What improvements would you make?

[Aaron_W]

Over sized in car screens (looking at you Tesla) people get distracted enough without a 42inch TV in their car, In car systems will be perfect if they manage to get voice command to do it's job right. I know HUD is apparently really good but I just can't get with it, especially if it's on an older car, it must cost a fortune to fix a broken HUD unit?

[Johnnytheboy]

Ste1987 said:

I'd make automatic headlights a standard feature on all cars. Can't be that expensive to put them on a poverty spec model?

This may already exist - not on my 7-year-old Focus - but auto lights linked to auto wipers.

i.e. if the wipers are being triggered above a certain rate, turn the lights on.

[anonymous-user]

I would like
1: the many sensors in the car to tell me % brake pads/tyres etc worn,why only a service warning light that tells me nothing except the forewarning of a big bill?
2: less powerful electric motors that move the front seats. One of my kids moved the seat backwards a fair bit and pulverised two squash rackets that were in the back, ouch
3: a digital beacon app so I can find my car after a concert or festival...

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 10th October 20:56

[PoopahScoopah]

Danattheopticians said:

B
2) Switching the headlight off on the side that is indicating. - Dangerous

Can you please elaborate on why this is dangerous? I don't see the logic. NOT being able to see indicators is surely far more dangerous, and that's a common problem I find nowadays with headlights and DRLs being so bright and the indicator very near to them. Plenty of times I've failed to see a car indicating during daytime because of this. It was only in the last few weeks that I saw a car with a deactivated headlight on the indicating side for the first time and at first I assumed it was a failed headlight. Then I realised what was going on, immediately saw the logic in it and thought it was a good idea. At the moment I can't picture a scenario where this is dangerous, so can somebody please enlighten me? (no pun intended).

[PoopahScoopah]

je777 said:

PHMatt said:

Conscript said:

Whilst sitting in slow moving traffic on the A2 a while ago, and witnessing a line of cars attempting to merge from a slip road into lane 1 which was full of other cars that were moving slow, but sitting bumper to bumper, I thought about something - how about a warning buzzer (a bit like a seat-belt warning chime) that sounds all the while you are maintaining less than a 2 second gap to the car in front whilst moving.

Only way to disable it is to maintain a safe distance to the car in front. Checked as a mandatory MOT requirement. It seems to me that a huge amount of problems on our crowded motorways are actually caused by people sitting too close to each other rather than anything else.

Going bumper to bumper helps no one. BUT - people who go all the way down and then try and cut in cause those at the front to go bumper to bumper.
The real problem is with those that don't filter in soon enough to keep traffic flowing.
I let plenty of people in at the back of the lane where people are filtering in. But when I've seen the signs warning of lane closures etc, got in the lane at a safe point and trundled along, like fk am I going to let 37 toss pots that ignore the sign, drove freely down the empty closed lane and then indicate in at the very last concievable second. You wouldn't get a razor blade in the gap I'll leave to the car in front in those situations.

Empty cars of people who make up their own rules and then assert these as if they were the law.
If everyone leaps into the lane half a mile before the merging point, a whole lane is wasted for half a mile.
Just merge in sensibly and let others in. No aggression required.

Well put JE777. The problem with the above comments is that certain "rules" only work in certain circumstances. PHMatt's comment about late mergers doesn't make sense rationally - I've heard this point of view plenty of times and IMO it only comes from place, it's because of our competitive nature and feeling that people merging ahead of us are jumping the queue. It's pretty ridiculous really, but I do totally get it, I've felt the same when it's happened to me and I often feel like I'm taking the piss if I merge late. It's a mindset we need to get out of. As Je777 said, merging early is just a waste of roadspace, and the only time it isn't counterproductive is if the traffic is still flowing freely. In an actual jam, with traffic crawling, it makes complete sense to use all available lanes and merge as late as possible. The traffic problems aren't caused by this, they are caused by the mindset of people who refuse to let others merge. If everyone would just chill the fk out and let others merge in turn, traffic would move more freely.

Now, as for the stuff about traffic sitting bumper to bumper. As above, this is a problem when people need to merge. But the flipside is that in many situations tailbacks would be reduced if people WOULD use all available space and sit closer to each other. As I said above, it depends on the situation. I have to go around a large roundabout leaving work in rush hour (Gogarburn to those in Edinburgh, you'll know it's a pain). It's absolute chaos. But it's chaos because of poor use of space, people ignoring the traffic lights, and people failing to anticipate changes in the ebb and flow, so they move out of a junction just before the lights go to red, then end up blocking lanes and it creates a ripple effect with the whole roundabout brought to standstill. Driver quality aside, the main problem is too high a volume of traffic using the space at the same time. So when I see someone sat with a full car length of space between them and the car in front, in the short bit of lane between traffic lights, it really boils my piss because there is absolutely no reason to do it and it's prevented someone else joining the back of the queue due to wasted space, and they are now left stuck at the previous red light (probably getting frustrated and about to do something stupid). On the exit of the roundabout is a very short slip road that goes from 2 lanes to 1. If people merge before the slip, they are wasting space and elongating the tailback around the roundabout. A few years ago I'd see road rage here every single day due to twunts who would refuse to let others merge in to "their" space. Now everyone merges politely, they are all used to it, and traffic flows a little better. Can you imagine having a warning buzzer going off at you constantly in situations like these because you are crawling too close to the car in front?

[PoopahScoopah]

I'd eradicate most driver aids like auto wipers and auto lights. They are nice to have and useful at times but I think the increase in lazy driver behavior outweighs the pros. Force drivers to think and act for themselves again. My only concession would be a warning message that is activated if you drive off in poor light/weather conditions without headlights on. So rather than have them come on automatically, just warn the driver so that they have to consciously realise their mistake and correct it.

[Moonhawk]

je777 said:

Moonhawk said:

If you could design any feature into all cars - what would it be. Not looking for hover cars or anything like that - but small, practical changes that could make a car safer, easier to use etc. Some of these features may be things you have seen on existing cars and which you think are a good idea. Others may be new ideas.

A few of mine:

1. Hazard lights. I would make them double flash instead of flashing the same rate as a turn signal. My reasoning. On a few occasions I have seen a car with hazard lights at the side of the road with another car parked behind. Due to the fact that the car behind is blocking visibility of the left indicator light - you can't actually tell whether the car in front has hazards on or whether they are indicating to pull back out into traffic. Adding a double flash would make it obvious it was hazards and not a turn signal.

2. Brake force indicating brake lights. A brake light bar that illuminates from the ends towards the middle as braking force increases. Would help you judge whether the brake lights that just came on in front of you were a gentle tap or dropping the anchors. I guess it could work on a similar principle to the animated turn signals that have started appearing on Audi's etc.

3. Blacklight headlights. Beam could be set higher to cast farther, but it wouldn't dazzle like white light does. It would however make anything day-glo, white or anything washed in washing powder with optical brightners glow, making pedestrians far more visible and if the correct paint is used - road markings and signs too.

I really like no. 1, but especially no. 3. If that's possible (I've no idea) that's one of those ideas where you think 'Why would we NOT be doing that?'

I would have thought it would be relatively easy to implement - mounting high intensity black light LED "high beams" along side the normal headlight bulb. You could even retrofit to older cars (I guess similar to retrofitted front fogs or DRLs).

This video demonstrates the effect I'm talking about (hunting scorpions in the dark)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISpqqkm-EZc

If we ever implemented glow in the dark road markings like those trialled in the Netherlands recently - blacklight headlights would also have the advantage of providing a recharge boost to them every time a car passes.

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 13th October 14:52

[dobly]

Over here in NZ, there are road signs which say "merge like a zip"

you get the idea, and it usually works well.

[VeeFource]

Moonhawk said:

je777 said:

Moonhawk said:

If you could design any feature into all cars - what would it be. Not looking for hover cars or anything like that - but small, practical changes that could make a car safer, easier to use etc. Some of these features may be things you have seen on existing cars and which you think are a good idea. Others may be new ideas.

A few of mine:

1. Hazard lights. I would make them double flash instead of flashing the same rate as a turn signal. My reasoning. On a few occasions I have seen a car with hazard lights at the side of the road with another car parked behind. Due to the fact that the car behind is blocking visibility of the left indicator light - you can't actually tell whether the car in front has hazards on or whether they are indicating to pull back out into traffic. Adding a double flash would make it obvious it was hazards and not a turn signal.

2. Brake force indicating brake lights. A brake light bar that illuminates from the ends towards the middle as braking force increases. Would help you judge whether the brake lights that just came on in front of you were a gentle tap or dropping the anchors. I guess it could work on a similar principle to the animated turn signals that have started appearing on Audi's etc.

3. Blacklight headlights. Beam could be set higher to cast farther, but it wouldn't dazzle like white light does. It would however make anything day-glo, white or anything washed in washing powder with optical brightners glow, making pedestrians far more visible and if the correct paint is used - road markings and signs too.

I really like no. 1, but especially no. 3. If that's possible (I've no idea) that's one of those ideas where you think 'Why would we NOT be doing that?'

I would have thought it would be relatively easy to implement - mounting high intensity black light LED "high beams" along side the normal headlight bulb. You could even retrofit to older cars (I guess similar to retrofitted front fogs or DRLs).

This video demonstrates the effect I'm talking about (hunting scorpions in the dark)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISpqqkm-EZc

If we ever implemented glow in the dark road markings like those trialled in the Netherlands recently - blacklight headlights would also have the advantage of providing a recharge boost to them every time a car passes.

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 13th October 14:52

They'd have to be quite powerful blacklights and they emit UV which is damaging to the human eye. The eye doesn't respond to just UV so the pupil remains dilated in the dark which allows a lot of damaging UV in unlike in sunlight where there's enough of the visible spectrum cause the pupil to constrict and reduce all light levels including UV.

[Evanivitch]

VeeFource said:

They'd have to be quite powerful blacklights and they emit UV which is damaging to the human eye. The eye doesn't respond to just UV so the pupil remains dilated in the dark which allows a lot of damaging UV in unlike in sunlight where there's enough of the visible spectrum cause the pupil to constrict and reduce all light levels including UV.

This. There's no blink reflex to UV. Imagine the discomfort of driving at night with everyone using their high beams. You'd probably glance away or attempt to reduce the effect.

[swisstoni]

woollyjoe said:

built in dashcams as an option?

I can get four cameras's on my car for parking but not a single one will record.

You'd think it's a no-brainier. Last time I suggested it, someone told me there was a reason for it not being implemented. Which I have forgotten, obviously.

[USA64]

Back to instruments I agree on analog but I think it would be good to add electronic in the form of a delta number. Has the water temp begun to go up after being stable? How fast is the oil pressure dropping as it warms and so forth. Better then the -you're screwed- red warning lights.

[MitchT]

For those of us with cars that we don't use every day ... a battery life indicator. Seriously, why is there nothing on the dashboard telling you what percent charge your battery is at?

[Jex]

MitchT said:

For those of us with cars that we don't use every day ... a battery life indicator. Seriously, why is there nothing on the dashboard telling you what percent charge your battery is at?

Good idea - one of our cars doesn't get used every day and when it is it tends to do mainly short journeys. Connecting up a battery condition monitor every time it is parked would be excessive, but it would be nice to get a warning that it needs a charge or a run rather than finding out when it doesn't start.

[Herbs]

Tyre pressure display for all 4 wheels.

Great safety feature and time-saver.

[Moonhawk]

Evanivitch said:

VeeFource said:

They'd have to be quite powerful blacklights and they emit UV which is damaging to the human eye. The eye doesn't respond to just UV so the pupil remains dilated in the dark which allows a lot of damaging UV in unlike in sunlight where there's enough of the visible spectrum cause the pupil to constrict and reduce all light levels including UV.

This. There's no blink reflex to UV. Imagine the discomfort of driving at night with everyone using their high beams. You'd probably glance away or attempt to reduce the effect.

Laminated car windscreens absorb most of the UVA falling on them - so for other drivers it wouldn't really be an issue.

Pedestrians are another matter - but since these lights would be supplementary, a pedestrian looking at an oncoming car would have a pupilary response anyway due to the white light headlights. Also - pedestrians tend not to face oncoming to the same degree that drivers of other vehicles do - so would be exposed far less. To minimise exposure - they could also be deactivated when running normal high beams or when the ambient light is high enough (e.g. when there are streetlights).

I wonder how powerful they would actually have to be. They would only need to induce a small amount of fluorescence to have a dramatic impact on the visibility of a pedestrian. I doubt they would have to be as bright as standard headlights. I have just ordered a 500 lumen (3 watt) UV LED torch to have a play with and experiment - i'll post some pictures if it works.

[Moonhawk]

Did some experiments with the blacklight torch I bought.

Quoted as being 3W / 500 lumen LED - but it has three brightness settings so I assume 3W / 500 Lumen is the maximum. This test was conducted with the torch at it's lowest setting.

1x fluorescent sock on the fence ~40ft away. The only light was the ambient sky glow and the living room lights spilling through the french doors. 1 second exposure at F/4 and ISO 3200. With slightly dark adapted eyes - the first shot approximates what I could see with my eyes - the sock is just visible.



Second shot is with the blacklight torch turned on.



The difference in visibility was quite dramatic and I reckon you could go much dimmer and it still make quite a difference.