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."

Comments

Alerts when speeding?

[427_ci_505]

Because what all drivers need, are distracting colors at high speed.

Re:Alerts when speeding?

[Haeleth]

Entirely without reference to speed limits: if you're driving so fast that you couldn't handle a pink box around a road sign, then you're driving faster than you're capable of driving, and you should stop being an idiot and slow the fuck down before you kill someone.

Re:Alerts when speeding?

[ozmanjusri]

You do realize there is no such thing as public transportation in most of the country don't you?

There's only one country?

Re:Alerts when speeding?

[Aladrin]

My first thought was actually: How many will claim their windshield told them to drive that way?

"I didn't pay attention to the sign because my windshield didn't say it was important."

"I ran off the road because my windshield said the line went that way."

etc.

It's a neat idea, but only if it's absolutely perfect. And is -anything- perfect?

Re:Alerts when speeding?

[joocemann]

Entirely without reference to speed limits: if you're driving so fast that you couldn't handle a pink box around a road sign, then you're driving faster than you're capable of driving, and you should stop being an idiot and slow the fuck down before you kill someone.

Or the sheer fact that it is designed "...for older drivers with vision problems".

WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY DOING DRIVING? I'm one of those people who think moving a large heavy object at relatively high speeds around other objects and PEOPLE is a potential THREAT and ought to be considered a privilege.

If they have vision problems, helping them to continue lying to themselves about their validity as a driver is not the answer. The answer is to pull their license.

There are many reasons why an unfit driver can convince themselves to keep driving: Pride, embarrassment, a hazy concept of rights, or possibly it all came on so slowly they don't even realize it...

Maybe this idea will help some people, but what happens when the device fails and they're on the freeway doing 65mph? What happens when the previously unfit driver, now fit by device, becomes unfit due to failure? Do they pull over and call for backup? Does the car automatically shut down? No... In reality they will probably keep driving, unfit for the task, and may or may not get the device repaired most likely depending on if they can afford it.

Are we going to set up a device-functionality bureau to make sure all these people still get to drive and that the devices are working? Lets get a grip on reality people. NOT EVERYONE ON THE PLANET IS CAPABLE OF DOING EVERYTHING THERE IS TO DO. GET REAL.

Re:Alerts when speeding?

[inKubus]

It's a neat idea, but only if it's absolutely perfect. And is -anything- perfect?

And the article said this was GENERAL MOTORS so I think we know the answer to your question...

Just older drivers?

[eliphalet]

Seems that all drivers could benefit from contrast enhancement in the fog (or rain or snow).

Re:Just older drivers?

[arth1]

I think they would benefit more by learning to adjust the speed and how their vehicles actually handle in inclement weather.
Being able to better see the car in front of you isn't all that useful if you still aren't able to see the deer crossing the road. In fact, I think it could increase dangers, by making people drive faster than they otherwise would.

Re:Just older drivers?

[yog]

Absolutely correct; it's not like the elderly are the only people who have accidents. In fact, teens have about as high a death rate as the elderly from traffic accidents, probably because teens' recklessness is comparable to seniors' physiological limitations, mediated by seniors' tendency to drive less as they age (see this link for some statistics).

We have enough technology now to really reduce motor vehicle fatalities, yet we haven't implemented many of them. Today, every car should have a collision avoidance system that kicks in when a collision is likely. For example, lots of crashes happen on high speed roads when people change lanes without looking. So why not have the car warn you--for a few hundred dollars you could have these little laser thingies that would detect approaching vehicles from several angles, and squawk at you when you're about to do something stupid.

Another feature might be a slow-down signal that your car sends out to cars behind you in the event that you suddenly stop, like to avoid a deer or another accident. This might reduce pile-ups on the highway.

When some idiot is running a red light and is about to cream you side-on, you are not going to have an engine in front of you to absorb much of the impact, just some reinforced side panels and maybe a side airbag or two. That's not going to be of much help if they're going 60 or more. But if you had some explosive collision absorbers in the side of the car, it might bounce some of the force away. Also, the drunk who is coming at you should have an emergency braking system that kicks in to prevent him killing you (and maybe himself). Lots of people hit trees and this would help with that problem as well.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm no automotive engineer and surely the big brains in Detroit, Berlin, and Tokyo can come up with even better and more practical ideas to make traffic fatalities history. GM's windscreen concept is a great start and at the very least it will stimulate some discussion as Joe Public begins to dimly perceive how technology could save lives.

Re:Why are they allowed to drive in the first plac

[excalibur4life]

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.

Re:Why are they allowed to drive in the first plac

[CauseWithoutARebel]

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.

Re:Uhm yeah...

[arth1]

Why does it have to be applied to the windshield?
Why can't the same be applied to a pair of driving glasses?

Re:Drive to conditions

[amRadioHed]

Using technology to compensate for human frailty is asking for trouble

So we should get rid of the engine then, right?

Re:Drive to conditions

[thrillseeker]

Using technology to compensate for human frailty is asking for trouble.

Damn those eyeglasses, eh - if you don't have 20/20 vision naturally, you shouldn't be driving ...

Power steering? Blah - work out in the gym - discard the technology.

Windscreens? Forget it - only wimps can't carry on a safe comfortable drive with bugs smashing into their teeth all day long at 60 mph.

Motorcycle helmets and leathers? - only for wusses, of course. And, geez, what about those fighter pilots that wear g-suits - if they can't strain hard enough naturally without having a stroke while pulling 9 Gs for 30 seconds, then they should get out of the cockpit.

Come to think of it, that's what technology is - compensating for our inability to be from Krypton.

For older drivers, this is the wrong solution.

[techno-vampire]

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.

Re:For older drivers, this is the wrong solution.

[markdavis]

If the speed limit is 60, 65, or 70, and that person can't drive (at least) the speed limit, then they really shouldn't be on the road, regardless of the lane.

People are absolutely obsessed with speed as if it is the ultimate safety no-no. The amount of speed is rarely the cause of an accident (it can make an accident worse, though). It is the DIFFERENCE in speed that is much more important. If the regular flow of traffic is 75 and there is someone insisting on driving 55, then it is a great safety hazard. Now everyone has to pass, if they can. If they can't, then they get annoyed and start doing stupid things, like not leaving proper following distance, swerving, passing on the shoulder, aggressive acceleration when passing, etc.

"Alive at 55" is a good idea, but only if it is about SAFER driving- being more alert, using signals, stopping distractions, proper following distances, planning in advance, checking blind spots, understanding the capabilities/limitations of your vehicle, etc. And these are things that apply to everyone, no matter what their age is.

It never rains in southern California

[westlake]

I think they would benefit more by learning to adjust the speed and how their vehicles actually handle in inclement weather.
.

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.

Re:Why are they allowed to drive in the first plac

[93 Escort Wagon]

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.