Digital Cameras Help Alert Sleepy Drivers

An anonymous reader writes "An interesting story on how digital cameras are being mounted in cars to watch the eye movements of drivers to make sure that they are awake. The cars include two cameras, one watching the road and one watching the driver. If there is something on the road that is a danger and the driver doesn't see, the car alerts the driver. Pretty neat technology."

Comments

Cool intermediate technology

[Dancin_Santa]

Obviously, the final application of this kind of technology is to allow the car to take primary control of the vehicle and let the passengers relax in peace.

We already have navigation systems that are accurate to within half a meter in many cities worldwide. We also have collision detection algorithms (aka hashing functions) that can help avoid crashing into other cars. We now can mount cameras onto vehicles to provide visual sensory input.

All we really need is an IR sensory input for fog driving.

In cities, this kind of "decide the destination" driving without the hassle of actually driving the vehicle would be really useful, I think.

Re:Cool intermediate technology

[Goosey]

In cities, this kind of "decide the destination" driving without the hassle of actually driving the vehicle would be really useful, I think.

Great idea! We could call it Taxi!

Re:Cool intermediate technology

[Colin Smith]

"All we really need is an IR sensory input for fog driving."

Just stick on an IR camera and cars will be able to drive themselves? Nope, we're decades away from fully automated vehicles. Real roads are far far more complex than the test roads which they have been run on so far.

http://robotics.eecs.berkeley.edu/~janka/PATH/st er eo_drive.html

If you want fully automated vehicles right now, a segregated guideway is required, AKA Personal Rapid Transit.

http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/

Alerts you to dangerous things on the road?

[Seumas]

If there is something on the road that is a danger and the driver doesn't see, the car alerts the driver.

Now, if only they can devise a way to keep 85 year olds who think that it's their god given right to drive until the day they die, from slamming on the gas and destroying buildings and killing pedestrians because they thought it was the break pedal - or driving into THROUGH AN AIRPORT because they thought you return your car at the Hertz inside the airport.

Better or Worse?

[N Monkey]

I can't remember the exact figures but I heard that in the UK either "1 in 6" fatal accidents may be caused by falling asleep at the wheel. Certainly they've been advertising the dangers of driving while tired as much now as anti-drink-driving.

Now I can see it could save a life if a so called "micro sleep" occured at the wheel but could it have the opposite effect? Would some people then try to drive longer thinking they have a safety net/alarm clock to wake them up if they drift off?

Re:Better or Worse?

[tristan-jt2]

I remember seeing a documentary on TV a few years ago, can't remember if it was in the UK or in France.

They had taken a dozen of drivers fitting a particular set of criteria. They had to be used to driving at night, and drive a certain mileage every week.

They rigged them up with monitoring equipment, set a couple of night vision cameras in the car and sent them on their way.

They had to drive a distance that was estimated to take about 4h.

Once at the destination a team of boffins would ask them to fill in a questionaire about how they felt about the drive, whether they felt tired, etc.

The results were simply scary:
None of them had bothered to take a break.
None of them declared having felt tired enough to feel they had to take a break.
Yet their brain activity was showing numerous periods that looked like deep sleep for less than 5 seconds.
On average these periods amounted to a whooping 6 minutes over the 4h of driving.
On the videos you could just see the drivers blinking for a unusually long time.

Having a system that detects that I'm blinking in a suspicious way, gets the driver seat to vibrate, and then sound an alarm if I don't open my eyes immediately would certainly not annoy me. I'd take the hint that I need to take the next exit and try to grab 1/2h of sleep.

My sister fell asleep at the wheel once while on the motorway and told us that she had only blinked, only to open her eyes after feeling what she described as a bump.
She took the next exit because she was feeling seriously tired and slightly puzzled about the "bump". Turned out she had hit the safety rail after drifting all the way over the fast lane.

Re:Better or Worse?

[Dave_M_26]

Basically people feel safer so they drive faster/aren't as careful.

I always thought that an interesting experiment would be to remove the driver's seatbelt and fix a large spike to the steering wheel. I suspect the number of accidents would go down ;-)

Dave

Complacency

[tod_miller]

I do not mind having some driver alert system, but if it goes off too many times, too many false positives, then drivers may ignore it, yet at the same time, the very fact that it is there might make them more willing to distract thier attention from the road.

So it gives you a false sense of security, but like all computer equiptment, you ignore it the seconed it gets too annoying.

How many times has a car alarm gone off, and you rush outside to apprehend the thieves?

This sounds too much like a tax funded project gone awry. Perhaps the car might have a failsafe mode if the triggers go too far? if the person doesn't hit an ok button in enough time, the car should slow calmly and require some special intervention to make sure the user is aware.

Now any action on the part of a computer that would remove the human from the loop is not desirable, as this would mean a car might slow in the middle of a 5 lane intersection, or something stupid.

But if humans take themselves out of the loop through complacency, then that is worse.

This is great and all..

[kagaku]

..but shouldn't it be the drivers responsibility to stay awake while driving? If you're tired enough that you need a camera to watch your eye movement to make sure you aren't falling asleep, should you really be driving?

It wont work!

[Goth Biker Babe]

There's this psychological effect called risk compensation. It's been shown that the safe people believe they are the less careful they will be. So if you have mechanisms in your car to stop you from being stupid you'll actually be even more stupid that you would normally be and so the whole thing balances out.

Here in the UK Volvo drivers have a bad name with motorcyclists. Why? Because they are very safe cars and so many Volvo drivers take less care than someone in a less safe car. But cars aren't the only thing on the road and it's all well and good you being safe in your car if you're involved in an accident but what about the other poor sod!

Actually the best thing to make everyone drive safely and wear seat belts and the like is to put a spike in the centre of the steering wheel!

Re:Privacy concerns

[polecat_redux]

Suppose insurance companies were able to gain access to data this could produce, and started factoring your on-road alertness into their rate

And why shouldn't they? If you drive half-asleep/drunk/retarded, your rates *should* go up, and insurance companies should be able to access any relevant info about your driving habits in order to determine your rates.

It's getting to the point where simply being inconspicuous with deviant/dangerous behavior is no longer sufficient to avoid the consequences, and I say good. I think that if you drive drunk, or speed, or drive erratically, you should get a ticket regardless of whether or not a cop happens to be present at the time. And yes, I'm talking about equipping cars with devices that can detect such crimes. Too many people confuse this with an issue of privacy or civil rights, but I don't believe it to be. Such a thing would merely serve to lift the veil of obscurity that many people tend to hide behind as they threaten the lives of those around them.

Another safety feature - all nice and well, but...

[EkkiEkkiShiwaddle]

Allthough I'm all in favour of stashing each and every car out there with as much devices to increase safety, each time I read an article like this I still have my doubts.

The problem with all these safety features is that people feel too safe in their cars.

Going to fast? My wonderfull ABS system will bring me to a halt no matter what. Accelerating beyond my limits? Why, ASC will keep me on track. DSC will keep me on the road in those nasty corners. The new Citroen C5 has that nifty lane departure alert system, so why would I even keep my hands on the wheel, my car'll tell me when I'm flying off the road just in time!

Ok, ok, maybe I'm exagerating things a bit here, but you wouldn't believe the number of people that actually believe this stuff (or at least appear to be driving as if they believe it).

IMHO, the driver is and should always be responsible for his/her car, not some autopilot. People should be made aware of the risks of ignoring these systems more, than they should be made aware of situations they should've seen for themselves.

Know the limits of yourself. Know the limits of your car. If you go beyond either of those, no system out there now nor in future will keep you on the road.