Design Con 2015
Breaking News
News & Analysis

Driver Assistance: Radar or Vision?

9/27/2013 08:45 AM EDT
46 comments
NO RATINGS
2 saves
Page 1 / 2 Next >
More Related Links
View Comments: Oldest First | Newest First | Threaded View
<<   <   Page 2 / 5   >   >>
Caleb Kraft
User Rank
Blogger
why so closed?
Caleb Kraft   9/27/2013 12:05:05 PM
I know this is jumping way off topic, but I can imagine that ideally the sensors your car would be using wouldn't necessarily be mounted ON the car. Once we could have the infrastructure updated it could be pulling from aerial cameras and other stationary devices that see the big picture. A pileup a mile in the distance could be registered and compensated for long before your bumper mounted radar could do anything.

I know it is just a fantasy, but just imagine if we could implement control systems like this one that controlls these quadcopters into our roadways!

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

chanj0
User Rank
CEO
Liability
chanj0   9/27/2013 12:39:08 PM
NO RATINGS
Vision technology has advanced enough to reliability detect lanes and to identify objects in front. Challenge is if the paint to separate lanes are consistently there.

I agree with the assessment. I do believe driver assistance shall be an hybrid of both vision and radar simply because measuring distance is not quite reliable using vision based system. Rather, radar is doing a good job.

With the ADAS, who's responsible to an accident in case it happens? ADAS can be giving out warning signal. The liability becomes obvious. The challenge is when ADAS is actually doing part of the job.

 

prabhakar_deosthali
User Rank
CEO
Re: why so closed?
prabhakar_deosthali   9/27/2013 12:52:24 PM
NO RATINGS
I also agree with the idea that the emphasis should be , putting whatever technology ( Vision /Radar)  into the road infrastructure rather than on every car. That will improve the reliability of the whole system because the infrastructure management can be done with much more efficiency than the individual cars. The problems of dirt/uneven painting of lanes can be circumvented by redundant sensors in the infrastructure.

And as @Caleb Craft is saying, the infrastructure can show a driver the "big picture"

junko.yoshida
User Rank
Blogger
Re: why so closed?
junko.yoshida   9/27/2013 12:53:00 PM
NO RATINGS
No, Caleb, it is NOT a fantasy. What you just described is a part of the Vehicle-to-Infrastructure scheme. 

But of course, there is always this pesky little issue of who is going to pay for that infrastructure.

Meanwhile, carmakers are moving on, trying to address the safety issue via arming their cars with sensors -- radar and vision both.

prabhakar_deosthali
User Rank
CEO
Re: why so closed?
prabhakar_deosthali   9/27/2013 1:02:41 PM
NO RATINGS
@Junko,

In my opinion the additional money a car owner will have to pay for such driver assistance features installed and to be maintained  in a car will be much higher than the expenditure to install a common driver assistance infrastruture.

 

krisi
User Rank
CEO
Re: why so closed?
krisi   9/27/2013 1:16:54 PM
I don't agree Prabhakar...in the long run perhaps...but for now there is no entity, corporation or government that could shell out billions of dollars needed to build the infrastructure so it needs to be done one driver at the time...Kris

Les_Slater
User Rank
CEO
Re: Radar IVI
Les_Slater   9/27/2013 4:08:50 PM
NO RATINGS
Don't know how present systems work, maybe interference is not such an issue with current level of deploiment. However, this can be pretty much avoided if pulse width is short, duty cycle is sufficiently low and and pulse timing is random. There will be sufficient consistancy in tracking objects that interference can be rejected.

Les_Slater
User Rank
CEO
Re: why so closed?
Les_Slater   9/27/2013 4:44:24 PM
Not only NOT a fantasy, but could happen faster than we might expect. There is comercial incentive to make vehicles, and their passengers, including driver, more connected to the web. It's just one more step to integrate driver assistance. With real time vehicle information sent to some sort of cellular network, the network could be sending heads up info back. The vehicles would still have a high level of autonomous responsibilty but would not be so blind to a larger picture. Fixed sensors could be later integrated.

Bert22306
User Rank
CEO
Both have a place
Bert22306   9/27/2013 4:50:18 PM
NO RATINGS
It's all RF, so really we're talking about advantages of different ranges of wavelengths. If you want to read road signs, you can't do that with radar. If you want to see through thick fog, the optical spectrum becomes less than ideal. If you need to difrerentiate between cars clustered close together, say waiting at an inrsection, again radar might not be so good. Each car will look like a blob, and blobs will tend to blend together.

Also, not to be ignored is radiation hazard. I would caution against the notion that radar will be very long range. The last thing we need is to be bombarded with focused radar beam radiation the instant we get behind the wheel. Imagine traveling along a busy interstate with all cars around training radar beams at you, at short range. Or at stop lights. This will need to be carefully worked out.

Bert22306
User Rank
CEO
Re: Both have a place
Bert22306   9/27/2013 4:51:05 PM
NO RATINGS
I meant, it's all E&M. Not all RF. Sorry.

<<   <   Page 2 / 5   >   >>
Flash Poll
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Top Comments of the Week