Slashdot Mirror
GM Researching Windshields For Old Drivers
beuges writes "General Motors researchers are working on a high-tech windshield that users lasers and infra-red sensors to identify and enhance important objects for older drivers with vision problems. 'For example, during a foggy drive, a laser projects a blue line onto the windshield that follows the edge of the road. Or if infrared sensors detect a person or animal in the driver's path during a night drive, its outline is projected on the windshield to highlight its location.' And it's not only older drivers who will benefit: 'Some features would be helpful to drivers of all ages. If a driver is speeding, a pink box frames an approaching speed limit sign to draw the driver's attention.' The 65 and older population in the US will nearly double in about 20 years, meaning more people will be struggling to see the road like they used to."
Because what all drivers need, are distracting colors at high speed.
Seems that all drivers could benefit from contrast enhancement in the fog (or rain or snow).
Can they be programmed to keep those damn kids off your lawn? And will this research be passed along to the receiver when GM files for bankruptcy next week?
No mod points, no meta-moderating/Firehose/all the other free work Slashdot wants me to do.
When you approach a street hockey game, the Super Windshield will also highlight the puck with a blue line when it is being passed and a red line when somebody takes a shot on the net.
Why are people that require 'driving enhancements' allowed to drive in the first place?
But if no one can afford the gas here soon who is going to care?
Sure, safety IS important, but id rather see the billions poured into increasing fuel efficiency ( or ditching fossil fuels totally ) first.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Also, windshields are expensive to replace already. I can only imagine how much this super-zowie windshield would cost to replace after a few stray pebbles dings it up on the freeway.
Also older people aren't really down with new technology--they would be the last people to adopt this.
However, most likely you could sell it to teenagers who want to watch youtube while they drive.
Careful What You Wish For....
Maybe if you're 65 years or older and you have vision problems you shouldn't be driving?
This could lead to starvation in some parts of the world. Many people in my area rely on roadkill to feed their family. If this windshield does what it promises to do, there will be a lot less meat on the side of the road.
Exactly. I mean, if someone needs technology like "headlights" to help them seeing at night, I don't want to drive anywhere NEAR them. Give me a dark, manly road any day.
Maybe automakers can work on expanding the field of vision. I still look back over my shoulder before I make a lane change on the highway to see if there's a car in my "blind spot", and every so often I catch one that I didn't see in the mirror. But the ability or willingness to turn around and look may diminish with age.
There's just no good reason to keep older folks behind the wheel, much as I love 'em. It's better economics to just help them get around by friends and family, public transpo or volunteer efforts.
When will we get cars that don't need fallible, lazy, often incompetent humans to drive them? Or maybe an efficient mass transit system? You know, like some (backward) parts of the world have had for a century or so.
If this tech is good enough to be more than just another distraction then maybe we should think seriously about letting people do something useful with all that otherwise wasted time. Give us robot cars already.
Driving used to be fun. These days it's just a boring, dangerous, annoying, and expensive chore.
You can find a prototype of the display at this link. It's also handy for identifying makes of motorcycles and correct sizes of biker clothing.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
There have been times where I was driving on the interstate just before dawn, on my way home from working all night, and very tired. A mild curve was coming up ahead of me, with simple reflectors on poles to make the curve easier to see. Unfortunately, my depth perception apparently wasn't working (due to fatigue), and I saw the reflectors as a straight line.
This caused me to slam on my brakes (at 75mph) hard enough that I had to fight from the car spinning out of control. If there'd been anybody close to me, I definately would have caused an accident.
Assuming this tech works as advertized, it would have prevented this near-accident (and the misaligning of my wheels that it caused). Should also be useful in heavy fog/blizzard conditions.
Seriously - night driving or fog and it points out where the stuff you can't see is is supposed to be for old people, but speeding bringing up a pink sign is for everyone? Wtf?
I would love for a kind of thermal imaging sensor that does head up warnings of where almost invisible things are when I'm driving.
And as for the person above asking why people should be allowed to drive if they NEED this, it's not about needing it (you can always just slow down a lot), it's about it being a good fucking idea! I remember the night driving aid being shown off in "Beyond 2000" back when it was on and thinking "great idea" not "meh, only for old people - they're the only ones in need of knowing what more than 20 yards in front of the car when driving in dense fog at night."
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Older drivers can be dangerous. I, for one, welcome the new libwindshield.so
I don't know about the rest of you, but a "pink box" by the side of the road would cause me to not just slow down, but stop and offer it a ride.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
Because you can be a less than perfect driver and still be good enough that it's not justified to take away your license.
It's not a substitute for basic competency, it's a way to improve on factors that are already deemed adequate, but could still be better.
Weird slashbug #455
Indeed. The average 15 year old has sharper vision and quicker reflexes than anyone who'll need this technology... yet which one of them is allowed to get a driver's license?
(Hint 1: it's not the one who's statistically likely to cause fewer accidents per mile traveled.)
(Hint 2: it's the one who's allowed to vote, because politicians wouldn't dare take his driving rights away.)
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Because then noone would be allowed to drive.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Cadillac has had projected night vision before, and Pontiac has had a HUD spedometer available on and off for some models since the mid 1980's. If they can polish the two and combine that with a useful GPS minimap that's not too distracting, why not have it as an option for ALL models across ALL brands? (And be more consistent about having it as a feature, instead of pulling it off the market every now and then and falsely touting it as a "new" feature when a car from five years before had it.) Also implement it such that the display or various elements can be toggled on or off, since some people may still find such gadgets more distracting than useful.
It blinds speed cameras when i'm speeding right?
FRA: STFU GTFO
If a driver is speeding, a pink box frames an approaching speed limit sign to draw the driver's attention
I'd be much more interested if it could point out speed traps to me...
It only takes one man to change the Wisdom of the Crowd to Tyranny of the Masses.
>(Hint 2: it's the one who's allowed to vote, because politicians wouldn't dare take his driving rights away.)
And yet most 16 year olds can't vote and can get a license.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
I don't know about you, but my grandpa believes almost as much in hist "right" to drive as his right to bear arms... And I will not attempt to take away his keys until someone else has safely taken away his guns.
Funny how his sight and focus improves when he is looking over the sight of a long arm.
Showing the edge of the road is pointless if the driver is not told about other hazards.
If you can't see far enough into the fog to brake, then slow down until you can.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
And STILL nothing to turn off the damn blinkers. UGH!
What?
With ideas like this, it hard to understand why GM is going under and becoming the laughing stock of the entire world economy. No seriously, this isn't a sign of bat shit insanity on the part of GM executives, its really a brilliant idea. At least, they will have something completely worthless to offer GM long timers when GM refuses to pay their health benefits and pensions.
It sure would be nice if this sucker could highlight cop cars as well.
This is an important first step in making self-driving cars. An automated car needs to recognize hazards and road signs, and it can't afford to have bugs or make mistakes. A driver-assisting windshield does the same thing, but with less severe consequences when it screws up. Once all the bugs are fixed and the limitations are known, it can be used as part of a self-driving car.
We really, really need computers to handle our driving. A computer would be a safer driver than most of the idiots on the road. It would put a stop to all the drunk driving. But most of all, staring at the road for hours on end is a waste of time. I'd rather spend my commute talking, working or watching a movie, rather than worrying about what my car is doing.
We've had lots of driving enhancements over the years, for safety and ease of use. Power steering, power brakes, automatic transmission, cruise control, directional signals, fog lights, air bags, anti-lock brakes. Just because someone uses them doesn't mean they depend on having them, but these things can make driving safer and more comfortable.
And the population of seniors will jump in the US over the next couple decades. These people still need to get to work, shop, play golf, visit their kids, etc.
so what kind of outline does it give for farmers' markets? maybe some arrows pointing in the direction? ;)
... you've done it again!
Have gnu, will travel.
Get used to it.
Odd, I don't know why I'm marked as Troll. I thought that was a valid question. Seriously, people that can't drive without enhancements should be off the road, making it safer for everyone else. Mandatory testing after a certain age should be a requirement.
The windshield is useless unless it can stop a senior from mowing down civilians in a farmer's market. Let George Russell Weller try it out.
And they shouldn't be allowed to do any of those things if they're a danger on the road!
Odd,Seriously, people that can't drive without enhancements should be off the road, making it safer for everyone else.
My license states that I require glasses to aid my vision when driving. Should I be off the road?
I have to wear glasses to drive. How is that any different? Or maybe ban us four eyes while you are at it.
Try telling that to the judge next time you're caught driving drunk.
I know, drinking is optional, growing old is not. But if there's a danger to people on the street, there should be a limit on how old you can be and drive, just as there's a limit on how drunk you can be and drive.
The driving skills and written tests should be required every 5-10 years for all persons. It may not solve the problem, but it would keep those who really needs to be off the road, off of the road. Hopefully.
"An infinite number of monkeys typing into GNU emacs would never make a good program."
In some regions (mostly In the EU I think), cars need to be inspected by official instances periodically. On "old" car (like 10 years or so), the period and intensity of those inspections increases... because, obviously, cars tend to have more problems when they get older.
That's very nice, but on the other hand, the approach for drivers is totally different. You pass your permit once and then you have it for life. Looking at the way people drive here, a periodic reevaluation of law and safety knowledge, driving skills, awareness and visual acuity of the drivers should be done on a periodic basis (like every 5 years or so) and on a more regular basis after a certain age.
Using these tests, special limitations could be imposed to drivers having problems, like being allowed to drive during the day only. Eventually, full permit revocation could occur.
That may sound a harsh thing to do for us used to a "lifetime" privilege, but I've witness so many accidents cause by older drivers. Some where so unaware of their situation, they didn't even realize they were implicated in an accident. Few years back, one drove over a 7 year old kit and its bike... thinking he had it a bump on the road. That was 50 meters away from an elementary school, on the hours where kids get out of the school.
As much as I respect our elders and all they can contribute to us and our society, they do not contribute a lot of good things by driving while not having the health to do so. When you are at the point you require artificial means to cope with your loss of sight and awareness (other than normal glasses or contacts), you shouldn't drive. Period. You are only putting the lives of others (and your own) at risk.
You can eliminate that blind spot by adjusting your driver-side side view mirror so that you can just see the side of your car when your head is against the window. See http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~gdguo/driving/BlindSpot.htm for images.
The chances of a deer being in front of you are miniscule compared with the chances of a car being front of you.
Your logic would have us avoid dealing with the commonplace to prepare for the rare.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
So how long will it take for someone to invent an extension to this that identified b00bies, highlights them, measures them, photographs them, rates them and uploads them to the Internet?
My father was an excellent driver, even though he was blind in one eye and thus had no depth perception. He'd learned over the years how to compensate and judge distances without it. He was still driving, safely, until his health failed in his mid-80s. However, this was in part because of a class he'd been to: Alive at 55. The idea behind the class was that elderly drivers, with slower reflexes and dimming vision should limit themselves to 55 mph on the freeway and stay in the right-hand lane whenever possible. He didn't need any fancy, expensive technology to keep him safe, he just drove at a speed that was safer for him. I've always kept that in mind, and when I get old enough to worry about such things, I'll be doing exactly the same thing.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
It's not a substitute for basic competency, it's a way to improve on factors that are already deemed adequate
But knowing and respecting your limitations is basic competency. Including knowing if you shouldn't be driving at night or in the fog. Bad night vision might not be a reason to take away someone's license, but driving at night with bad night vision is a reason to take away that license.
We are all just people.
There are states that allow 14 and 15 year olds to drive. If you want to know why, it's because Tractors and certain off road vehicles require a license, and these states have people that live in the boonies.
http://golocalnet.com/drivingage/
Look, jack ass, there's a difference between "needs some help" and "a danger on the road."
Let's stop allowing people who don't have 20-20 vision from driving, because they might forget their contacts or glasses!
Most old people I see driving drive better than most young people. They drive slower, yeah, and that's a real pain sometimes, but they drive CAREFUL. Very, very few are the types you're worried about.
I say this as a 25 year old.
hah, captcha: follies.
Everyone who drives is a danger on the road, just as everyone who owns a gun is at some risk of accidentally harming themselves or their own family. The level of danger is relative. The question is, what is an acceptable level of danger, given the needs and legally established rights of the individual? It's not black and white. In most parts of America, having a car is important for people's lifestyles and ability to get to work. If they're living in a nursing or retirement home, things might be different, but most people over age 65 have much more active lifestyles, and many still have careers.
The insurance companies tell us that people under age 25 are substantially more likely than older drivers to make a claim. The 16-19 age group is particularly bad. Does that mean that people shouldn't get licensed to drive until they're 20 or 25? Some would say yes, but tradition in this country is that youngsters should know how to drive by the time they graduate from high school. Otherwise their parents might spend a lot of time shuttling their kids around, or paying big bucks for someone else to do so. Similarly, it would be quite burdensome for many still-active seniors not to be able to drive.
"Turn off your turn signal asshole!"
photosMy Photostream
Will it come with AI too? It'll need it in the UK.
a pink box frames an approaching speed limit sign to draw the driver's attention - presumably it has inbuilt magic to detect signs that are important or not.
Over here, it'll need to figure out the difference between speed limit signs, weather warning signs, stop signs, signs telling us there's speed bumps 250 yards up on the side street to the left, signs to warn us of pedestrians at, uuurm pedestrian crossings, and last but not least, signs to warn us of traffic lights coming up.
My grandpa used to complain of information overload on the roads - 10 years ago. I'm 28 now, and am complaining about it. I just hope these 'smart systems' can filter out the crap from the useful stuff and make lives easier.
If you're caught operating a car without corrective lenses, yes.
Exactly. If they can't handle driving without the assistance of gadgets on their car, what will happen when the gadgets break?
Also, this doesn't solve more dangerous problems. Just today in my area, an elderly woman "got confused" and hit the accelerator and not the brake, slamming head-on into a house at a high speed. All the "vision enhancement" gadgets in the world wouldn't have prevented that.
What we really need is cross-hairs for identifying and eliminating farmers markets for these old folks.
Less of a blindspot due to roof supports on Chevy's (I drive an Impala LT), less haze caused by scratches in the windshield, about 10 MPG better milage, and directional spotlights tied in to the blinkers so I can see where I WANT to go. It's nice to hit the remote start system, but it would be better to be able to choose between remote start and "roll down all the windows". I live where it's VERY hot. Rolling down the windows would work much better than to run the A/C for a few minutes before I enter the car.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
And yet most 16 year olds can't vote and can get a license.
Over the last decade or so, that ability has been continuously chipped away at and crippled, at least in some parts of the US. E.g. if you are 16 or 17, you can get a "license", but you can't have passengers in your car unless one of them is over 25, that kind of thing.
So I would say that the GP is correct - politicians *would* dare to restrict the driving abilities of those who can't vote.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
"Why are people that require 'driving enhancements' allowed to drive in the first place?"
Enhancements like eyeglasses? Or automatic gearboxes? Or hand-actuated accellerator? Seems we allow devices to correct for impairments already.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
GM should do what they already do for old rich oilmen in Texas. Grind the windshields to prescription so they don't have to wear their eyeglasses.
I know, drinking is optional, growing old is not. But if there's a danger to people on the street, there should be a limit on how old you can be and drive, just as there's a limit on how drunk you can be and drive.
Where do you put the limit?
I have one friend in his 30's who lost his license due to too many moving violations. Another in his 90's with a nearfect record. (Though the law where he lives requires him to get a driving exam every two years - actual driving, not just the written exam. He has always scored very high.)
Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
The US should make its requirements more stringent and have a more gradual driver license.
So if you start losing some of your faculties, you're no longer allowed to drive your old Plymouth tank -- but still can drive a compact car. And if you lose more of your faculties, then you're no longer allowed to drive your compact car, and only allowed to drive an electrical golf cart car. You could make the system more gradual still. You'd basically base the system on the overall poundage of the car, and the maximum speed of the vehicle (should you lose consciousness and press on the gas pedal continuously).
By making the system more gradual, you'd make the system easier and less dreadful to implement. Plus, this would encourage car manufacturers to develop cars that are even smaller and safer for older drivers to operate.
.
I suggest a taste of what passes for rural metro bus service in your area.
In the western third of our county there is one morning run and one afternoon run.
Your daily commute is at 2 1/2 hours out and 2 1/2 hours back.
Its primary purpose is transportation for the physically fit but mentally retarded adult - linking group homes, clinics, hospitals, sheltered work programs and so on.
It is to be blunt a drearily institutional run - rather more cheering and sociable than the sheriff's prison van.
But planned and executed in much the same spirit.
Some passengers will need to be coaxed onto the bus. Some passengers will need to be coaxed off the bus. Some cannot be trusted to cross a road alone.
The service is theoretically open to anyone. You can schedule a pick-up anywhere on the route. But there are no wheelchair lifts. No shelters.
In the winter you might find some relief in the shadow of the neighborhood mini-mart - still closed at 7 AM. The driver may roar past your stop without thinking.
The steps will be Alpine for anyone needing a cane.
...i.e. that in 20 years, automobiles will be driving themselves. I give a lecture on the consequences of Moore's Law to a freshmen class every year. Some of the things I tell students: "You are the last generation that will need to learn to drive. To your children it will be an option. To your grandchildren it will be as quaint a concept as learning to saddle and ride a horse. Best of all, you will never have to face the decision that your parents must face with your grandparents - when to take away the car keys. You and your parents will always have the independence of personal transportation, because you'll simply climb into a car and tell it where you want to go."
Vision enhancement for older drivers will be moot when they don't have to drive in the first place.
By god, you've figured it out!
No traffic jams, no traffic - cut's down on road wear and maintenance, cuts down on taxes.
Less fuel costs - less pressure on oil prices, less dependence on weird foreigners.
Fewer accidents - lowers you insurance costs, keeps medical bills down.
Less car upkeep - money right in your pocket.
Let's go for it!
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
And yet most 16 year olds can't vote and can get a license.
Increasingly fewer 16 yr olds are getting licenses. In some cases, the minimum age has been increased, in other cases, the restrictions on the licenses no longer allow the 16 (or 17) year old to chaulfer her/his younger sibs so the parents do not have to (so the parents no longer see a reason to pay for driving lessons or higher insurance premiums).
Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
that I don't need which will break.
Whatever happened to the "your rights end where mine start" thing? If someone can't drive w/o enhancements, that's a public safety risk. Second, technology fails, especially when it's developed by corporations motivated by profit margins.
It's situations like this I think of the line in Armageddon, about the rocket full of fuel containing a nuclear warhead and thousands of moving parts being built by the lowest bidder.
No sig for you!!
If a central decision-making authority chooses the area of greatest social benefit and directs investment there, that's a command economy, like communism.
If simultaneous investments are made in all areas that look like they might turn a profit, and further investment in the successful ones is provided by success in the market, that's capitalism.
Which do you prefer?
Although your "telling that to the judge" is insightful, your comment about "should be a limit on how old you can be" is absolutely, 100% wrong.
Your age, be it 50, 60, 70, 80, or 90, is totally irrelevant as a determination for your ability to drive. Your *PERFORMANCE* is a reasonable indicator. So I would very much support comprehensive TESTING of [all] drivers to make sure they can still see, compute, and react in a reasonable manner. Defining what is "reasonable" could be complicated, but it is certainly a hell of a lot more fair than revoking a license from a perfectly capable driver simply because they hit some magic age.
And while we are on the topic of driving, and drinking.... having some magic alcohol percent present in your blood is just as stupid an indicator as some arbitrary age. I have never consumed alcohol, plus I am a small-framed, non-overweight person, so just one drink would totally incapacitate me. Someone who is large and drinks regularly could have the same blood level and be fine. Again, is it "easy" to test people for performance? No, it is harder. But it is fair. One could be just as incapacitated from lack of sleep, cold medication, low blood sugar, etc, none of which have a defined "blood level" for driving.
.
It interests me when the geek argues that less information - less situational awareness is better.
I have been caught in rush hour traffic in Buffalo New York when visibility has shrunk to nothing in fog and snow and ice ---sandwiched between drivers who had their own notion of what was safe.
All of those are just a few of the examples of the methods used to empower people who are unable to drive to do so more safely. Many of those are things you rely on daily unless you're driving a Flintstone vehicle or a tractor. Why? Really, I think too many people drive who can not but I suspect it is because people believe that they have a right to move around freely and this is a compromise (and always has been) and not all of us can be qualified professional drivers.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
LASERS do not belong in cars.
They belong on sharks - get with the program.
Warning sticker: Do not look at windsheild with remaining good eye...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
So I would say that the GP is correct - politicians *would* dare to restrict the driving abilities of those who can't vote.
Or won't vote.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
And in Soviet Russia when you are 65, grocery store needs to go get YOU!
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
Well, your glasses can compensate for the vision degradation. Do we have something that can compensate for the degradation in people's reflexes?
Testing should be mandatory every few years, not just for the elderly. What if your vision starts to go at a much earlier age? Stupid you, you think you see just fine and then you run over some equally stupid kid.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
I've been waiting for something like that for 20 years.
"Even for Slashdot, that was a very obscure reference!" - Anonymous Coward
Actually, the minimum age to drive should be raised to around 44. That is the first time that the percentage of drivers that age equals the percentage of accidents they are in. For example, 16 - 19 years old is 4.7% of the driving population, but have 13.5% of the accidents.
20 -24 are 8.4% but have 14.3% of accidents.
A better use of GM's time would be to detect when a driver is old, then disable the engine and lock the brakes.
.
With apologies to the A.C. who first posted this link:
State-by-state Driving Rules for Teenage Drivers
working on seat with disposable diaper for "accidents" while driving. Keep you dry while driving!
Also most terrific GPS that obey commands "take me home", "home, boy!" and "Wherethef***amI?" with most sincere and honorable retort.
None of these objects are particularly prone to failure, and when they do fail, it isn't particularly hazardous. I have never had a pair of glasses spontaneously break. You can drive safely without power steering. If your windshield shatters you probably have other problems. If you need your helmet you also have other problems.
Now suppose this windshield fails. Maybe the power dies, or the sensor is dirty, or the shape recogniton software misses something, or it misjudges the velocity or trajectory of an object. If the person relies on this device at the time of failure, splat. The other devices can fail, but they generally won't lie to you.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
.
Vision and reflexes are fine. Experience, judgment and self-control can count for more. Each spring we bury a few more kids who didn't make it past their high school graduation.
Indeed. The average 15 year old has sharper vision and quicker reflexes than anyone who'll need this technology... yet which one of them is allowed to get a driver's license?
(Hint 1: it's not the one who's statistically likely to cause fewer accidents per mile traveled.)
What color is the sky in the world where you live?
On my planet, which we call Earth, young drivers are involved in a disproportionately high number of traffic accidents. It's why their insurance rates are higher than the rates assigned to older people - they tend to be crappier drivers due to inexperience and a tendency to make stupid mistakes like driving way too fast, driving while drunk, driving while staring at their girlfriend's breasts, etc.
#DeleteChrome
Where I live, old people are rarely the cause of accidents. It's mostly young men, aggressive drivers, drunk drivers, inexperienced drivers, and people who are not paying attention to their driving.
There's a reason that my insurance rates are much lower than those who think that speed limits are a plot by "The Man" to take their money, and that they are NASCAR material.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Yes, that was exactly the point I was trying to make. Drinking has been declared *the* villain in traffic accidents, but is this realistic? Judging from my experience, it seems that rain is a big offender, too. Perhaps we should save more lives if driving in rain was prohibited, like some car races are stopped when it starts raining? Well, driving in the rain cannot be avoided sometimes, but driving in the dark can. Why not have a driving curfew during the night?
And so on, as you mention, there are many factors that influence one's ability to drive, why pick on alcohol exclusively.
Wait... so if the windshield is constructed in a way that it fluoresces, wouldn't skylight, mercury vapor lamps, and other UV abundant light sources affect the windshield? And we'll need brighter headlights to balance out the HUD display. (darn headlights are bright enough today) Besides, if people have poor enough vision that they rely on a HUD, they really shouldn't be driving.
Exactly what I was asking.
Now, on a more darwinistic approach, what you'd want is to give the aids to the younger drivers, and take them off for older drivers!
Call me evil, but we need evolution to continue. Take the aids off from anyone about 75 who insists on driving, and we'll have a solution to the baby-boomer retirement issue! Old people, take a bus, don't annoy the rest of the world when you're on the road, dammit!!
I took a ride with a friend, and he put on a pair of glasses. I said, "I didn't know you wore glasses." He said, "Oh, I only need them when I drive."
"Huh. Then why not just get a prescription windshield?"
-Brian Regan
C'est pas apres qu'on a fait dans son pantalon qu'il faut serrer les fesses.
great, good, grand. still waiting for more efficient motors.
driving is not a right...
it is a privilege.
Today, we stopped 4 lanes of traffic to let a mama duck and her 10 chicks cross. I noticed a puff of smoke from the tires of the car in front and stopped next to him. A guy in the opposite lane noticed the commotion and stopped as well and flagged the other lane to a stop. The only problem is that this was a good 10km and many roads from the river.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
All of the electronic gadgets in the world would not compensate for the fact that when he looked left, he turned left. Sometimes he would be seen driving down the road with his drivers door flailing wide open. I followed him one day only to seem him driving in the edges of yards, and slightly in the oncoming traffic lane.
Knowing that one day, when I am elderly, what i am about to say will ultimately turn around to bite me in the rear, here it is:
Instead of trying to find ways that will ultimately prove to be non-affective in helping elderly folks with poor vision, hearing, and reflexes attempt to drive safely, we should be issuing yearly examinations and skills assessments after a given age. I am no expert on how the body ages, and at what age you would be most likely to be incapable of driving. But I would guess that at about 65 would be a fair time frame to start such testing.
If you cannot safely operate the vehicle and safely maneuver in situations we all face daily while driving like pedistrians, animals, traffic, and complex intersections, the the license should simply be revoked.
I know it sounds harsh, however, I have given this alot of thought over the years. At some point, we have to stop worrying about accomodating an unsafe driver and hoping it works, and start worrying about the innocents like the kids playing kickball or riding their bicycles.
BrickerEnterprises.Com - Innovation at work
If they run over a pedestrian with anything it's still going to cause a lot of damage. You seem to be only thinking of the driver.
If a driver is speeding, a pink box frames an approaching speed limit sign to draw the driver's attention.
I can just see it now, highlighting some billboards and signs, maybe throwing in a few text ads too.
But windshield displays could have some strange uses too.
A way to add subtitles at the drive-in theater?
Maybe the windshield would make a good big screen HDTV. With the high price of gas and the current mortgage crisis, this seems like a good time for a remake of the 1979 movie Americanthon, where people were living their (parked) cars.
A video windield whould make them feel so much more like home...
When you're so old you can't stay between the proper lines without weaving noticeably, that is where it needs to stop. However I don't know that being drunk off your ass is an adequate comparison to an older person - but I would not know because I'm not there yet. Growing old is going to happen to all of us - so anything that we can do to empower old people to do things they need to do safely is a very good thing for all of us. The younger folk nowadays need to start thinking about others than themselves, frankly. Could you imagine how much it would suck to have to live life completely unable to do things for yourself? When you're drunk you wait until the next day and it's all better. You don't get that luxury when you're aged. Everything you used to do might be impossible.
But that's not the kind of people that this technology would help. It will help older (and even young) people drive safely for longer in their life, but there of course would be a point where it's just not a good idea to continue driving. That is why they're not taking the license exams away.
Besides, who says the technology is just for old people? I think being able to see where the road is at in the fog better (or on a pitch black night with no street lights, even) would be awesome. It'd be one of those things in the future that people will wonder how we ever did without it.
Couple a GPS-device with a loudspeaker in the car which goes "Booo..." when the speed drops 10 mph under the allowed speedlimit.
If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
Looooove how many people are rejecting the very idea of this unseen and untried.
Buncha damn reactionaries.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
... until someone finds a way to exploit the technology to drive old people into the river, like the Pied Piper of Hamelin.
I was wondering how long it would be before someone pointed out that making it easy for the visually impaired to drive a car might not be the hottest idea. Where's the car that can drive itself with some kind of autopilot? That'd be the way to deal with this problem. Your disability is fine and good and any reasonable means to accommodate it should be used, right up until you want to do something that threatens others and relies so heavily on the very function that is impaired. Given a choice I'd feel safer near a drunk driver with great vision than an old sober one who can hardly see, nifty windshield or not. This device isn't going to help them check their mirrors, it won't help them do a shoulder check before changing lanes. Driving a car safely involves more than staring ahead in a straight line. Flame on.
Bifocal Windshield?
No you don't. The last thing you want is to give the drivers who don't have the skill or the judgement the illusion that they can drive better than they can. Somebody who's older will usually know their own limits and capabilities much better than somebody who's younger. While this story is about cars, there's a saying in the motorcycle world that's apt: there's old riders, and bold riders, but you never see any who are bold *and* old.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
On my planet, which we call Earth, young drivers are involved in a disproportionately high number of traffic accidents.
Note: I said "accidents per mile traveled".
Elderly drivers are also involved in a disproportionately high number of traffic accidents, relative to the amount of driving they do. They just don't spend as much time on the road as younger drivers. (Similarly, people who live farther from work pay more for insurance, because more time on the road means more opportunities for a wreck.)
they tend to be crappier drivers due to inexperience and a tendency to make stupid mistakes like driving way too fast, driving while drunk, driving while staring at their girlfriend's breasts, etc.
Well, inexperience is the big one, but of course inexperience can be remedied with more driving. Elderly drivers tend to be crappier due to physical and mental deterioration, and that doesn't go away.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Unfortunately, experience (and to a lesser extent, judgment) is hard to get without actually driving.
A better use of GM's time would be to avoid Chapter 11 bankruptcy. They need to stay in business long enough for me to buy the next-gen Cadillac! As for the older driver, I have no illusions when the time comes for me. You see, I had a neighbor who was still driving into his mid-80's. We all came to notice when he backed down his long driveway into the public street he never looked back, nor glanced in any mirror. When pressed about his unorthodox driving style, he had this to say. "I'm an old man, can't move my neck anymore. Can't see a damn thing in those silly mirrors, got no use for them. You 'kids' think you're so fast? Then you better get the hell out of MY way." Afterwards, he offered me a cigar, some Scotch and we talked about 'broads' man!
I'm thinking of the higher profiles incidents I've seen in the media. For instance, one case I'm thinking of, the old guy killed sixteen people. I think he was driving one of those old Suburban SUVs, and he broke through barriers before actually hitting anyone. The street he was going down had been closed because of some street fair or some market. And when he first hit the barrier, he panicked and kept on pressing on the accelerator pedal thinking it was the brake pedal. This is a case where his kids had already taken the keys away from him, because they didn't want to him to drive anymore, but apparently the wife had given them back to him.
Also, you have to keep in mind that now some cars are being manufactured to decrease the amount of damage it will inflict on a pedestrian it hits. But of course, very old people are not known to drive newer cars anyway, so any technological gain made in that area may take years to be used by them.
In the US, you have to realize this issue of driver licenses for older people is a political third rail. Old people vote. Old people are organized. Old people are our most powerful Senators, Judges, and Congressmen. And for many old people, because of the way our Suburban landscape is organized, losing a driver license is tantamount to the end of the World.
You may not like it. And I may not like it. But the more stringent a solution is, the less likely it's ever going to pass. That's why I am proposing a solution that is both more stringent, and also much more gradual -- to make it less seem like the end of the World. By the way, I live in California, and because of my mother who still has her driver license -- I've seen the new requirements for older drivers -- but I do not think they go far enough.
what ever happened to the idea of polarizing the windshield one direction and headlights the opposite direction to totally neutralize oncoming glare both from late afternoon sun, ice glare, and nighttime headlight glare?
For starters - color coded nonsense? Wake up people. 1 in 4 males are at LEAST a LITTLE BIT color blind. Pink boxes? Lovely, some politically correct twit with a feminist side wants pink boxes, among other things, displayed on their windshields. No problem here - IÂll simply never see that lovely gay box at all. Stick some lavender, some violet, purple, beige, and all the other colors that make women feel good up there. At BEST, they will merely cloud my vision of the highway. Oh yeah. Old folks. Uhhh, has anyone looked at statistics for fatal accidents for the differening age groups? IÂm not very worried about aging drivers. They tend to slow down anyway, with or without technological assistance. I am more worried about younger drivers, but drivers of ALL ages tend to drive to fast in vehicles that are quiet, comfortable, smoother riding, and ÂsafeÂ. When people are insulated from the outside world, and they have faith in the Âsafety of their vehicle, they WILL drive faster. Instead, strip the vehicles down, make sure people experience the ride, and they will tend to slow down. Take away some of the existing Âsafety features, eliminate all the computerized nonsense, and work to decrease peopleÂs comfort. They will slow down, and pay more attention to the road. Most of all, remove distractions, such as on screen GPS navigation, cell phones, laptops, etc etc etc. Gotta love the do-gooders, though. They are really concerned about my safety. I just wish they would stay home and think about my safety. They have no business making corporate or government decisions that involve my safety.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
20 -24 are 8.4% but have 14.3% of accidents.
But does that take into account the distance they drive, the time of day or conditions they drive in, or the quality of their vehicles?
I mean if they drive twice as often as most people, then they're doing pretty good.
Because you can be a less than perfect driver and still be good enough that it's not justified to take away your license.
It's not a substitute for basic competency, it's a way to improve on factors that are already deemed adequate, but could still be better.
We need a more strict definition of adequacy then. What we have right now are a lot of accidents waiting to happen (pun intended).
And the population of seniors will jump in the US over the next couple decades. These people still need to get to work, shop, play golf, visit their kids, etc.
Sounds like they should be good to their younger family members or start saving for cab rides. Those necessities don't validate an unfit driver, they merely give them reasons to lie themselves into endangering others.
When I was a young'un we didn't have "WIND SHIELDS" in our motor cars, NO! We got wind to the face, for sure, and by golly WE LIKED IT. And when you'd get a mouthful of bugs, why, you were downright THANKFUL to get some meat in ya, what with the rationing 'n the quotas... NOW GET OFF MY LAWN.
I think GM's money would be better spent figuring out how to make more reliable, more efficient vehicles rather than this high tech crap. If the over 65 population is going to boom like everyone says it is, won't that segment need efficient/inexpensive (because of fixed incomes), reliable (because who at 65 wants to get out of the car on the highway to change a belt), transportation?
Shouldn't they be researching their company out of chaos, mayhem and collapse? Researching something for a target demographic that'll ripen in 20 years sure is ballsy when you just posted a $40 billion loss last year and are hemorrhaging something like a billion a month...
Even as you read this, your pants are strangling your loins! Aaa!
>...Drinking has been declared *the* villain in traffic accidents, but is this realistic?...
>And so on, as you mention, there are many factors that influence one's ability to drive, why pick on alcohol exclusively.
Are you fucking kidding me??? Alcohol is a factor in 41% of all traffic-related deaths> . Most studies cite a ~50% involvement of alcohol in all fatal car wrecks. You're right, we should concentrate on cell-phone usage before picking on alcohol.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
And why would anybody admit even in an ashamed whisper to their physician (not to mention proudly in television ads that reach millions) that they require "male enhancement"?
No mod points, no meta-moderating/Firehose/all the other free work Slashdot wants me to do.
A few more mandatory training courses and driver assessments might be better, and not just for older drivers.
If you don't pass the tests you have a limit on the size of engine in the cars you're allowed to drive. You need a special license to drive a truck, why should a two ton five liter V8 be any different?
No sig today...
If you have a major blind spot you could try fiddling with mirror adjustment. Works wonders.
I adjust mine so I can just see the handle of the rear door.
If that's not enough you can buy one of those little stick-on curved mirrors. ...but yeah, I still look over my shoulder anyway. It's the only way to be sure.
No sig today...
I can't wait to see the bill for the repair/replacement of one of these when it gets hit by a rock while doing 80mph down the interstate....
The BBC showed a documentary a few weeks ago where they took a bunch of average drivers and made them re-take their driving test. They all failed.
The answer to road safety is retaking tests, advanced driving courses, limits on what you can drive unless you pass them, etc.
The standard driving test should limit you to something the size of a Ford Fiesta, nothing more. For anything bigger you should need night-driving training, skidpan training, etc.
If people can afford the cars, they can afford the tests.
No sig today...
Do you really think so?
You see a police car up ahead of you. Most people will slowdown, get of the cell phone, stop undertaking, stop tailgating, make clear signals, put on seat belts and generally behave like model drivers... until they get out of the view of the police, then its back to business as usual.
Back to the subject of the article, essentially in situations with poor visibility we slow down, and thats a good thing since often it also means poor traction, snow, ice, driving rain.
Overcoming the poor visibility doesn't make the road conditions safer, also glasses wearers do you think perhaps driving with steamed up glasses is safe, or not wearing glasses to impress that date you finally got?
Older drivers can have problems , slower reactions poorer vision, a mind not as clear as it once was, and they compensate, they take ages at a junction since they are not as good at judging if there is enough of a gap to safely pull out for example, they get tired, we all get tired, and slow down.
There is no right to drive till you die, from 70 in the uk you renew your license every 3 years and if your medically unfit you don't get it renewed.
simple as that. HGV drivers get regular medicals way younger than that for obvious reasons. It's good that a lot of people do accept that they shouldn't be driving but try telling your dad grandfather , yourself even, that it is time to quit, it's just as well the law does it for us.
What really needs to be enhanced is the ability to live a reasonable quality of life without driving everywhere.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
We're simply not that strict about DUIs here in the US relative to European countries. I remember that in Germany, even though the minimum drinking age was lower, if you got caught drinking and driving, you were looking at paying a huge fine and not being able to drive for a long time. It seems like over here drinking is more taboo, but driving after a couple is not taboo enough.
Obviously there shouldn't be breathalyzers built into cards. But I wish that as a society we placed more of a stigma on bad drivers of all sorts. We treat a 16-year-old drinking like it's the end of the world, but that same 16-year-old, who apparently is five years away from being responsible enough to buy a beer, is allowed to control two tons of metal going the speed of a pitched baseball.
Baby-boomers are not only the first generation to become dependent on cars for transportation at an early age, but also the first generation to have access to fast cars at an early age. WWII produced more than just the baby boom, it produced a generation with an unprecedented advancement in engineering capability as a result of training either from the military directly or from support efforts.
Let's look at some of the influences on baby boomers as they grew up:
- NASCAR was founded in 1947, right on the heels of WWII
- car design and marketing focused on performance during the 1950's moreso than ever before
- this leads to unprecedented technical advancements in cars, i.e. fuel injection, turbo-charging, supercharging, hemispherical combustion chambers, all of which were developed for military applications, and the market understood and demanded the benefits of advanced technology more than ever before
- the US became the world leader in gross national product during the 1950's, which led to unprecedented car production and sales, which led to unprecedented access to cars by younger drivers
There are 75 million baby boomers on US roads today, all of whom turned 16 shortly after muscle cars became the primary focus of the production and marketing of cars. You cannot apply today's elderly driver model to the elderly drivers of the next decade. Today's drivers over 65 did not drag race as kids or idolize James Dean. Tomorrow's did.
The only corporations that would possibly be taking this into consideration are insurance companies, who are responsible for billions in liability and survive by predicting driver behavior. Are any car manufacturers consulting them on the matter?
And let's not ignore the notion of turning an elderly person's car windshield into what must seem like a Star Trek helm console to them. I'm immediately reminded of an age-old proverb about teaching old dogs new tricks.
It might be a fitting omen that James Dean died in a car accident.
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your pamphlet
Here we are hoping these guys, including police, would USE their blinkers!
I can't yell out enough it's dangerous to NOT use your blinkers in some situations,
or waiting for a row cars ahead of you because that one driver was too lazy to use his left hand.
Even police seems to forget them...
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Interesting technology....I wonder if it will tell older drivers to get the f*ck out of the left hand lane if they are not passing a car on the right? :/
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
This is the stuff that was completely sci-fi when I was a kid (im 30). As soon as it can display thermal and infrared overlays on the windowshield it will be time to trade im my trusty truck. btw, for those euros that dont understand why Americans drive our big gas hogs. They are built tough and last (unless you got a lemon). My 2000 GMC full size truck has 154,000 miles and it still runs and drives like it did 8 years ago. Gas sippers are falling apart at that point.
lame. I know.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
As others point out, there is NO reason for anyone to even have a blind spot. If you're so incompetent that you have one, then you should loose your license...
In fairness, I didn't learn this trick until about 10 years ago and it was when my senior father completed an AARP driving course.
FWIW, I still do a head check before changing lanes, especially when I'm on my Ninja.
That's what the current administration would like you to think.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Yes.
See the new Dark Knight movie for a demonstration. Just change modes from "Loiter" to "Intimidate".
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
GM Ouroboros or a Moebius Corporation?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Is this the next item from the makers of Viagra?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
The theme behind these age limits is about judgement. Theyu recognize the "experience" paradox. However, they are hoping that each additional year of age = year of conceptual growth. Thus, They are hoping that the 18 year old is less likely than the 16 year old to imitate his heroes in CannonBall Run.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
the overall poundage of the car
Nice word. I think you meant mass (or weight).
Also, you have to keep in mind that now some cars are being manufactured to decrease the amount of damage it will inflict on a pedestrian it hits.
Hopefully the Euro NCAP rating system is encouraging this (it rates adult passenger safety, child passenger safety, and pedestrian safety). I've never bought a car, but I hope the people that do pay attention to this kind of thing.
In the US, you have to realize this issue of driver licenses for older people is a political third rail. Old people vote. Old people are organized. Old people are our most powerful Senators, Judges, and Congressmen. And for many old people, because of the way our Suburban landscape is organized, losing a driver license is tantamount to the end of the World.
I like your suggestion -- it could also be extended to drivers of all age, just as someone who wants to drive a truck has to take an extra test, someone wanting to drive a Ferrari should also take a test.
I live in the UK, and being too old to drive is the end of the world in some areas (or at least, very annoying -- there might be one bus a day, essentially intended for old people). But, in many places it's not: anyone over the age of 60 can get a free, nationwide bus pass. In places that have large railway networks it also gives free off-peak railway/subway travel. No politician would consider reducing the free bus pass!
I don't believe in age limits, but I think medical limits are a good idea. Simples tests demonstrating good vision, health and competence are a given in the aviation world...why not among ground pounders? (Better yet, why not among politicians?)
I often wish that the barriers to entry to driving were a little higher, too. It is distressingly easy to put a large moving vehicle in the hands of a person that you would ordinarily not trust to mow your lawn.
only old people use windshields.
Why is this inherently an aid to people on the fringes of driving fitness? Ever try to drive in a real fog? Ever try to drive with the sun in your face? This could be a safety enhancement to everybody.
rj
Giving the Wiki quote the benefit of doubt and assuming it's correct, let's see what it reads:
"NHTSA defines fatal collisions as "alcohol-related" if they believe the driver, a passenger, or a nonoccupant of the vehicle (such as a pedestrian or pedalcyclist) had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.01 or greater"
And, if you keep reading, you'll see that
"On average, about 60 percent of the BAC values are missing or unknown. To analyze what they believe is the complete data, statisticians simulate BAC information."
Wow! So they have to simulate 60% of the data to find a correlation, and then assume a causation from that? I think you made my point for me, alcohol *has* been picked at random as *the* villain.
Disclaimers:
An old guy I know gave up driving after he got new glasses. Suddenly there were cars coming at him from everywhere and he couldn't handle it.
How about this: if you have been involved in more than one road accident a year (even if it wasn't your fault), you will need to go for another driving test within X weeks. If you don't pass, you lose your license, and you need to start over again.
And the driving test needs to be good enough - must know how to merge at proper speeds, brake in wet conditions etc.
Live closer to where you feel the need to go. Our society need to get over this positive view of sprawl.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
Please no more stories about GM "research" - they've already demonstrated exactly what their intentions are regarding research by the manner in which they disposed of their electric cars after California passed laws easing emission requirements.
GM, loves to put on a big show about their "research" as did AT&T in the past with their "picture" phone that never was.
The distractions about "research" serve to focus attention away from the gargantuan corporate mismanagement, contemptuous attitudes towards their "human" resources (i.e. their workers)
and the most appalling reliance on lobbyists and connections with the Bush white house instead of on design, innovation and building a better car for less money.
GM is symptomatic of all that is wrong with corporatist America and the sooner they either
go bankrupt or else get a clean new slate of upper management, the better.
There is ONE response to talk of GM "research"...
LAUGHTER.
Back in my day, they took away your license if you couldn't see the damn road or drive.
NO.
Driving in the US is a right, not a privilege.
Don't buy into the myth. The right to free association guarantees the right to travel. The right to travel includes the right to drive. And the right to drive CANNOT be taken away without due process of law.
Driving license programs are unconstitutional.
Would this have to use eye or head tracking to make sure the marks appeared in the correct location on the windshield, as viewed by the driver? And wouldn't this look absolutely awful to the passengers, who didn't happen to be sitting in the "sweet spot"?
Intentionally making yourself an incompetent driver is in now way, shape, or form the same thing as being a less than perfect driver.
How about they make an electric car I can fucking plug in to a wall outlet?
Seriously though, I thought the DMV for most states decided who can see good enough to drive. You fail the fucking test and reply, "But I have a "Buick Riviera Golden Years Edition"!"? And suddenly your on the road again?
To be honest, with old folks, I am more concerned that they should not be on the road, less because of vision issues, but for all the OTHER ailments associated with advanced aging.
My wife, daughters and myself were all nearly run over by some 70-something that had a heart attack behind the wheel of a 1-ton Dodge truck. The guy had to be dragged out of the wreckage of his truck carefully so as not to dislodge his oxygen supply. The guy can't even fucking BREATHE on his own and he is driving around as if he had all the right in the world to endanger everyone else on the road.
I can already hear the lawyers trying to figure out how to sue GM for all the fatalities this false-impression of safety causes.
How about when grandma storms the local flea market with her 5 ton Buick Electra?
Well, worry no more! With GM's new Cushield (TM) brand of windshields you can rest assured that the bloodbaths that we all have grown accustomed to will be a thing of the past. And, as a bonus, grandpa's skull will be safe and sound when he flies towards the windshield after hitting a parked car.
Call now and we will include our special ShieldRag (TM), specifically engineered to wipe out hard to remove vascular tissue and cerebral cortex."
Not available outside the United States. Legal defense not included.
I don't disagree with the notion that our standards are too low, but framing the discussion within the confines of our current system, I think that this is a reasonable avenue of inquiry.
Weird slashbug #455
glass reflecting an image shown on the dash of the vehicle.
Jet fighters have had this for years.
And speaking as an older person, FUCK YOU!
Ya snotty kids; wanting to keep all the kewl shit for yourself and thinking "Yhe old man wouldn't understand it anyway.'
We're still pissed off at never getting our flying cars.
And the best part is; projecting porn on a HUD can make flying alone, keeping the sky safe for you lot, in a damn tight cockpit for hours on end, a little less boring.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Your general point is right, but remember: headlights are so THEY can see YOU, not so YOU can see THEM.
That's part of why they design cars so that if you can't see your instrumentation with sunlight, you'll have to turn on the headlights to see them (which are then coupled to the instrumentation lights). Thus, whenever others need your headlights on, you need them too. Incentives are aligned.
Or least, that's how it used to be. I got a new car recently, and somehow they threw out that principle out the window, and the instrumentation lights are always on (though not the radio lights...), which, during the break-in period led me to forget to turn on the headlights ~4 times.
Nissan Sentra, in case anyone's wondering.
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
Bifocal windshields.
I came to post this exact same viewpoint. Not everyone can drive a car safely. It's a privilege, not a right, hence the ability of the State to suspend or cancel your licence if you fail at being a good road citizen.
Dan. -- So what if it's spelt wrong, nobody's perfect
I'd worry a lot more about things like fuel efficiency and alternative energy sources for their cars. That'd keep a lot more drivers on the road (of all ages).
That is all.
Ever drive the highway in a big city? If you happen to be going around the limit and/or giving a safe following distance, I almost guarantee that at some point you'll encounter the asshat who will zoom past and then cut in front of you, cutting your SFD in half, then realize the cars in front are suddenly slowed/stopped and slam on the brakes.
I try to drop back as much as possible when somebody does that, but sometimes it's not so easy to do so promptly without cutting the SFD of the guy behind you down.
Auto-revocation of a driver's license due to age would be discriminatory and wrong. Assessment and retesting of various factors (especially vision) past a certain age wouldn't be any stupid or discriminatory that having a minimum driving age.
If grandpa passes his tests, that's great. If they find his vision is not so hot anymore, but with glasses he sees fine, then make glasses a requirement for driving (around here you can do that, don't know about the US). If he can't pass with or without the specs on, or his reaction speed is just too slow these days, then it's time to hand in the keys. If that's still to harsh for everyone, how about a when/where restriction similar to what young drivers often get. No driving past dark and/or on roadways with a limit over 60.
Maybe with all the baby boomers come into old age, we'll start seeing a "seniors' lane" or "seniors' highway" emerge. Maximum limit 55, minimum age 55, lane required for all those whom the DMV has found acceptable to drive at lower limits but not on the regular roads.
Thanks. I like making up new words. If you like it, start using it. If you don't, that's ok too.
... is give directions to Country Kitchen Buffet also, it has options for choosing either the shortest path, or the quickest path to Country Kitchen Buffet. and also an alarm clock to wake you up if, say, you fell asleep behind the wheel and Country Kitchen Buffet is about to open.
Am I the only one who thought - WTF?, what does in-kernel code have to do with windshields? NEED SLEEP!!1oneoneone!11!!!$@$#@#$%#@^&*
I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
I actually saw a commercial for something quite like this many years ago, meant to help during low visibility conditions.
"A dark foggy night?" Says the announcer, "The perfect time for a drive!"
The driver gets in his car, and the windshield is illuminated with green lines outlining the road, and red boxes around other cars.
It really didn't look like a fake, it seemed to be an actual commercial for an actual vehicle.
Unfortunately all I remember about the commercial is that it usually aired during episodes of the British series "Secret life of machines", and I don't think that is enough for even Google to go off of.
Ever since then, I've wondered why that technology didn't catch on. I assume there was some horrible defect. That's the only reason I can think of for such a system to disappear from the public eye for so long.
Anyone have a clue what I'm talking about?
Well, your glasses can compensate for the vision degradation. Do we have something that can compensate for the degradation in people's reflexes?
Isn't that the point of the windshield? The parrent post said that anyone who requires physical aids to drive shouldn't be driving, which I find grossly offensive.