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

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Redbren, Mar 6, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Redbren

    Redbren Guest

    -----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-----
     
    Tags:


  2. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    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
     
  3. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    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
     
  4. John B

    John B Guest

    > 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
     
  5. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    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
     
  6. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

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

    You're right - probably be doing 70.

    Tony
     
  7. Frank

    Frank Guest

  8. W K

    W K Guest

    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)
     
  9. Tim Hall

    Tim Hall Guest

    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.
     
  10. Peter B

    Peter B Guest

    "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
     
  11. 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
     
  12. Allen Foster

    Allen Foster Guest

    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
     
  13. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    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
     
  14. > 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? ;-)
     
  15. Redbren

    Redbren Guest

    -----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-----
     
  16. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    > 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
     
  17. Ian Smith

    Ian Smith Guest

    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|
    |/ \|
     
  18. 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
     
  19. 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
     
  20. Tim Hall

    Tim Hall Guest

    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.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...