVGKCSxV1pYDwuAYYAn3YY HE+LTayFoo3WAHvLy2O1oymr =K3RK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:57:09 -0000, "RedBren" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I read the following article in The Guardian about a new radar warning device that can give
>motorists advance warning of hazards before they become visible due to fog/rain/darkness.

>http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,908194,00.html

Completely stupid idea. The article contains the following simple truth:

"About 68% of all accidents can be traced to drivers' inattention..."

Obviously the device would make drivers even less attentive, and when something entered the control
zone in front of the vehicle from the side, we could expect inattentive drivers not to notice it
coming, they wouldn't make the required adjustment and the system would respond too late.

Accidents would go up.

>Although this device can pick out a lorry at 30 metres, it will only spot a cyclist or pedestrian
>at 10m. That's only 1m more than the "thinking distance" for a car travelling at 30mph! (source -
>http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#105 )

>What concerns me most is that motorists who use this device are going to compensate for a perceived
>drop in risk and accident rates are going to rocket. How would an excuse of "My car didn't warn me
>in time" stand up in court?

Thankfully the courts would know it was rubbish. Shame the marketing men aren't so smart.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

 

RedBren scribbled:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>
> I read the following article in The Guardian about a new radar warning device that can give
> motorists advance warning of hazards before they become visible due to fog/rain/darkness.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,908194,00.html

I think the majority of reasonable car drivers would think this is a wate of time .. good idea but
impractical in use ..

> Although this device can pick out a lorry at 30 metres, it will only spot a cyclist or pedestrian
> at 10m. That's only 1m more than the "thinking distance" for a car travelling at 30mph! (source -
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#105 )

If the fog is that thick then most reasonable drivers wouldn't be going
30.

> What concerns me most is that motorists who use this device are going to compensate for a
> perceived drop in risk and accident rates are going to rocket. How would an excuse of "My car
> didn't warn me in time" stand up in court?

I think the courts aren't that stupid .. Some drivers may be, but not many I reckon ..

--

My house is FOR SALE ... http://tinyurl.com/69r0

 

> RedBren scribbled:
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
> >
> > I read the following article in The Guardian about a new radar warning device that can give
> > motorists advance warning of hazards before they become visible due to fog/rain/darkness.
> >
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,908194,00.html
>
> I think the majority of reasonable car drivers would think this is a wate of time ..

So it will fly off the shelves then ;-)

Who's the Inverness agent I wonder.

John B

 

John B scribbled:

>
>> RedBren scribbled:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> I read the following article in The Guardian about a new radar warning device that can give
>>> motorists advance warning of hazards before they become visible due to fog/rain/darkness.
>>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,908194,00.html
>>
>> I think the majority of reasonable car drivers would think this is a wate of time ..
>
> So it will fly off the shelves then ;-)
>
> Who's the Inverness agent I wonder.

Heheheh, what frightened me about this report was that it appeared to suggest the brakes would or
could be applied automatically by the radar sensor picking up an apparent image. I may be a tad
old-fashioned, but something that brakes for me .. just a little too imprecise I think and taking
far too much control away from the driver.

--

My house is FOR SALE ... http://tinyurl.com/69r0

 

> If the fog is that thick then most reasonable drivers wouldn't be going
> 30.
>

You're right - probably be doing 70.

Tony

 

"RedBren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> How would an excuse of "My car didn't warn me in time" stand up in court?
>

Not guilty, could have hapened to anyone.

 

news:[email protected]...

> Heheheh, what frightened me about this report was that it appeared to suggest the brakes would or
> could be applied automatically by the radar sensor picking up an apparent image. I may be a tad
> old-fashioned, but something that brakes for me .. just a little too imprecise I think and taking
> far too much control away from the driver.

Ace. All we'd need would be chaff delivery systems.

(chaff - small pieces of radar reflective materials such as al foil made into confetti, used in war
to confuse the enemy)

 

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:00:38 +0000 (UTC), "W K" <[email protected]> wrote:

>

>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> Heheheh, what frightened me about this report was that it appeared to suggest the brakes would or
>> could be applied automatically by the radar sensor picking up an apparent image. I may be a tad
>> old-fashioned, but something that brakes for me .. just a little too imprecise I think and taking
>> far too much control away from the driver.
>
>Ace. All we'd need would be chaff delivery systems.
>
>(chaff - small pieces of radar reflective materials such as al foil made into confetti, used in war
>to confuse the enemy)

I think you're onto something here. Modified Air Zound as propulsion unit, pack chaff into old loo
rolls. Hmm, what band radar is it?

Tim
--

fast and gripping, non pompous, glossy and credible.

 

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> >
> > If the fog is that thick then most reasonable drivers wouldn't be going
> > 30.
> >
>
> You're right - probably be doing 70.

Only the ones with Red Protective Cocoon high intensity rear lights switched on. Front fog lights
would of course be held in reserve for urban areas during night time rain showers where their Powers
Of Dazzle could be demonstrated to best effect.

Pete

 

On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:57:09 -0000, "RedBren" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>
>I read the following article in The Guardian about a new radar warning device that can give
>motorists advance warning of hazards before they become visible due to fog/rain/darkness.
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,908194,00.html

I dont think this will be allowed in the UK as 24GHz (the operating Frequency) is too close to the
23GHz communications band used for point to point radio systems throughtout the country. These
systems are normally used to send the signals from mobile phone masts back to the nearest
telephone exchange. If cars start zapping 24GHz signals everywhere, then it will bring down the
mobile phone network.

I will stop now as this is getting too close to the day job...

John "Radar" Tomlinson Remove the singers of Spam before replying

 

It will hardly interfere with point to point comms at 23GHz, microwave links at this frequency
are highly directional. The beams from the car radar are also highly focused with limited power,
the cars won't be zapping 24Ghz everywhere, Rf engineers know what they're doing, most of the
time at least.

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:50:50 +0000 (UTC), John Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:57:09 -0000, "RedBren" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>>
>>I read the following article in The Guardian about a new radar warning device that can give
>>motorists advance warning of hazards before they become visible due to fog/rain/darkness.
>>
>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,908194,00.html
>
>
>I dont think this will be allowed in the UK as 24GHz (the operating Frequency) is too close to the
>23GHz communications band used for point to point radio systems throughtout the country. These
>systems are normally used to send the signals from mobile phone masts back to the nearest
>telephone exchange. If cars start zapping 24GHz signals everywhere, then it will bring down the
>mobile phone network.
>
>I will stop now as this is getting too close to the day job...
>
>John "Radar" Tomlinson Remove the singers of Spam before replying

 

John Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I dont think this will be allowed in the UK as 24GHz (the operating Frequency) is too close to the
> 23GHz communications band used for point to point radio systems throughtout the country. These
> systems are normally used to send the signals from mobile phone masts back to the nearest
> telephone exchange. If cars start zapping 24GHz signals everywhere, then it will bring down the
> mobile phone network.
>
> I will stop now as this is getting too close to the day job...
>

Surely even crude filtering could discrimate between 23 and 24GHz

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"I don't want any yes-men around me. I want everybody to tell me the truth even if it costs them
their job."

Samuel Goldwyn

 

> RedBren scribbled:
time .. good idea but impractical in use ..
>
>> Although this device can pick out a lorry at 30 metres, it will only spot a cyclist or pedestrian
>> at 10m. That's only 1m more than the "thinking distance" for a car travelling at 30mph! (source -
>> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#105 )
>
> If the fog is that thick then most reasonable drivers wouldn't be going
> 30.

I don't think I'll ever forget the time I spent in Germany. Now there's a place for serious fog. Fog
so dense you cannot see across a 2-lane mountain road. Fog that was so dense when I was trying to
drive my wife to the hospital when my daughter was being born that I couldn't find the car in the
parking lot except by touch, and when I fired it up I couldn't see beyond the hood. A place where
even ultra-serious churchgoers feel justified in staying abed on a Sunday morning due to fog.

And in that dense fog on that two lane twisty road in the Hartz Mountains, where I standing on the
shoulder couldn't see across, they were coming down that road at over 100km/hr. In that dense fog on
the Autobahns they have 120 car pileups where the drivers crash into the pile at 160km/hr.

Now, what was that about reasonable drivers? ;-)

 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

news:[email protected]...
> John B scribbled:
>

> >
> >> RedBren scribbled:
> >>
> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
> >>>
> >>> I read the following article in The Guardian about a new radar warning device that can give
> >>> motorists advance warning of hazards before they become visible due to fog/rain/darkness.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,908194,00.html
> >>
> >> I think the majority of reasonable car drivers would think this is a wate of time ..
> >
> > So it will fly off the shelves then ;-)
> >
> > Who's the Inverness agent I wonder.
>
> Heheheh, what frightened me about this report was that it appeared to suggest the brakes would or
> could be applied automatically by the radar sensor picking up an apparent image. I may be a tad
> old-fashioned, but something that brakes for me .. just a little too imprecise I think and taking
> far too much control away from the driver.
>
It could be the start of "drive by wire" - if the car doesn't like what the driver is doing it, will
take over. Hmm, a car with an instinct for self-preservation? I think I watched too much Knight
Rider in the eighties


- --

RedBren www.stainbeck.net "A ray of bitter sunshine." - Scott Adams -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0

iQA/AwUBPmk+R4T+w6qfb3OeEQIxVACgx42wNzzgPcV9vNYR21rkJtgo3vEAoN78 3PD1AibJ++OfzIgS6SIwK6P2
=4l6V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

> Heheheh, what frightened me about this report was that it appeared to suggest the brakes would or
> could be applied automatically by the radar sensor picking up an apparent image. I may be a tad
> old-fashioned, but something that brakes for me .. just a little too imprecise I think and taking
> far too much control away from the driver.

Sounds a great idea to me, taking control from the driver. That's what the airline industry did
after realising that the main cause of accidents was human error not mechanical or system failure.
So now from take off to landing the pilots hardly touch the controls.

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"I don't want any yes-men around me. I want everybody to tell me the truth even if it costs them
their job."

Samuel Goldwyn

 

On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, RedBren <[email protected]> wrote:

> It could be the start of "drive by wire" - if the car doesn't like what the driver is doing it,
> will take over. Hmm, a car with an instinct for self-preservation? I think I watched too much
> Knight Rider in the eighties

It's not the start. The big BMWs have fly-by-wire throttle, since there's sufficient torque in teh
engine to lock the drive wheels if you lift off the throttle too fast. The latest Mercs and
something else have fly-by-wire brakes because if you brake more abruptly than normal they guess you
are heading for a collsion and brake as hard as teh car can take. These are just developments of
anti-lock brakes and traction control which are all over the place.

I've also a vague recollection of something that does gear changes without much of a clutch by means
of matching engine speed and gearbox speed, but I'm not sure if that's a production car or not.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:18:01 -0000, "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Surely even crude filtering could discrimate between 23 and 24GHz
>
>Tony

The 23GHz band stops at 23.6GHz then the 26G band starts at 24.5GHz. It all depends on how wide the
24GHz radar signal is really. Also both bands can be used to transmit 311Mbits/s in 56MHz - so they
are using high level modulation schemes which are very sensitive to interference. Sorry, this
getting off topic and is all gipperish.

I also suspect that the telecoms industry would like to increase the width of both bands if/when 3rd
gen mobile finally happens

John T.

If anyone is really interested, the UK radio ragulations they are here
http://www.radio.gov.uk/publication/interface/word-pdf/rir2000.pdf

Remove the singers of Spam before replying

 

In message <[email protected]>, Steve Palincsar <[email protected]> writes
>And in that dense fog on that two lane twisty road in the Hartz Mountains
Where were you in the Harz? I spent two years in Goslar.
--
Michael MacClancy

 

On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 17:55:12 +0000, Tim Hall <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:00:38 +0000 (UTC), "W K" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>

>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>> Heheheh, what frightened me about this report was that it appeared to suggest the brakes would
>>> or could be applied automatically by the radar sensor picking up an apparent image. I may be a
>>> tad old-fashioned, but something that brakes for me .. just a little too imprecise I think and
>>> taking far too much control away from the driver.
>>
>>Ace. All we'd need would be chaff delivery systems.
>>
>>(chaff - small pieces of radar reflective materials such as al foil made into confetti, used in
>>war to confuse the enemy)
>
>
>I think you're onto something here. Modified Air Zound as propulsion unit, pack chaff into old loo
>rolls. Hmm, what band radar is it?

And having found it's 24GHz that suggests a 12.5mm wavelength, so half is 6.25mm, or a quarter of
an inch. I've gone away from the AirZound idea in favour of a party popper re packed with hand
snipped tin foil.

Tim
--

fast and gripping, non pompous, glossy and credible.