IBM researching intelligent, reflexive vehicles

Count IBM in as one of the many companies looking to skyrocket the cost of our future cars, er, protect our lives by developing must-have active safety systems that are sure to become the standard fare in vehicles of the future. Dubbed a research initiative to "equip cars with technologies that can help reduce traffic congestion and prevent accidents," IBM is looking into driver assist technologies that "exchange information with other cars and with the road infrastructure, take corrective action where appropriate, and provide essential feedback to the drivers to help avoid dangerous situations." These electronic reflexes are said to be much quicker than those possessed by humans, and while the team is not trying to replace the need for driver judgment entirely, it is hoping to provide adequate feedback to help the motorist avoid potential perils. No word on when IBM plans on ushering its marketing team into automakers' headquarters, but we'd enjoy the feel of personally steering and accelerating while you still can.

[Via Physorg]

[M Howard @ Jun 27th 2007 11:59AM]

Well, I think it is always good news that companies invest in vehicle safety, so: One point for IBM!
http://www.discountingcashflow.com/

[Brady Dahl @ Jun 27th 2007 12:07PM]

Not a good thing in my point of view. My dad makes a living off of car accidents, although i know it probably will not be a threat to him in his lifetime with all of the non-reflexive vehicles on the roads, the business he runs as an auto body repairman is what supports our family.

[Mike @ Jun 27th 2007 12:24PM]

Brady sorry to hear this would effect your families livelihood. However, that's a very selfish point of view. Your basically wishing more people to get in accidents. Considering that this tech would reduce the number of fatal car accidents, your essentially hoping people die so that you're father has work.

If this technology were out in time to effect him couldn't he simply learn to repair the new technology... you know instead of wishing people have potentially fatal car accidents....

[ryanbuckner @ Jun 27th 2007 12:38PM]

the bigger question is whether these "electronic" reflexes are timely and reliable to react better than a human. I don't know a single electronic gadget without some degree of fault, and what happens to the chain of "smart cars" when a car incorrectly receives an alert that the guy out in front slammed on his breaks? You get 1 mile of whiplash, too fast for the human to correct.

[nth256 @ Jun 27th 2007 2:37PM]

Safety features on cars are a short-sighted, selfish placebo for the real problem, which is "compact" cars that weigh a ton-and-a-half, and drivers who are inattentive to the task of driving.

Drive slower and opt for less-powerful drivetrains, and all of a sudden you forego many problems "solved" by new vehicle safety technologies.

I'd like to see IBM make my commute shorter, rather than complicating my long one.

[Brady Dahl @ Jul 20th 2007 3:37AM]

Obviously you are the selfish one by ranking my post as the lowest and yours as the highest. First of all, If a person were to be __killed__ in a car accident, there are virtually only two outcomes:

1. Car is totaled = no job = no money; (99% of fatal accidents)
2. Person is dead = not capable of paying money to fix their car; (100% of fatal accidents)

Don't even bring in the subject of the deceased's family, it hasn't happened once where the family wants to repair a car that someone was killed in; if the chance occured that it wasn't totaled.

Second of all, not all people like to work with computers, including my dad. How could you get a person that hates computers to learn how to program firmware for a complex AI system in a car? I would never wish a car accident on any person, fatal or not. The fact of the matter is, people make mistakes, all of us have or will get in an accident sometime in our life. I have hit someone and someone has hit me.

Please stop being so naive and grow up. Oh and put Dictionary.com in your favorites, because you need it.

[Justin Eassary @ Jun 27th 2007 2:34PM]

If it's made by IBM it definatly will not work right or well and be a resource hog like lotus notes.

[daniel @ Jun 27th 2007 4:30PM]

Next time, try the train...

[EUboy @ Jun 27th 2007 11:00PM]

Great innovations, we are slowly being made redundant, and that's a good thing-

[josh @ Jun 29th 2007 11:39PM]

I believe this would be a great service, just like electricity or gas or water. I believe that if it is based on proper standards, one standard for the entire industry that is properly thought out and trusted, then car makers can develop to this standard over time.

I believe there is a need for technology-mediated car travel. Think of the advantages of computer-controlled cars during peak-hour inner-city and highway travel. Everyone can move along at an optimal speed, allowing better use of energy.