this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
144 points (97.4% liked)

Cars - For Car Enthusiasts

3913 readers
10 users here now

About Community

c/Cars is the largest automotive enthusiast community on Lemmy and the fediverse. We're your central hub for vehicle-related discussion, industry news, reviews, projects, DIY guides, advice, stories, and more.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
BallShapedMan@lemmy.world
RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
144
Ford Researching Tech That Snitches on Speeders to the Police (www.thedrive.com)
submitted 3 months ago by TheArstaInventor@lemmy.world to c/cars@lemmy.world
29 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] skyspydude1@lemmy.world 64 points 3 months ago (3 children)

So, I'm going to be a voice of reason here, also working for a a major US automaker: there's a 0.0001% chance this would ever be a thing implemented, and is almost definitely just something someone brainstormed and threw in the patent/IP registration system for a nice bonus. We're heavily encouraged to submit ideas, even if there's no real plans to ever implement them, and you can make more than $2k for a couple day's worth of work in some cases.

I've come up with some hilariously dystopian ideas, and I'm more than happy to submit them because I know we'll never bother with implementing them, it keeps other more "ambitious" OEMs from doing it, and the aforementioned monetary bonuses. Just because something is patented, doesn't mean it's going into production next week.

Also, because I know what sub I'm in, before everyone crucifies me here because I work for an automaker, I do so because I want to make a change from the inside, and my job focus is primarily on making vehicles safer for pedestrians and cyclists.

[–] whatwhatwhatwhat@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Also, because I know what sub I'm in, before everyone crucifies me here because I work for an automaker, I do so because I want to make a change from the inside, and my job focus is primarily on making vehicles safer for pedestrians and cyclists.

Hey now, this is “cars” not “fuckcars”!

[–] skyspydude1@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

That's my bad. I'm so used to seeing that sub come up on Lemmy, I saw "cars" and my brain filled in the fuck, lol

[–] VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago

Oh, I was looking for carsfuck.

[–] hark@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

GM was already caught snitching to insurance companies. This isn't the leap you make it out to be.

[–] skyspydude1@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Oh, trust me, I'm well aware of that issue. There's a lot I can say about that as well, but my point was more how I see this type of article posted time and time again, with Tesla a lot of the time, of "Company patents X feature, here's how it'll be the greatest/worst feature in [current model year+1] vehicles!" and it really isn't the case at all. I know of plenty more dystopian shit going on in the industry as a whole, so I know it's not a 0% chance of something like this being implemented. I just felt it's worth being a voice of reason in saying that this isn't necessarily a feature coming to to the MY27, just because someone had some spare time to put together a PowerPoint of an idea they had to submit to Ford's IP lawyers.

[–] sparky1337@ttrpg.network 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Serious question, how much does the IIHS tests affect your job?

A lot of the tests I’ve seen are 1-3 mph from making no contact and mitigating the whole incident when it comes to parallel/perpendicular tests for pedestrian systems.

Does anything other than a acceptable or good rating send you back to the drawing board?

[–] skyspydude1@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Not really back to the drawing board, but more than likely recalibrating the system to improve performance. EU-NCAP /CN-NCAP are a much bigger deal, at least for vehicles that are sold in the EU/CN market, and poor performance on those can mean pushing for larger changes. But even then, they're seldom "back to the drawing board" just because at that point it's usually way too late in production to make significant changes.

In the US, the new FMVSS 127 requirements are a huge fucking deal, and are making huge waves in the industry right now. Because they're regulatory, meaning if you don't pass you can't sell the vehicle in the US, they've taken what's been a generally low priority in the US to basically priority #1, especially given how tough the requirements are.

We are quite literally going to have to rework basically every single vehicle model we sell to meet it, some of them quite significantly, so it's a much bigger deal than stuff like the IIHS requirements.

[–] sparky1337@ttrpg.network 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Gotcha. I figured AEB was pretty much getting to the point of being standard. Didn’t know it was decreed at this point.

I guess I was thinking more if third party targets were missed if it was possible to recalibrate or if new hardware was needed. In my experience, VW specifically, they used different radar units just about every year. And my Mazda is very different in comparison.

I welcome standard AEB. Maybe people will stop totaling my cars.

[–] skyspydude1@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's definitely possible to recal or replace the hardware, it's just way easier to recal that replace hardware.

One example I can think of is one project whose calibration and braking performance meant it was just eking out a pass, but because of the transition to copper-free brake pads, was now hitting the target. It wasn't a huge deal, and we had to recalibrate it to brake a bit earlier.

VW (and Mercedes) is a pretty special case in terms of their industry pull. When I worked at a German Tier 1, it was very much a case of if they say "jump" you asked, "how high?". They have such a massive output of vehicles, as a supplier, you'll do anything possible to try and maintain their business. Even being on the team for NA/LATAM customers, we'd be told to sideline what we were working on to support stuff for VW/Mercedes, even though we saw literally no benefit from it as the NA team, and it could seriously hurt some of the projects we were working on. However, the reality was that the business from VW alone was larger than basically every other project we had combined, so it was worth it to piss off our other customers to keep them happy.

I also welcome standard AEB, but I'm not convinced customers are going to like it to be entirely honest. With how the regulation is written, it's asking a lot from OEMs in terms of performance, and with perfect performance being required to even just sell a vehicle, I fear that we're going to wind up with ultra-sensitive systems with heaps of false-positive/"phantom braking" reactions, just to ensure they pass the regs. NHTSA in all their infinite wisdom did include some very basic FP testing, but not an acceptable rate of FP per X number of miles. Also, because of the extremely high nighttime requirements, expect headlights to get even more blinding in the coming years...

[–] sparky1337@ttrpg.network 1 points 2 months ago

I never thought about a sudden change in brake compound affecting the AEB system and its calibrations. I’ve always tried to stay OEM or comparable aftermarket pads. For example, I swapped my pads on my GTI for some EBC’s mostly because of brake dust. They performed very well, but I also had sticky tires. I have noticed I was able to find parts much more easily with that car than I have my Mazda. And with how many parts revisions I’ve seen for that one car I’d believe that they demand a lot in parts manufacturing. I guess it comes with the territory when they do something like the global MQB platform where parts are so easily shared.

In 6 years and 150,000 miles I only had one incident of a false positive where the car braked for whatever the system saw as an obstacle. Fortunately, no one was behind me but it was a route I traveled every day and it happened early on (~40,000 miles). My newer Mazda has the whole camera setup etc and definitely triggers if with the adaptive cruise if someone in the lane next to me brakes or slows down so I can see the overly sensitive reactions making people angry.

For the headlights, I don’t think factory cars are much of an issue. Now that matrix style lights are making their way here we should be able to learn a lot from Europe.

Thanks for the insightful reply! It’s cool to see stuff like this.

[–] j4k3@lemmy.world 31 points 3 months ago

Hello serfs. Welcome to 1984. Fuck this dystopia.

[–] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I'm trying to understand why is the article implying this is a feature for general population? The article reads "mobilizing individuals’ cars to snitch on the rest of the public" but the patent document continuously refer to illustrated vehicle #1 as a law enforcement or other official capacity vehicle.

This patent strikes me like nothing more than upgraded PD radar system, with some extra features around how the data can be transferred/processed on the fly.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 5 points 3 months ago

Why would a patent be limited to the illustrated example? Is the patent exclusively for law enforcement vehicles?

[–] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago (2 children)

And a lifetime of buying Fords ended just like that.

[–] tryitout@infosec.pub 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Your maintenance budget will have a surplus now, congrats!

[–] fuzzzerd@programming.dev 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Fix. Or. Repair. Daily.

[–] RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

I mean, my '68 Galaxie doesn't need repairs often. I bought it where it sat in the desert for two years, so I replaced hoses/belts, rebuilt the engine and transmisison (bumped the engine from the factory 302 to a 347 stroker from SCAT on the factory block), installed aluminum heads and a 3/4 RV cam, replaced the ball joints (air chiseled the factory riveted ones to swap with bolt in replacements), and installed Wilwood disc brakes in the front (still has factory drums in the rear with one new wheel cylinder that was leaking). But like, once I started daily driving it, it hasn't needed much in terms of repair except for an ignition wire that a rat chewed up once and a radiator fan relay that went bad and needed to be replaced.

Bought the car for $1500 and put maybe $5000 total into all repairs before I started daily driving it, and it has treated me well. And most of that was for the engine, cost me like $3k on just the engine, and some extra stuff like interior upholstery and such. But it hasn't been nearly as unreliable as some might suggest.

[–] invertedspear@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago

Possibly patent trolling for good? Seems like we should all patent some super villain shit just so no Corp can implement it.

[–] algorithmae@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Nothing a pair of wire cutters can't fix

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 7 points 3 months ago

Hopefully

[–] teft@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago (2 children)

A U.S. Patent and Trademark Office submission published July 18 titled “Systems and Methods for Detecting Speeding Violations” describes a way for Ford‘s vehicles to measure the speeds of nearby cars using cameras and sensors, and then potentially report those violations to the police.

Tell me how that would work if I have the right to face my accuser in court?

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

SCOTUS will just rule that peasants can go fuck themselves.

[–] Cort@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Wouldn't the accuser be the local prosecutor using evidence submitted by Ford? You could surely challenge how ford collected it, but if they were confident enough to implement, and the prosecutor confident enough to actually use it, then both legal teams would have vetted it thoroughly enough to stand up in court.

[–] RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

Have fun putting that into my '68 Ford Galaxie. Miss me with that.

[–] Irremarkable@fedia.io 6 points 3 months ago

There's a reason my next car is going to be a early-mid 00s accord/camry/similar

[–] apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Instead of just putting speed limit governors in cars.

[–] invertedspear@lemm.ee 4 points 3 months ago

That patent is for snitching on other drivers using the external cameras. Cause speed cameras haven’t caused enough flack.

[–] Usernameblankface@lemmy.world -2 points 3 months ago

The cop suddenly start pulling you over every time you speed, kinda weird.

Your new car refuses to go faster than the speed limit "but muh riiiights!" And also one of the perks of owning a vehicle is the sense of freedom of choice.