Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Toys Hardware

Self-Parking Car Available In Japan 352

Posted by simoniker from the or-try-the-monster-truck-parking-method dept.
sinjayde writes "Yahoo!/Reuters is reporting that Toyota has released a car for sale in Japan that is able to park itself: 'Toyota's new hybrid gasoline-electric Prius sedan uses electrically operated power steering and sensors that help guide the car when reversing into parking spaces.'" No need to rely on the reverse parking formula anymore?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Self-Parking Car Available In Japan More

Self-Parking Car Available In Japan

Comments Filter:

  • It had to be done... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 01, 2003 @04:32PM (#6846113)
    In Soviet Russia, car parks you!
    • In Soviet Russia, Gorky parks you!

    • Glad to see they put this in a hybird car. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ModernGeek ( 601932 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @07:11PM (#6846837)
      I love the Hybrid car philosophy, it is a step away from gas-guzzling SUV's. This is a great incentive for people to buy a Prius over another car too, and the body on the new models look alot better than the older ones. My friends dad has a Prius, and it drives fast, and it rides ALOT more smooth than a traditional car. I just don't know why this idea was never embrassed before. Also, how come we don't have cars that can drive themself on the interstate? It doesn't seem like it would be hard at all, since they could just implement sensors into an interstate quite simply since it is all managed by the government, an open standard could be created by the Govt, and all the car companies could follow.
      • I love the Hybrid car philosophy, it is a step away from gas-guzzling SUV's. This is a great incentive for people to buy a Prius over another car too, and the body on the new models look alot better than the older ones. My friends dad has a Prius, and it drives fast, and it rides ALOT more smooth than a traditional car. I just don't know why this idea was never embrassed before. Also, how come we don't have cars that can drive themself on the interstate? It doesn't seem like it would be hard at all, since t

    • Re:It had to be done... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by danila ( 69889 )
      Unfortunately, in [Soviet] Russia the number of cars skyrocketed after the collapse of the USSR. This coincided with the unwillingness of Russians to pay parking tickets, which gave rise to parking in places where parking is illegal. The authorities tried a countermeasure - arresting a car and placing it in custody, but the courts ruled out that it's illegal (in Russia you can't deprive anyone of property without a court decision, not even a drug user/dealer). Still, Russians don't pay the tickets, so there

  • hmm, not so sure.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by mut3 ( 634239 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @04:33PM (#6846118)
    you still gonna do some work here, since it only helps you back in. so, if you hit the car next to you, dont blame it on the car (like you normally do)!!

    • I saw this today (Score:4, Interesting)

      by abhisarda ( 638576 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @08:29PM (#6847238) Journal
      on the NHK channel(Japanese TV, nhk.or.jp). It is actually a very spiffy car. It looks sleek and more like a mini-minivan than the regular Prius. Also, this model was black in color.
      In the demonstration the man driving the Prius stopped the car a little ahead of a parking spot, then on the LCD screen, pressed the left & right buttons(Im guessing, cuz it was in japanese and too small to read) and then the car parked itself right on the spot intended. The driver at that time was "look ma, no hands". There were front and rear cameras and while parking the car was emitting a sound similar to the "put seatbelt on" one.

  • dependency (Score:4, Funny)

    by djshake ( 670753 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @04:33PM (#6846119)
    what happens when we forget how to park cars ourselves? technology is good, but people are getting too darn lazy these days. is parking really that hard? survey says: only for old people
    • Obviously you've never been on a college campus. I've seen people overhanging spots, making it impossible to park in the one next to them... or being so crooked that you can't get into or out the spots on EITHER side. From the looks of it, the "new generation" of drivers (and some of the "current" generation... people 30+, etc) don't park well as it is. And yet, if I break their windshield with a brick, I am the one to get in trouble.

      Plus my mom can't back a car into her driveway in a straight manner to sa

    • Re:dependency (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Gogl ( 125883 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @05:27PM (#6846338) Journal
      And here's the irony: I agree with you that the only possible justified use of these sorts of driving-aid devices would be to help old people (although maybe I'm just callous because I generally think that if they're too old to drive they just shouldn't be driving), but only the young people will be willing to use them. Hell, I'm not even that old and I wouldn't trust some sort of auto-parking thing. Only people who are young when it comes out and grow up with it will be used to it and willing to use it themselves.

      I bet it was the same thing with automatic transmission at first. A car changing gears on it's own, many of the people who were only used to manual probably didn't particularly want to make the switch. Some will switch, but the vast majority of the transition depends on time.

      Or to make a long story short, new technology can take upwards of a generation to really assimilate into society. But you probably knew that anyway, I just felt like pointing that out as it seemed pertinent or something.

    • Re:dependency (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @06:15PM (#6846522) Homepage Journal
      "what happens when we forget how to park cars ourselves?"

      Is it really all that likely? It's simply a navigation task, not some particular combination of voodoo prayer and the position of the moon. Calculators didn't kill the study of math, elevators didn't kill the climbing of stairs, and even if you made those arguments it's arguable that society has grown to a higher level since both these devices came along. So tell me, why would a self parking car make people forget how to park cars? That's a ridiculous, cliche filled, statement.

      "but people are getting too darn lazy these days."

      People are smarter than they ever were. They do a lot more these days than they did in the olden days. Lazy?

      "is parking really that hard?"

      If it were, dontcha think that these things would have been around ages ago? Back in the 50's they had a car with a fifth wheel so you could pivot your car into a paralell spot. Didn't exactly take off. However, technology has gotten a lot better these days, it's gotten cheaper, and car companies are in a competition to get more marketshare. What you're seeing here is a result of competition, not some need to park cars. Besides, have you ever had a valet driver bump your bumper? Happens to my car daily.

      • People are smarter than they ever were. They do a lot more these days than they did in the olden days. Lazy?

        How many people do you know that cannot drive a manual transmission car? Probably about 80%.

        Are people actually smarter now?

        When you say "do a lot more" what exactly does this mean? Time spent on the computer? Useless chatting on cellphones simply 'cause you can? Pretending to be busy?

        "Doing more" and being more effective are two different (but not necessarily mutually exclusive) things.
      • Ha! I got a chance to meta-mod the insightful moderation of the parent post I was roasting! Heheh
      • It's simply a navigation task,

        Funny, form the way most parking lots look it must be prtty hard. I mean honestly, how do you manage to use three parking spaces for a volkswagon?
    • Ever park in Japan? This system was designed for the most crowded country in the world, where your driveway is about an inch bigger than your car all the way around.

      I know, I live here, and parking is absolutely insane. Everywhere else on the planet is spoiled in comparison. Yet the Japanese manage to not ride each other's bumpers.

  • driving test. (Score:5, Funny)

    by woodchip ( 611770 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @04:34PM (#6846122)
    1. buy car that can park it self
    2. sell driving lesson school for people who are afraid to parallel park on driving test. with the promise they can use car on the test.
    3. ????
    4. profit.

    • Re:driving test. (Score:5, Informative)

      by bersl2 ( 689221 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @05:07PM (#6846252) Journal
      sell driving lesson school for people who are afraid to parallel park on driving test. with the promise they can use car on the test.

      In some states, it is no longer a requirement to know how to parallel park in order to get a license. Therefore, even though I've been driving for two years, I still can't parallel park.

      Sad but true.
      • In Virginia its not a requirements. And yes, it is *very* sad that you cannot parallel park :)
      • In Ontario parallel parking is on both driving tests (That's right, two tests, blame graduated licensing) but if you fail that portion, it's not an automatic fail. It depends on where you are, but a lot of places don't have spots that require knowing it.
      • In some states, it is no longer a requirement to know how to parallel park in order to get a license. Therefore, even though I've been driving for two years, I still can't parallel park.

        I never thought it was a requirement in any state.

        I rather thought the test was setup with a number of specific tasks you had to peform, and you got graded on each one.

        In Washington, I remember being told that if you refuse to parallel park, you would lose more points then if you tried and failed, unless you hit a cone.

      • Re:driving test. (Score:2, Interesting)

        by cfallin ( 596080 )
        In some states, it is no longer a requirement to know how to parallel park

        True in Oregon - it's been replaced by parking and then backing along a curb (at least that's what my driving instructor said - I'm not 16 yet and so haven't taken the test).

  • Who pays? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by moehoward ( 668736 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @04:34PM (#6846126)
    Will your insurance company pick it up if you (I mean it) damages another car?

    In the US, these have to pass some rigorous gov't inspection and testing before they are allowed on the road. I don't think I want the liability.

    Is parking really that hard? Are people really that stupid and lazy? Don't answer that. Can I get a robot to feed me my cereal in the morning?

    • Re:Who pays? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by EvilTwinSkippy ( 112490 ) <yoda@nOSpAM.etoyoc.com> on Monday September 01, 2003 @04:39PM (#6846147) Homepage Journal
      The way liability insurance is structured, you pay regardless. Anyone, and by logical extension, anything you grant control of the car is covered by your policy.

      I don't think you will have the option of recovering damages from the manufacturer. You ultimately pulled the switch that told the car to auto-park.

    • Re:Who pays? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LetterJ ( 3524 ) <j@wynia.org> on Monday September 01, 2003 @04:51PM (#6846191) Homepage
      This is why I don't think we'll see cars driving themselves in the U.S. any time soon. They've built the vehicles so they can handle the freeway without a driver (some documentary I saw). However, even if the rate of accidents with self-driving/parking vehicles is lower than with real drivers (and I'd tend to believe it could be) even 1 accident would launch liability lawsuits galore.

      • highways and magnets (Score:5, Interesting)

        by doormat ( 63648 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @05:26PM (#6846335) Homepage Journal
        The freeway you're talking about is Interstate 15 near San Diego, CA. They built a single lane, multi-mile segment on the inside median, with magnets under the road every 100'. The car would be programed to follow the magnets and make course corrections. There were also ultrasonic sensors on the front and back. The demo had 3 cars at 100mph, 10' apart with the system engaged.
        • The only problem with a road system that relies on magnets would be the construction required to implement it. Down the street from my house, they've been widening an intersection since before Summer began.

          I think I read somewhere that in 1995, there were nearly 4 million miles of road total in the U.S.A. If it takes a transit team that long to widen one busy suburban intersection, we'll all be driving floating cars by the time they're finished. At least, we hope.
          • That's a prototype, a solution which they could implement THEN. NOW, by using radio triangulation (GPS? Or more easily, something more local. RFID?) :) and inertial tracking (MEMS Accelerometers?) you could somewhat trivially design a car that drives itself, as long as all the other cars used the same system, which is to say they would respect the lanes of traffic, and not run into one another.

            The only problem then becomes crap-in-the-road (or lack of a road) avoidance. However if you had traffic monitori

      • Re:Who pays? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by bfields ( 66644 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @06:05PM (#6846503) Homepage
        However, even if the rate of accidents with self-driving/parking vehicles is lower than with real drivers (and I'd tend to believe it could be) even 1 accident would launch liability lawsuits galore.

        Speaking from complete ignorance, just trying to think through the economics of this--if the self-driving system actually lead to less accidents, then in general you'd expect there to be less money overall awarded in liability lawsuits. The difference would just be who would be responsible--some liability that was previously the driver's would become the car manufacturer's. So you'd expect the automaker to end up spending more on liability insurance (raising the cost of the car), but you'd expect the car driver's liability insurance to decrease correspondingly.

        The driver's insurer could say "buy this (more expensive, because of the technology and the costs of the maker's insurance) self-driving car and we'll give you a discount."

        So naively it's not obvious that the increased liability on the automakers' part would make the whole project impossible.

        Maybe an automated highway is more complicated than something like a self-parking mechanism, because many more parties are involved (e.g., the people who built and designed the highway), but still, if they could prove that there would be a decrease in accidents, then it might be possible to distribute the costs of risks in a reasonable way.

        I sincerely doubt, however, that it is possible for anyone at this point to *know* that the accident rates will be lower. Without more experience, an automated highway sounds like a risky venture--it might initially seem to be safer, but then a subtle bug might cause something catastrophic to happen after it's been in use for a while. Perhaps it was the difficult-to-forsee problems that they were worried about in the situation you describe. But if the threat of suits here is encouraging caution, that strikes me as a good thing--surely radical changes affecting something as critical as highway safety *should* be undertaken very cautiously.

        --Bruce Fields

        • Without more experience, an automated highway sounds like a risky venture--it might initially seem to be safer, but then a subtle bug might cause something catastrophic to happen after it's been in use for a while.

          Autopilot sounded like a risky venture too. Who would trust flying an airplane to a box of hardware? But nowadays it is more reliable than a human (though not as versatile), and one would be a fool not to engage the autopilot at cruise altitude.

          Humans are far more dangerous as drivers than as

    • Re:Who pays? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by wonton_mein ( 568555 )
      "even 1 accident would launch liability lawsuits galore."

      In that case, the state can adopt a no-fault policy, thus eliminating frivolous lawsuits and those "middlemen".

    • Re:Who pays? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by wonton_mein ( 568555 )
      The car is being sold in Japan, not the U.S. I agree in order to sell in the U.S., it must pass lots of inspections and testings. In hindsight, a reserved parking space in cities like Tokyo and Hong Kong can easily exceed that of insurance premiums, so lots of car owners resort to parking on the cheaper/metered parking spaces located on the streets. So a self-parking car can actually save them money (assuming the drivers have mediocre parallel-parking skill). Imagine waiting on a mediocre driver who's atte
    • "Is parking really that hard? Are people really that stupid and lazy? Don't answer that. Can I get a robot to feed me my cereal in the morning? "

      Yeesh. Some car company goes through all the R&D to make an interesting upsell, and suddenly the collective intelligence of society is measured? WTF?

  • Parking is easy (Score:5, Funny)

    by EvilTwinSkippy ( 112490 ) <yoda@nOSpAM.etoyoc.com> on Monday September 01, 2003 @04:34PM (#6846127) Homepage Journal
    Now find me a car that can FIND parking by itself. That I will pay money for.

  • Good for Toyota (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Ugodown ( 665450 )
    I have been impressed with Toyota's tack record in terms of innovation. Energy friendly cars were just the beginning, now integrating technology like this into cars will really make them sell. A far cry from what is being done with American and European cars (exept for the energy part).

  • self merging cars,... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by epicstruggle ( 311178 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @04:35PM (#6846129)
    what we now need are cars that merge onto highways for us. Just like how fighter planes take off without the need of pilot input. I dont think many drivers would go for a car that drives for them, but something that makes merging into fast/dangerous traffic would be greatly appreciated.

    later,
    epic

    • Re:self merging cars,... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bfields ( 66644 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @04:53PM (#6846195) Homepage
      what we now need are cars that merge onto highways for us.

      Unfortunately merging is one of the maneuvers that requires the most communication; in busy traffic you really have to negotiate with the other people on the road--signal and move over a little, watch to see if the approaching driver acknowledges you, and then, depending on the reaction, either move over a little more or retreat and wait for the next gap.

      Exactly the sort of procedure I'd imagine to be most difficult to automate....

      --Bruce Fields

      • Unfortunately merging is one of the maneuvers that requires the most communication; in busy traffic you really have to negotiate with the other people on the road--signal and move over a little, watch to see if the approaching driver acknowledges you, and then, depending on the reaction, either move over a little more or retreat and wait for the next gap.

        How about a radar? I'd like a radar, personally. It'd be a heck of a lot more useful than mirrors, and could be really helpful when vision is impaired

      • Sounds a lot like the POD [help-for-you.com] car that Toyota had announced.

        Toyota says the pod can express up to ten emotions through its lighting and mechanical system. The car has lights embedded in its hood that change color along with the car's mood. Wash the car or refuel it and the pod's hood glows a bright orange. If the driver hits the brakes too hard, the pod glows an angry red.

        The pod can also learn the driver's tastes in music, television or shopping through the use of something called a "mini-pod." That is a h

      • From BBSpot's 'Which OS Are You?' Quiz [bbspot.com]:

        You're driving on the freeway during rush hour, and traffic is at a crawl. You're in the far-left lane, but you need to get to the far-right lane to get your exit. Do you:

        I don't drive

        Courteously signal your lane change, checking your blindspot, waiting for a good samaritan to permit passage

        Creep into the neighboring lane, scaring cautious drivers into giving you a wide berth

        Come to a complete stop, turn on your hazards, get out and place emergency flares in a

      • It would be great to automate if most cars would have that ability. Unlike humans they wouldn't be stubborn and (more importantly) they could comunicate with cars they can't see.

        I for one welcome our new auto-car overlords.

    • Actually I'd prefer it the other way.

      Merging into traffic is one of the exciting parts of my morning commute -- sort of a game to see how far forward I can get ahead of the traffic, and still weasel cleanly in. Same thing with changing lanes at just the right time. Even if a machine could do a better job than me, I would still rather do it myself.

      What I want is a car that will automatically stay a couple of car lengths behind the guy in front, and just sit there and stay in the lane so I can read a book o

    • I dont think many drivers would go for a car that drives for them, but something that makes merging into fast/dangerous traffic would be greatly appreciated.

      It's too bad, because if people and infrastructures were convinced to support it, more intelligent cars would help to solve a lot of traffic problems. It'll probably happen eventually, but only after someone eventually does it and everyone sees how useful it is.

      There are certain driving tasks that computers simply can't perform, such as aroun

    • > what we now need are cars that merge onto highways for us.

      Yes! Yes! But there's so much wasted space between cars on the freeway. What if we attach them all with some kind of coupler. Now refueling them would be a pain, so lets just put electric wires over them and let them feed off the juice. Cars are kinda small and a waste of space, what if we make them more boxy. We can call them box cars or something.

      Now all those drivers are wasting their time because you only need one driver to umm conduct

  • Obvious joke (Score:5, Funny)

    by gilesjuk ( 604902 ) <giles.jones@nospaM.zen.co.uk> on Monday September 01, 2003 @04:37PM (#6846140)
    What happens when the system crashes? :)

  • BBC Story (Score:5, Informative)

    by Arc04 ( 601196 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @04:38PM (#6846143)
    Here is the BBC's take [bbc.co.uk] on the same story.

    The technology for this was shown off months ago - I saw the story. I am glad it is finally being released to the public.

  • Not new (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 01, 2003 @04:42PM (#6846162)
    This is not new. I've seen a similar system nearly 12 years ago used by a handicapped photographer at my high school. His car was retrofitted with a very similar system that would park the car by itself.
    • Yep. They've been showcasing this stuff at a special handicapped mod vendors area (in the basement of Cobo) at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit at least a couple of years now. Saw it first-hand myself...they really sell this stuff, but it's a bit expensive.

  • I can't say I... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bob670 ( 645306 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @04:42PM (#6846163)
    really enjoy driving anymore as it is, and with most major metros (and smaller metros as well) experiencing some level of gridlock, I drive as little as possible in areas where this would be of any real use. I know we are talking about a car company, but I would rather see this kind of effort go in to public transportation/mass transit.

  • The forgotten danger (Score:4, Interesting)

    by menscher ( 597856 ) <[menscher+slashdot] [at] [uiuc.edu]> on Monday September 01, 2003 @04:43PM (#6846167) Homepage Journal
    When backing into a space, your front end swings out a bit. So you have to watch for traffic approaching from behind before you do this. Does the car think to do that? No? Whoops.

  • bigger engine and motor (Score:5, Informative)

    by evenprime ( 324363 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @04:43PM (#6846169) Homepage Journal
    I'm more impressed by the fact that the engine in the new prius is now 78 horsepower(it used to be 70 hp) and the motor is 50kW/67hp (it used to be 44 hp).

    Toyota did the right thing. The new prius is bigger than the old one (now a midsize, not a compact), has fewer emissions, more horsepower, and accelerates faster. Now, if they could only make it cheaper, too....
    • Cheaper? Last thing I heard Toyota was selling them at a loss. Is that still true? Are they profitable yet?

      It may be more expensive, but as other comments point out, the gas savings is MASSIVE so over the life of the car it will easily make up the difference.
    • I just hope in a few years they'll release a hybrid equivalent of a Camry V6. Oh yes, I got 200 hp and gets 50miles per gallon!

      perhaps a little too optimistic, but I wouldn't be suprised.
      • What, do you drive it only downhill? (Maybe the reverse of the route I took to school when I was a kid, which was uphill, both ways . . . )

        If not I call bullshit. According to Toyota [toyota.com] themselves, the V6 Camrys max out at 33MPG (highway), 23 (city):

        Manual transmission 23/33 [6] 23/33 NA
        Automatic transmission 23/32 23/32 23/32

        I can't even squeeze 50MPG out of my V6 Jetta (which is several hundred pounds lighter than a Camry), even if I drive like a grandma afraid of acelleration. I usually get 2

  • cluster (Score:4, Funny)

    by chochos ( 700687 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @04:53PM (#6846193) Homepage Journal
    I can imagine a Beowulf cluster of these. It must look exactly like rush hour.

  • importing one (Score:5, Funny)

    by Sarin ( 112173 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @04:55PM (#6846201) Homepage Journal
    Be carefull if you want to import one, in Japan they drive on the left hand side.
    I imagine when you try to autopark in a right hand side country it will park in the middle of the road instead of the sidewalk.

  • Better yet (Score:5, Funny)

    by earthforce_1 ( 454968 ) <earthforce_1@yaho[ ]om ['o.c' in gap]> on Monday September 01, 2003 @05:03PM (#6846230) Journal
    A car that continuously drives itself around the block, and avoids the need for parking. (Or parking tickets) Paying for the extra fuel is probabably cheaper that hourly parking in most major cities, and certainly would be in Japan.

    • In some cities like San Francisco, it's cheaper to pay somebody to keep driving your car around in circles than it is to pay for a parking garage. Why pay thousands for an automated system when you could pay a teenager $6/hour?

    • Only in America (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      If people ever actually think stuff like this is a good idea, we need to raise the tax on gasoline. No wonder we're so dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

  • Interesting Idea (Score:4, Funny)

    by ewhenn ( 647989 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @05:07PM (#6846251)
    How about we adapt this technology so that it automatically detects if the parking spot is for a handicapt or not. If the owner parks illegally in one of these spots, the car backs the F$&K over them.

  • yes... (Score:2, Funny)

    by holzp ( 87423 )
    yes, but can it automatically flip the bird to that !@&#^$ who stole the spot from you, because is impolite car was made in the usa?

  • Wrong place for intelligence (Score:4, Interesting)

    by El ( 94934 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @05:12PM (#6846275)
    What we need is a car that watches the driver, and says things link "You're drunk! I'm NOT starting!" and "Hang up the cellphone and pay attention to your driving!"
  • It'll be interesting to see if different parking algorithms popup for different vehicles.

    Obviously for the prius you need a fairly conservative routine. With restrictions like "don't bump the vehicles in front/back" and "there must initially be enough room for the vehicle to fit."

    For a Hummer or Abrams tank I think you could probably relax the restrictions a little. If you need to widen the spot a little you could probably give the vehicles in front/back a little bump. Or just park on top of another ve

  • Reminds me of a bad card I read (Score:5, Funny)

    by zapp ( 201236 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @05:27PM (#6846337)
    On the front was a picture of a woman trying to parallel park, crunching into all the cars around her. The title was "Why women can't drive..."

    on the inside..

    Because men will tell them this is 6 inches:
    --> ==== <--

    Needless to say it wasn't quite the punchline I was expecting :)

  • How stunt drivers do it (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 01, 2003 @06:05PM (#6846502)
    Get front wheel drive manual car with a very very good handbrake.

    Head towards the parking spot at a fair speed, as perpendicular to the spot as you can. Swerve car and pull handbrake and then brake and counter steer so that you neatly skid and slide in sideways.

    With this method you can park in a spot that's practically the same length as your car - just depends on how accurate you are.

    Getting out requires a bit more space - the length of the space must be slightly more than the diagonal length of your car. Pull handbrake to max, turn steering wheel max (to lock) towards side you want to exit from. Stomp on clutch, red line engine, release clutch, burn rubber and gradually spin car out of space.

    Not recommended in uncontrolled environments.
    • I believe the world record for parking in a space using this method was done by a British stunt driver (forget his name) who managed to handbrake into a space 17cm longer than the car itself and stop with both wheels within 10cm of the kerb. It took his about four tries to do this.

      The stunt driver in question made his name doing the same stunt in TV ads for the Austin Montego car - a car so truly f'ing awful that it deserved to be confined to the great car crusher in the sky upon launch.

  • why? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ShadowRage ( 678728 )
    Why are we encouraging laziness? bad enough people already can barely drive, so why make it easier for them to be better screw ups, stop microsoftizing everything people, because if the technology fails, what are people gonna do? Like one dude said, market these to people who honestly need the technology (eg, semi-paralyzed people, older folks, etc) Stop giving people an excuse for being dumbasses.
    • are you going to complain about the existance of the automatic transmission as well? Or how about turn signals... its less lazy to stick your arm out the window to point where you're going.

      I for one am a crappy parallel parker. I'm a great driver.. i just suck at maneuvering my car into a tight spot parallelwise. I would welcome this any day.

      Or what about those darn public transportation riders... actually letting other people drive FOR them!

  • I didn't see any video so I can't say for sure, but here in Japan we don't parallel park that often. Not much street parking available (when you do street park you're usually double or triple parked). What people do do, almost obsessively, is back into parking spaces. That's probably what the Prius was doing.

  • The Toyota Prius that backed over an old lady because she was small and wearing something that absorbed the signature. The Toyota Prius that smashes itself on Philadelphia curbs... The Toyota Prius...

    Yeah, bring this car on.

  • I can just see it now... autoupdate feature of self driving car gets hijacked by hackers...

Slashdot Top Deals

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson

Close