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).
Why are people that require 'driving enhancements' allowed to drive in the first place?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Transportation isn't going away. It'll get more expensive, and at some point will no longer use fossil fuels, but it won't go away.
Just because people are acting all freaked out about expensive gas doesn't mean research in other areas has to stop. It wouldn't put us any closer to the mythical "100 mpg engine", and would hurt us in other ways.
And they shouldn't be allowed to do any of those things if they're a danger on the road!
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.
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.
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
You don't live in rural Wisconsin, you insensitive clod!
I wouldn't call it "good" when a company somehow manages to not hemorrhage as much cash as GM was expected to. gp's comment stands, imho.
.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
If you offered me a free car that gets 50 miles per gallon or a $50,000 car that would save my wife and daughter from being killed--I don't even have to think about that choice. I'll gladly go into debt to protect my loved ones and myself from harm. Gasoline is just a frucking liquid in the ground. My family is priceless.
For $500,000,000 or something, your city could build a light railway (or subway, tramway, or rapid-bus system, depending on the size of the city). Fatalities are incredibly rare, you get more than 50 mpg, you don't need fossil fuels to run it (but can make the switch gradually, as required), and sidewalks and bicycles are a natural supplement.
For instance, on the London Underground (admittedly a heavy-rail subway, but it's old and big) "Only five accidents causing passenger deaths have occurred due to train operation in nearly 150 years" (there was also a fire in a station in 1987 which killed 31, as a result smoking in stations was banned). I think they say you're more likely to be killed crossing the road outside a station than once you're in the station.