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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
...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.
.
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.
I've been waiting for something like that for 20 years.
"Even for Slashdot, that was a very obscure reference!" - Anonymous Coward
A better use of GM's time would be to detect when a driver is old, then disable the engine and lock the brakes.
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
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.
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
Furthermore, Cars tend not to jump unexpectedly out from the bushes.
--