You are right so my point is, if the car manufacturer itself designs ADAS it may tend to reduce the overall price of the car, that's why I was asking about Mitsubishi as that is the alone company who is in electronic system development along with car manufacturing.
The local automobile manufacturer have a lot of influence on the local laws. Eg emission rules are very everywhere. But i agree that extra technology or gadgets are going to increase the overall ownership cost of the vehicle.
We already have a lot of vision assistance in vehicles eg reverse, side parking. Radar or any other system which can detect the collision trajectory of other vehicle/human much in advance or take action will be greately helpful.
Indeed, as jaybus0 stated, an infrastructure system is a huge public works project involving multiple government entities. Even if funding could be procured -- a highly questionable proposition -- the high cost & long schedule would not bode well for improving driving safety any time soon. It is far more effective to deploy safety systems on the vehicles themselves.
Radar is more real-time with less computational processing
Vision is more reactive and require computational grunt.
Personally, i take both! That's this field of data sensing call data fusion, if you want to reduce uncertainties and improve measurement confidences. You want both. Along with GPS, inertial, wheel RPM measurements i.e dead reckoning. Otherwise, it's not complete to me.
Given that most signs (in the US anyway) are standardized (think STOP signs) it should be an easy task for vision to pick them out (even in poor visibilty conditions - snow covered stop sign) and alert the driver. Even with a low quality GPS system I was made aware of both my speed and the "posted speed limit" in almost real time. If GPS was improved and kept up to date on speeds and hazzards then GPS would be a very easy way to be more road aware. That said, having driven a rental car with back up vision assist and blind side (and back up) radar I loved it! I would be willing to pay more for my next car with those features, esp. given my new / young drivers in the family.
I disagree, Prabhakar. An infrastructure system would require involving numerous local governments, state/province governments, and national governments all working tofether. I believe the bureaucratic monster would ensure that we end with only half of an infrastructure and the side roads where many accidents happen would not be covered. I believe the divide and conquer method of deploying onboard systems at least ensures that it will be fully functional for some and eventually fully functional for everyone. The monumental task approach is more likely to half way work for everyone and be fully functional for no one.
Blog That A-Ha Moment Larry Desjardin 10 comments Have you ever had an a-ha moment? Sure, you have. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as "a moment of sudden realization, inspiration, insight, recognition, or ...