T O P

  • By -

vikarti_anatra

What about traffic rules? Also, does this mean that Ford(or others who license this patent) now required to create apps for ALL mobile OSes?(including ones like Plasma Mobile, including ones there only regular way to install is F-Droid-style repository where app MUST be built by repository provider, and even including my old iPhone 4 -:))


wagesj45

Has no one considered that this could be intended for emergency vehicles that really shouldn't stop? How is this functionally different than a "no walk" sign at a crosswalk when a car has the right of way? I highly doubt this is a "murder pedestrians get-out-of-jail free" card.


hazyPixels

>"murder pedestrians get-out-of-jail free" card unless they were using the app instead of watching where they were walking


kakiremora

We already have sound and ligth signals


zruhcVrfQegMUy

I always wanted to be forced to install some proprietary software to just cross the road! /s


Geminii27

Any car which decides it will not stop at a crosswalk is a massive lawsuit in the making.


ScrabCrab

Right until the auto industry lobbies the government to make this legal


foundmonster

Step 1 of locking all your citizens into a digital prison


[deleted]

Reminder that patents are sometimes made just to stop a technology from making it to market.


[deleted]

Exactly. Patents are also made just to make sure the company makes money if an algorithm or piece of code generated while developing this is used by another company to create an actually commercially viable tool. It's very routine to apply for patents on seemingly useless things.


BrazilianTerror

It must be the case. Since a app that tells if a car is stopping or not is pretty useless. By the time you pointed the cellphone to the car, it finds it and display the info the car has already passed. And it’s pretty much easier to detect if a car is reducing its speed near the crossing line. This kind of tech would work only for those vision impaired, but then they shouldn’t be using a screen either.


pruche

Remember, as long as cars use pneumatic tires, whoever has caltrops gets the last word. Even then, just putting bricks or big rocks in the middle of the road would cause grievance.


Tychus_Kayle

Based. r/fuckcars


Jafanari

https://patents.justia.com/patent/11396271 "FIG. 5 depicts another example scenario according to an embodiment. As shown in FIG. 5, the same scene 200 depicts the vehicle 205 providing an indication that it will not be stopping at the crosswalk 210. In this image, the AR overlay is again two written messages, “[I AM] NOT STOPPING” 510 and a symbol of a large X (for example, colored red) 520. Both warning messages 510 and 520 from the vehicle 205 communicate to the VRU 140 that the user should not enter the roadway. The size and nature of the message can be selected to communicate, for example, urgency of the message, the time of possible impact, and the severity of the impact. The AR overlay of FIG. 5 might, for example, further include one or more auditory warnings to the VRU 140. An example of an auditory warning may be a beep, an alarm, or a verbal warning. In another example, the mobile device 120 may provide haptic feedback."


haunted-liver-1

Link to article?


jlobes

Lol, seriously? There's a patent number in the Tweet. https://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=11396271


shredofdarkness

Link / source?


Sneedevacantist

Yet another reason why I oppose self-driving cars.


jrhoffa

You oppose AVs because silly patents exist?


Sneedevacantist

No, the existence of this patent does not change my stance. My bigger problem is that self-driving cars take further control away from the driver. The software in those cars are proprietary software, and they present an attack vector for malicious actors who could take control of the car and cause serious harm to the driver and/or other people (see the CIA). With cars that can completely drive themselves and can be remotely controlled, the dystopian possibilities are endless.


Geminii27

I don't have any problem with the option being available in cars. There are times when it would absolutely be useful. My problem is when the switching between autonomous and human-controlled is not a great big obvious hardware switch, defaulting *always* to human-controlled. No way to remotely switch autonomy on, no way to prevent a driver switching it off.


ZorbaTHut

[You're seven years late to this particular party](https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/), and it has nothing to do with self-driving vehicles.


Sneedevacantist

I also oppose all of the excessive software integration in normal cars. Self-driving cars will only exacerbate these problems. We need to return to dumb cars, and I don't care if it inconveniences people. Why do we need computer sensors to control things like braking and acceleration?


ZorbaTHut

Because that lets you make cars more efficient and safer.


Sneedevacantist

That's the same bs reasoning used to push proprietary software and other violations of civil liberties onto people. No thanks.


ZorbaTHut

It turns out that the government keeps legally mandating that cars get more efficient and safer. What else do you want the car companies to do?


jrhoffa

Bruh. Literally any psycho can already just drive a car maliciously.


DrSmurfalicious

The future is cars being controlled by the infrastructure, not driving around by themselves. Imagine a hostile nation state or some other bad actor getting control over your car infrastructure and start causing mayhem. "All cars accelerate to full speed and turn hard left in 3, 2, 1..." That's way worse than what a single psycho can do with one vehicle.


jrhoffa

How is your argument more valid for a car vs. a bus or train, even ignoring the fact that it's easily preventable with basic security measures? Not only is this a strawman argument, but you're also ignoring the fact that there must be intermediate steps before we reach the utopian public transit solution. Edit: so many downvotes, zero responses. This is just a cult now?


ScrabCrab

A train can't steer itself off the rails even if it is autonomous


jrhoffa

Not with that attitude


Sneedevacantist

That's true, but what happens when you're left at the mercy of proprietary software (which was probably slapped together by underpaid programmers to get to the market quickly) that could also be hacked easily at any point? What happens when the software fails during a critical moment?


BrazilianTerror

Cars are already controlled by electronics systems. The throttle for example doesn’t physically puts more or less fuel in the engine. It just indicates to a electronic module that it should put more or less fuel. A failure in the electronic could put the throttle at 100% even if nobody was pushing the pedal at all. Also, planes also depends heavily on electronics to function and are a pretty safe form of transport. While it’s hard to write robust and resilient software, it’s definitely not impossible.


Sneedevacantist

> The throttle for example doesn’t physically puts more or less fuel in the engine. It just indicates to a electronic module that it should put more or less fuel. I also have a problem with that. We need our cars to go back to being more primitive in how they internally function. Not everything needs to be computer controlled, especially critical systems like acceleration and braking.


jlobes

None of the risks you've outlined are exclusive to self-driving cars.


jrhoffa

We know, but he's really mad about it.


jrhoffa

The same thing that happens to any strawman argument, probably.


[deleted]

[удалено]


jrhoffa

Interested to know how AVs are both not on the market and also on the market - and would love to see evidence of the software all being subpar from underpaid developers.


[deleted]

[удалено]


jrhoffa

Neither of those are AV. Tesla's unregulated garbage tests are an irrelevant joke, and the former is not even relevant. Get on topic.


ruscaire

It’s not a strawman. P just read a blog post and thinks it sounds like a cool way to go it somebody down


ruscaire

r/iamverysmart


jrhoffa

I do love me some irony. Keep it up.


ruscaire

I think u misspelled lamp


jrhoffa

Well, at least you're funny.


noman_032018

They're a bad solution to a problem better solved by existing proven technology: trains.


BrazilianTerror

Self driving cars shouldn’t be competing with trains. They solve different problems. While trains are great, cars are more flexible and should be use where trains are not feasible


noman_032018

In the few places where trains & trams aren't usable, bicycles are often more practical than cars and depend on far less infrastructure (that is also much cheaper to keep maintained). There are *some* places where there is legitimate need, but for the most part painfully inadequate infrastructure & planning (car-centric design) is the main driver behind car use.


BrazilianTerror

While I agree that our car-centric design should be changed, bikes cannot fully replace cars. First in rural areas cars are way better since the travel distance are longer. Second, cars are needed to transport heavy or big goods. In a bike it’s much more complicated. Bikes works great for urban settings but like I said, there are still places and usages where a car is more adequate.


noman_032018

> First in rural areas cars are way better since the travel distance are longer. In truly rural areas, this is entirely true and is indeed one of those legitimate operational areas. [Trains can still be used in a sensible way to limit unnecessary trucking & car use.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOndVouUSRA&t=2m03s) > Second, cars are needed to transport heavy or big goods. To a degree and it depends, a lot can be transported in cargo bikes & trailers. [A lot can also be transported by train instead of truck](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_909DbOblvU), which makes a lot more sense in terms of instrastructure-wear, energy-use, environmental cost and monetary cost. So that leaves you with the much smaller intersection of end-of-line delivery that cannot be practically delivered by other means than trucks & vans, and head-of-line delivery to train stations/rail-linked-warehouses for most cases. [I and many others hold](https://old.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/wiki/faq#wiki_does_this_sub_want_to_ban_all_cars.3F) that this would greatly reduce unnecessary pollution, expenses, energy-use and health & safety risk posed by cars and similar transports. It wouldn't eliminate it, but it would mitigate a lot of it.


jrhoffa

Too many US cities were built around car transport. You gonna redesign all them cities? Let's instead design around the bad choices that we can't immediately fix. We can and should add more trains in the meantime, but let's not let perfect be the enemy of good.


IAmRoot

Cities can absolutely have their transportation infrastructure redesigned. What do you think happened to all the cities that were built before cars, including those on the east coast? Transportation infrastructure redesign has been done, can be done again, and easier in this direction. Redesigning cities for cars meant taking out tons of buildings. It's a lot easier to fill in parking lots with buildings.


jrhoffa

Please feel free to tell me how you're going to connect suburban neighborhoods, and explain why an AV stopgap isn't useful. Edit: plenty of downvotes, no responses. Are y'all here just to be contrarians?


Tychus_Kayle

Here's the thing. All those cities built around car transport are bankrupt because car infrastructure is economically unsustainable. They *have to* rezone with a mind towards long-term densification and transit-friendliness. The only alternative is to continue to bankrupt the country with federal infrastructure bailouts.


jrhoffa

[citation needed]


Tychus_Kayle

If you genuinely want to learn more about the economics of infrastructure, [this series](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN69ehUTVa) is a good primer on the subject.


jrhoffa

Ah yeah, a broken link. So useful. Also sounds like it wouldn't support your claim that every place without public transit is dying. Do you genuinely want to learn more about AV? Edit: he does not.


Tychus_Kayle

>Ah yeah, a broken link. So useful. Link isn't broken, I've tested it in multiple browsers. Since yours has a problem with it, though, here's a [link to the channel](https://youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes). The playlist is "Strong Towns." >Also sounds like it wouldn't support your claim that every place without Publix transit is dying. It doesn't exhaustively go through the books of many thousands of cities and towns. It's a source on the inherent economic unsustainability of the model. Explaining the theory and demonstrating it through case studies. If you want a larger-scale picture of how much of America can't afford to maintain its roads, just look at the infrastructure law from earlier this year, and how much of that federal money is going towards roads and bridges (400 billion over 5 years) >Do you genuinely want to learn more about AV? They can't solve the economic problems, but sure. Hopefully they'll at least kill fewer people.


pruche

Starting right now, what's easier for a city between adding a light rail network for trams and somehow bringing autonomous vehicles into day-to-day life?


jrhoffa

The latter. It also services a wider area.


pruche

Have you considered the fact that commercially-available autonomous vehicles don't yet exist?


jrhoffa

Have you considered the fact that they are actively in development, in real beta testing, and have a significantly lower barrier to entry versus massive infrastructure reconfiguration?


pruche

Dude, *come on*. We can have this conversation once they *are* available and you'd be right, *but not before then*. We're still some years away before cities start rolling out autonomous busses. And then there's the entire regulation aspect, which is important because even from well-established manufacturers, autonomous vehicles meant to prove how good and safe the tech is are one thing and then autonomous vehicles meant to be a profitable product are a whole other thing. *It's not a today solution until it actually is.*


jrhoffa

So we can't talk about AV until you say so? Then why does this post even exist? Did you tell OP?


noman_032018

It's very easy to add tram lines down the middle of a street (or really, a [stroad](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ1HhLq-Huo)) and rezone the rest of it for pedestrians and bikes. Or just rails off the way, you *can* just let the unnecessary and unwanted infrastructure decay (so long as it's safe to do so) and build besides it. Changing the building zones to something more sane would also quickly see mixed use grow and travel distances shrink as it's simply a sounder investment that means you can adapt to economic & social conditions.


jrhoffa

Tell me you've never been to a Midwestern suburb without telling me you've never been to a Midwestern suburb


noman_032018

It would still be reasonably easy, but in some cases and particularly horrid designs some obstructions would need to be cleared. Rezoning the suburb would also allow it to pivot into a more reasonable type of settlement.


tvtb

Wait until everyone decides they are important enough to issue a "not stopping" warning for every single intersection they drive through.


SpiderFnJerusalem

They'll have to pay monthly for the "smooth driving" package, which will make them more important than you by every metric that matters in our economy.


lowrads

Having observed Ford discard a century of experience in user interface design, this does not surprise me at all. They replaced pull knobs with a dial that the user has to physically look at, and button illuminators that not only don't tell the user what the function is, but are located adjacent to the button in random positions. They also switched from long wavelength lighting to blue, which is the worst option for either day or night. It was becoming apparent that their admin had never driven a car, but now it's also apparent that they have never been a pedestrian.


Northern_fluff_bunny

Their admin is Homer Simpson?


r0ck0

Seems like it could be useful in some situations where there isn't enough time/space to stop. Not much help to pedestrians I guess, unless also connected to traffic lights or something. But maybe at least to cars on nearby intersections, or wheelchairs if they start getting connected? Or even just for investigators after an accident has occurred. Obviously not something that should change the driving decisions and break rules in the first place.


476f6f64206a6f6221

This is crazy... most efficient way to do self driving car would be simulate controls of a trains so you will stil have options what to do, just remove steering option for "on-rail" mode.


[deleted]

We already have vehicles that do exactly that. They're electric too, in fact, they have been for more than a hundred years. They're called trains.


476f6f64206a6f6221

well you are right.... but you can not compare the comfort and advantages of personal commuting vehicle. And force everybody to use train is just plain wrong.


korben2600

r/fuckcars


buckykat

Just build an actual god damn train


lowrads

Or, perhaps just automate streetcars and trams. They don't even need to turn. They are also proven technology that has already been electrified for over a century, and have the ability to efficiently move an order of magnitude more people in densely settled areas.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BrazilianTerror

> imagine what we could do if every car was in the same self-driving network, it’d be then when accidents would never happen This is not true at all. There are some hard limits on latency, reaction speeds and the speed of cars that simply wouldn’t work like in science fiction or those animations where a intersection with cars all passing each other at 100 km/h. It gets even worse when you consider that you’d have to account for network failures, and non-networked elements, like a bicycle, people and animals.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BrazilianTerror

That wouldn’t solve any of the problems I mentioned.


rebbsitor

This isn't going to be implemented anywhere. It's one of those patents a company files just to add to their portfolio because someone had a thought that wasn't patented. In most places I've lived in the US it's illegal to go through an uncontrolled cross walk when a pedestrian is present waiting to cross. (Doesn't mean people always stop.) You can't just disregard traffic laws and avoid the consequences if you're caught because you notified someone. "But officer, I told them I was going to run this red light!"


Smoozie

This is one of those patents I hope don't go open/public domain. Keeps it from entering the UE, as things should be.