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."
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 ----
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 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.
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.
I am going to point and laugh at you and say "I told you so!" when you are 65 years old, living alone on a fixed income, and you have vision problems, and need to go to the grocery store.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
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.
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.
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.
Well, it certainly keeps you out of the Blue Angels. Although the main reasoning there is an errant twitch from the air-bladder around your legs could cause you to fly into the ground or a teammate, since the stick is between your knees. Thunderbirds don't have this issue, however, since they use a sidestick (begin USAF vs USN argument now, heh).
"So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
...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.
Interesting... but I wouldn't wait until you're in your old age. Not because you aren't capable of driving at speed, mind you (I wouldn't presume to say, because I haven't seen you drive. For all I know, you could be good enough for F1), and not even because it's safer (lower speed = lower kinetic energy in a crash).... because it's better on gas.
I used to be the kind of driver who'd quite happily cruise the highway at speeds approaching 150-180kph (call it 95-120mph). I consider myself to have the skill and reflexes to drive at that speed. But I don't. When I hit the highway, or any road where there isn't a lot of stop and go, I use cruise control, and stick to the speed limit and the far right lane. Still pay attention, can still step on the gas or brake as needed (and I have a manual transmission, so tapping the clutch or brake immediately cancels the cruise), can still react either defensively or aggressively as the situation warrants -and that's my biggest gripe with "defensive" driving... there are situations where you need to accelerate hard or be otherwise aggressive to get out of a danger- but I get significantly better gas mileage out of staying in the slow lanes and using cruise control.
End result? I fill up my car about once every 3 weeks where I used to fill up every 2 weeks (and I haven't changed how often or how far I drive). At $60/tank it makes a difference. And it hasn't significantly increased the duration of my commute to/from work... maybe 1-2 minutes on a 25-minute commute each way, or about 10-20 minutes longer in the car per week.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
I had a car with a heads-up display before. It was very helpful, it helped me keep my eyes constantly on the road instead of looking up and down at the instruments. I highly recommend this type of advancement.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
I've found it's almost the opposite. People are absolutely obsessed with speed as if the posted speed limit is a mandatory minimum. People get so pissed if someone is doing 80kph in a 100kph zone. It's as if they feel that their rights are being violated by being 'forced' to drive 20kph below the limit. Driving at 80kph instead of 100kph for 20km until you have a safe spot to pass isn't going to kill you, in fact it's almost certainly going to do the opposite.
20km is probably an extreme in terms of the amount of time you'd be stuck behind someone, and if the roads are such that you'd go 20km without finding a safe place to overtake then maybe driving at the posted speed limit isn't such a hot idea anyway.
Anyway, at 100kph, it will take you about 12 minutes to travel 20km. At 80kph, it will take you about 15 minutes, 3 minutes more. Even if you were stuck behind that someone for 100km, it'll only take you an extra 15 minutes.
My examples are probably a little bit extreme though, the people I would normally get 'stuck' behind are usually traveling less than 5kph under the posted limit, and it's normally for much less than 20km.
Everyone just needs to calm down and stop behaving like a bunch of idiots who think their lives will come to an end if they can't do the speed they want to do.
Congratulations on surviving that exceedingly dangerous maneuver. A local woman was killed when she swerved on the freeway to avoid a duck crossing -- the truck she swerved beneath did not.
Sure, baby ducks are cute. But ducks crossing a four lane road are really not exhibiting survival skills anyway -- the rule is "your safety, and the safety of other drivers, comes before theirs." And unless you're authorized to control traffic, flagging cars to a stop without an emergency situation is likely a traffic violation.
John
I hate this logic because it's not actually the law.
Speed limits are just that. A limit. It's not illegal to drive under it (and in fact, in bad weather you're supposed to anyways!).
That being said, if I'm doing 65 in a 65 and you're tailgating me, you're sadly mistaken that I'll speed up for you. And *I'm* not the danger, it's the prick who is two feet behind my car tailgating that is the danger.
I don't get where people get this idea that they simply must be driving 20mph over the limit on any and all trips. Most of the time it buys you nothing [re: traffic/red lights] and just wastes fuel.
While I'm at it, I don't get why people bitch about fuel prices. Most people don't drive efficiently anyways, up and down on the gas, accelerating hard, speeding, driving oversized land yachts, etc... If and only if you drive properly in a right-sized car, then you can bitch about the cost of gas. Until then you're just wasting fuel anyways so obviously you don't care what it costs.
Finally, calm the fuck down. If I'm doing 65 in the left while the right is doing 60, wait till there is an opening to pass. I'm not gonna do 75 or 80 in the left while passing people just so you can feel better about yourself. And no amount of rushing, tailgating, flashing, swerving or other gestures is gonna make me speed up. I'm responsible for my vehicle and I take it seriously.
"or possibly it all came on so slowly they don't even realize it..."
Some may question how you can possibly not notice you are losing your vision. The problem is that your brain is incredibly good at filling in the blanks. Peripheral vision, a subtle thing if ever there was, is particularly subject to this, and it's also absolutely critical to your driving skills.
I started losing my peripheral vision about 20 years ago due to a genetic condition, and did not notice until last year when I went to get new glasses and the optometrist noticed something funny about my eyes. The onset was very slow and very insidious, with my brain filling in the blanks so effectively that I never knew it. This explains why I've been more and more reluctant to drive - I've been having scary moments when driving. Sooner or later I was going to hit someone, most likely a pedestrian, so I quit driving sooner. I'm 38.
So I'm putting my money where my mouth is when I say this kind of assistance is not going to help.