Hyundai’s 2015 Genesis will automatically brake for speed cameras

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/185365-hyundais-2015-genesis-will-automatically-brake-for-speed-cameras-awesome-or-a-terrifying-misuse-of-technology

by bane • 12 years ago

51 55 12 years ago

extremetech.com

sb23• 12 years ago

This is going to confuse the hell out of people who buy it second hand in 10 years time, especially if the maps go out of date.

est• 12 years ago

Well to be honest I was expecting something more advanced, like a military grade LIDAR detector of optical lens & cams.

And some cams emit infareds so there are many means to detect them.

MrUnknown3• 12 years ago

Usually detecting them can be too late. They can clock your speed and take your picture extremely fast and work in a very focused area usually.

The detector would have to catch "Scatter" from it from cars going through it or whatever. Which, IR is emitted from many sources, so it couldn't be used as a reliable way to detect it.

Also, a lot of the triggers are by video cameras. If you have ever setup any basic home security system(Like Q-See), you can choose areas as "Triggers" for recording. The operators of the cameras basically draw out areas that act as trigger zones. See this as something of an example: http://rhythmtraffic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/WebUI.jp...

jcr2• 12 years ago

First, get past the obvious benefit of a seemingly unfair advantage for avoiding traffic tickets, such as reduced costs due to traffic fines or insurance premiums.

Then get past the obvious harm of a seemingly unfair advantage for avoiding traffic tickets, such as reduced freedom to drive "too fast" and reduced revenues for law enforcement budgets [1].

The end result of tech like this (including the ultimate step of speed governors preventing speeding) really seems to be all of us sharing safer roads, and fewer of us getting hurt or dying in traffic accidents.

This seems pretty good at first sight, but unfortunately, it leaves open one problematic question; if everyone drove at the speed limit (and fully stopped at stop signs/lights --feasible to enforce with tech), would there be fewer accidents?

Also, I wonder if there would be more or less traffic congestion?

[1] http://www.networkworld.com/article/2226966/opensource-subne...

hcarvalhoalves3• 12 years ago

This seems pretty good at first sight, but unfortunately, it leaves open one problematic question; if everyone drove at the speed limit (and fully stopped at stop signs/lights --feasible to enforce with tech), would there be fewer accidents?

Yes.

Why is that a problematic question in the first place? It's physics.

AnthonyMouse3• 12 years ago

Why is that a problematic question in the first place? It's physics.

It's not that simple. Example: Just before rush hour a significant number of cars get on the highway. If they travel at a lower rate of speed, fewer of them will have reached their destination as most businesses start to let out, which means there will be more cars on the highway rather than at their destination and therefore more traffic congestion. And traffic congestion is a primary cause of highway collisions.

manicdee3• 12 years ago

Ways to reduce congestion without altering roads, signs, traffic light cycles, or work hours: 1) Everyone drives slightly below the speed limit 2) Pick a lane and stick to it 3) Merge late

prawn3• 12 years ago

There's research showing that almost whatever you do (short of charging), congestion will remain the same. More roads makes for more drivers. More public transport takes cars off the road? Others will replace them due to the increased convenience.

softgrow2• 12 years ago

The odd thing is that once the automated/autonomous vehicles reach above the 10% level the consensus is (cant find a stellar ref but http://www.usfav.com/publications/TAVI_8-CapacityPinjari.pdf will do for a start) that we'll see marked improvements beyond 10% expected in

- less traffic congestion and increased roadway capacity beyond what can be obtained with human drivers

- 28% reduction in fuel usage on the whole fleet

- marked reduction in crashes beyond a 10% reduction expected

jcr2• 12 years ago

Thanks for the link to that white paper. I've skimmed the intro, and then skipped to the end for their conclusions. I'll read the whole thing later tonight, but as expected, the conclusion states itself to be speculative, without supporting data, and in need of more research. From the pdf:

"many experts speculate that the overall benefits outweigh the potential negative externalities."
"Additional research is necessary on a number of aspects related to AVs, including ..."

Like everyone, I really want to believe having more automated and autonomous vehicles on the road will result in fewer accidents, reduced congestion, and other benefits, but all we really have at the moment is (seemingly well reasoned) speculation since we lack supporting data. Until we have supporting data from repeatable experiments, whether the speculated benefits will both materialize outweigh the negative impacts should remain open questions. The open questions will get answered, eventually, but it will take a few decades and buying into the all the speculated hype at this early and unproven stage is harmful.

I guess I'd rather be cautiously optimistic until we have more useful and repeatable results.

thedrbrian• 12 years ago

On the one hand this is fucking terrifying on the other I'm off to tag everything with stupid speed limits. Five mph on the motorway and 70 outside schools.

Alupis2• 12 years ago

I can't locate it now, but there was an article I read somewhere that talked about the un-expected side-effects of speed cameras.

Was along the lines that people get used to where speed cameras are located (along their daily commute, etc), and either slow-down in that one particular area (positive effect), or slam on the brakes and cause accidents (negative effect). Both resulting in fewer traffic citations, andd causing the cost-to-maintain the cameras (often contracted to 3rd parties) to increase. Some cities in the Bay Area of California have removed the camera inside the boxes, stopped paying the contractor to maintain the cameras, and just left the metal enclosures in place -- with the same results.

(maybe hidden moral - humans are creatures of habit?)

kimba• 12 years ago

Stupid.

Speed cameras exist to stop idiots killing innocent people.

Yeah police profit. Who cares. They need all the help they can get with crystal meth literally turning a fair slice of the world into psycho zombies.

MrUnknown3• 12 years ago

Speed cameras solely exist to generate profit. A road can, and does, have speeders all day and not a single accident.

I'm still going to hit a person/car if they do something stupid on the road if I am speeding or not.

If you need any supporting facts that they are only for profit, there is more research in red-light cameras. They have shown that they can cause more accidents because people try to avoid going through the intersection "just in case" they don't make it all the way through and get a ticket. This causes aggressive braking and accidents. It also doesn't help that a lot of states will shorten the length of the Yellow light at these intersections to ensure more people will go through them. Yay for safety.

As for speeding cameras, my state recently took one down due to backlash because they installed a camera 100ft before a speed increase sign. The "tickets" (I quote that because they are usually fines, and not really tickets, and usually do not cause points to be put on your license if your state has that system) included a photograph of their car passing the new speed limit sign.

The state admitted no wrong doing, and believe it was a great spot to put the camera. If I remember correctly it was in a 25mph zone that went to 45mph. It would ticket cars upto the 45mph sign for going 30mph in a 25mph zone. While "technically" correct, it's pretty obvious the motivation of wanting to put it there.

edit: found it for you, http://www.wtop.com/58/3423357/Police-question-College-Park-...

YokoZar• 12 years ago

More directly, there are devices that have been shown to increase safety far better than speed cameras -- those electronic signs that ready your current speed back to you (and flash if it's too high).

cstross• 12 years ago

Fatal accident lawsuits in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Reasoning: people are going to rely on this to save them from speeding tickets. So they're going to drive too fast. Meanwhile, other idiots who don't have it will also drive too fast. It's only a matter of time before someone in a Genesis enters a camera zone and auto-brakes while another speeding idiot on a cellphone is tail-gating them. Result: a high-speed pile-up.

Something not-dissimilar happened with the first roll-out of ABS on cars; drivers who knew their brakes were super-strong drove too fast and actually ended up with a higher accident rate, at least at first. But ABS was a pure safety feature (to prevent your brakes locking up on a slippery surface or if engaged too hard). This ... I lack words to describe how inadvisable I think it is to seek to avoid a small fine in return for an elevated risk of high-speed vehicle-to-vehicle collisions.

(The risk can be reduced if the Genesis has rear facing radar to prevent shunts, or begins to brake gently some distance ahead of the camera zone. It's also mitigated if tail-gating idiots drive cars with adaptive cruise control -- that maintains constant separation from the vehicle ahead regardless of speed. But as not all cars have the latest features it'll take an automobile generation for this stuff to spread out and become ubiquitous. Meanwhile, sooner or later, people will die.)

seanmcdirmid3• 12 years ago

Seat belts and bicycle helmets cause the same phenomena: accident rate goes up when introduced/required before going back to normal after people adjust their risk taking to the increased safety envelope.

clearf• 12 years ago

Do you have a reference to this? I've heard this argument before, but haven't been able to find any hard stats.

ry0ohki• 12 years ago

Most areas with speed cameras (local) drivers already know where they are and cause a dangerous sudden braking condition anyway. I do fear that all the automatic nanny's are making people MORE likely to Facebook while driving their 4000lbs death machines though.

rasz_pl• 12 years ago

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/4wd-drivers-really-as-bad-w...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerkes–Dodson_law

Safest car ever should have a sharp spike mounted in the center of a steering wheel and no safety belts.

jameshart2• 12 years ago

Surely if the intention of the car manufacturer was honest it would simply prevent the car from ever exceeding the speed limit anywhere, not just when you're passing a speed camera. Just autobraking for cameras is a ridiculous case of overfitting for the wrong fitness metric.

sokoloff• 12 years ago

It might be that the car manufacturer wants to actually sell a few of the cars...

sliverstorm2• 12 years ago

Nobody, including the police, thinks that is a good idea. It isn't illegal to make a pass over the speed limit, for example. Or if it is, it doesn't matter.

Judicious application of speed, including over the speed limit, makes the road safer for everyone.

jameshart2• 12 years ago

"It isn't illegal to make a pass over the speed limit"

... I think you're probably mistaken. Seems unlikely the police will overlook your driving at 50 in a 35 zone just because you're doing it on the wrong side of the road towards oncoming traffic to pass someone dawdling along at 30. That would be an odd loophole.

Also would suggest that freeway speed limits only apply in the 'slow' lane, since all the other lanes are technically passing lanes....

kijin3• 12 years ago

Every GPS unit sold in South Korea already come with a database of every speed camera in the country, and the database can be easily updated every few weeks. Connecting this to the speed controller is only the logical next step. I'm actually surprised that it took Hyundai so long to connect the dots.

I don't know about the US and UK, but whenever the Korean police installs a speed camera, they put up a clear warning sign 500-1000m before the camera. There is absolutely no secret or surprise about the location of a speed trap, and the police apparently doesn't care to catch drivers by surprise, either. Someone probably figured out that drivers tend to slow down when they see the warning sign, and do so gradually instead of suddenly since the actual camera is still a quarter mile away. In other words, transparency about the location of speed traps actually increases road safety, even though it probably reduces police revenue.

hcarvalhoalves3• 12 years ago

I don't know about the US and UK, but whenever the Korean police installs a speed camera, they put up a clear warning sign 500-1000m before the camera. There is absolutely no secret or surprise about the location of a speed trap, and the police apparently doesn't care, either.

Of course they care. That's why the sign is there.

The objective of a speed trap is to make drivers slow down, not punish them. If it's hidden and the driver does get ticked it means it failed at it's goal because you had a speeding car on the road anyway.

serge2k• 12 years ago

Then these signs would be all over the states, and cops would be putting up signs around their speed traps.

batiudrami2• 12 years ago

But that can result in people only slowing down where there are cameras. If you don't tell people where the cameras are, in theory (if there are enough of them and the punishments are harsh enough) people should slow down across the board.

There are of course issues with this (sudden braking when a camera is spotted can lead to accidents in itself, it punishes low income earners harder than high ones etc.), but I have noticed that in Australia, with relatively harsh speeding punishments and the majority of speeding cameras being hidden, there is a much lower incidence of speeding than in the US.

AnthonyMouse3• 12 years ago

The objective of a speed trap is to make drivers slow down, not punish them. If it's hidden and the driver does get ticked it means it failed at it's goal because you had a speeding car on the road anyway.

The objective of a speed trap is money. Speed traps are a safety hazard. Causing drivers to slow down suddenly and then speed up again as soon as they pass the camera is significantly more dangerous than them driving at a constant higher speed. It also causes more pollution and consumes more fuel. Jurisdictions not interested in generating revenue don't install them.

manicdee3• 12 years ago

So if I was a local council member, I'd be starting up a cyber warfare division to deliberately insert false camera locations and remove legitimate ones, along with a program of moving the actual cameras around on a random rotation.

Well, that and ensuring that there are more marked police cars patrolling the roads.

_pmf_• 12 years ago

Of all the possible reasons to introduce intelligent breaking, this is the worst. Risking accidents to save money equivalent to 3 large coffees?

batiudrami2• 12 years ago

How much are your speeding fines? In Australia, 10km/h (6MPH) over is $150, and 20km/h (12MPH) is $300.

I agree, this is a terrible idea though.

kijin3• 12 years ago

That would depend on how quickly the brakes are applied. Hyundai ain't stupid. They'll probably try to make it as smooth as possible so that the car behind you has enough time to react. The occupants of the Genesis probably won't appreciate a sudden jerk, either.

malka• 12 years ago

Yeah, I mean the computer would be aware of the speed trap miles BEFORE reaching it. It has plenty of time to a soft slow down of the car.

apendleton2• 12 years ago

You could imagine drones of various kinds being pretty good at taking auto speed readings while still being way cheaper than officers with radar guns. My money's on that as the next strategy once fixed camera placements become completely ineffective.

softgrow2• 12 years ago

I wonder how they did their market research to arrive at a position where it avoids being detected breaching a limit but doesn't avoid breaching the limit when there is no camera around. It seems a fairly cynical position to adopt to appeal to a specific segment of the market. Seem very similar to a DUI insurance policy that was briefly offered in Australia (you pay premiums, caught out DUI, no problem, insurance pays).

I'd much prefer to have three options:

1 Turned off - I'll take responsibility for the vehicle myself and bear the consequences myself

2 Their proposal - I'll let the machine avoid the tickets and when nobody is looking do what I please

3 No speeding - The vehicle will never speed, I'll never get a speeding ticket under any circumstances, camera there or not, in fact Hyundai will pay the fine as it will be simply impossible to incur one and they'll put their money on the line to make sure the damn thing works.

MadMoogle• 12 years ago

So what happens when it detects a speed zone in the middle of winter when I'm on a patch of black ice? The result is often a spinout resulting in totaling the car on a guard rail or a tree or a snowbank. I'll pass. Braking and acceleration are too important for maintaining road traction. Why would I compromise that to avoid a speeding ticket?

Hyundai’s 2015 Genesis will automatically brake for speed cameras

Related Stories