Slashdot Mirror


Digital Dashboard Device Detects Driver Drowsiness

Pickens writes "Science Daily Headlines reports that researchers at the Fraunhofer Institute for Digital Media Technology have developed a self-contained, dashboard-mounted assistant system that tracks a driver's eye movements and issues a warning before the driver has an opportunity to nod off to sleep. 'What we have developed is a small modular system with its own hardware and programs on board, so that the line of vision is computed directly within the camera itself,' says Professor Husar. 'Since the Eyetracker is fitted with at least two cameras that record images stereoscopically — meaning in three dimensions — the system can easily identify the spatial position of the pupil and the line of vision.' The cameras, which can be installed in any model of car, evaluate up to 200 images per second to identify the line of vision. If the camera modules detect that the eye is closed for longer than a user-defined interval, it sounds an alarm. The Eyetracker also has applications in computer games where players could look around themselves without requiring a joystick to change their viewing direction, and in marketing and advertising, where researchers could determine which parts of a poster or advertising spot receive longer attention from their viewers."

117 comments

  1. Dormant D Device Disturbed Drilling Dentist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think the title has only got Ds in it.

    1. Re:Dormant D Device Disturbed Drilling Dentist. by somersault · · Score: 0

      *facepalm* dear gods, Slashdot is finally turning into YouTube..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Dormant D Device Disturbed Drilling Dentist. by telchine · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do Dying Drivers Defy Death Deploying Drowsiness Device?

    3. Re:Dormant D Device Disturbed Drilling Dentist. by thijsh · · Score: 1

      You forgot to include some Dinosaurs in there, remember this is news for nerds!

    4. Re:Dormant D Device Disturbed Drilling Dentist. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Doubtful. Dreamy Driving Death Doesn't Dissuade Defiant Dickheads.

      Damn.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    5. Re:Dormant D Device Disturbed Drilling Dentist. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Slashdot put some Ds on dat bitch!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    6. Re:Dormant D Device Disturbed Drilling Dentist. by Jesse_vd · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points for you

    7. Re:Dormant D Device Disturbed Drilling Dentist. by DittoBox · · Score: 1

      Dumb Dick Demonstrates Duplicitous Device, Detractors Decry Delays.

      --
      Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
    8. Re:Dormant D Device Disturbed Drilling Dentist. by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 1

      Affirmative, Actually. An Active Alertness Alarm Almost Always Averts Accidents. Amazing!

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    9. Re:Dormant D Device Disturbed Drilling Dentist. by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      I know this thread is funny, but a matter of fact is for a while a couple years ago, the leading cause of car accidents in the Prescott, AZ area was heart attacks. Though it should be noted that there are a lot of retirees in that area.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    10. Re:Dormant D Device Disturbed Drilling Dentist. by davester666 · · Score: 1

      So, for the Prescott, AZ area, dealerships should install a driver-facing Tazer?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. nice alliteration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    does it also sell sea shells by the sea shore?

    1. Re:nice alliteration by Paua+Fritter · · Score: 1

      probably prefers to pick a peck of pickled peppers

    2. Re:nice alliteration by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      If she really wanted to make a killing on the sea shell market she shouldn't sell them right next to the spot people can pick them up for free. In that scenario, the only supporters of her business would be friends and family who don't have to heart to tell her how little chance there is for her to make a living on it. If anything, she should sell sea shells somewhere like New York, where the only crustaceans are on your plate.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    3. Re:nice alliteration by Bantha+Fodder · · Score: 1

      does it also sell sea shells by the sea shore?

      I think this one Deals Dogfish, Dockside.

    4. Re:nice alliteration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If she really wanted to make a killing on the sea shell market she shouldn't sell them right next to the spot people can pick them up for free. In that scenario, the only supporters of her business would be friends and family who don't have to heart to tell her how little chance there is for her to make a living on it. If anything, she should sell sea shells somewhere like New York, where the only crustaceans are on your plate.

      You're missing the point. She's so attractive, that people are willing to buy seashells from her at the seashore, just because she's selling them.

  3. Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by captainpanic · · Score: 1, Troll

    I see no problems in making this mandatory in traffic a.s.a.p.
    Worst case scenario is that a silly alarm goes off when the system makes a mistake. It has very few disadvantages... the price is probably the biggest problem. Best case scenario is that it saves the lives of a number of people, saves the relatives a lot of grief, saves the health system a lot of work, the taxpayers a lot of money, etc...

    I'm a little sad to see that advertisers have already seen opportunities to use this to improve marketing tricks... but I guess every invention can be abused. And in this case, I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

    1. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wonder if this thing will detect the eyes of a drunk driver as someone who is too sleepy?

    2. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by chemicaldave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I imagine trucks would be the first to try this out as they driver for longer periods, and it seems to be that they have more sleep-related accidents (at least I see more reports about them).

    3. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by somersault · · Score: 1

      As someone else wisely pointed out, if you're tired you're still far more likely to have an accident even if you don't fall asleep. If you really want to save relatives grief and the health system a lot of work, etc, you take a break.

      The Eyetracker also has applications in computer games where players could look around themselves without requiring a joystick to change their viewing direction

      The only possible use for that is when you have VR goggles. It would be pointless with a TV, as every time you try to look at something, it would move out of the way..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by telchine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I see no problems in making this mandatory in traffic a.s.a.p.

      Drivers will oppose it. That's the main problem.

      Drivers usually know when they're tired, but they tend to drive anyway. They don't need some electronics to tell them this.

      They drive because they're impatient and not driving would be an inconvenience to them. It's not so much they don't care that they'll be involved in an accident, it's just that they don't think it'll happen to them.

    5. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by Nonillion · · Score: 1

      sarcasm=1
      Why not go one step further and make ignition interlocks mandatory as standard equipment. GM and Toyota are working on this as we speak. It's all about safety, right?
      sarcasm=0

      --
      "I bow to no man" - Riddick
    6. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by MatthewCCNA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you could prove a statistically significant savings of life I'd have no objections, however, I'm tired of the recent string of laws designed to roads safer but only serve to make it look like politicians are doing something positive. Forcing a law through that could potentiality save 100s of lives but inconveniences all driver is a mistake if the 100s of lives amount to less than 0.0001% of the people driving.

      --
      "He is so stupid. And now back to the wall!" Moe Szyslak
    7. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by nomorecwrd · · Score: 1

      I wonder if this thing will detect the eyes of a drunk driver as someone who is too sleepy?

      Doesn't matter, neither of them should be driving. Even though sleepiness is not considered illegal.
      Maybe after a few warnings in a row the system should turn the engine off and apply breaks... gently.
      (mmm.. on a second thought, maybe reduce speed to a max of 5-10 mph... on a third... ok, maybe that's not a good idea while on the highway, but, isn't a slow drunk/sleepy driver preferred over a fast one? )

    8. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nope.

      However for your good faith effort I will reply rather than mark you troll.

      "Let's make it mandatory! Then every infraction will be posted to the police, and the media, and maintained on a public page. Captain Panic, who was pulled over on suspicion of driving tired, pleaded not guilty, saying that he was just trying to figure out more information about the grooved pavement in front of him."

      "Pshaw! Likely story!"

      "Captain Panic's employer has been contacted and his hours have been cut since, as he cannot drive properly rested, he must be working too hard."

      No, surveillance measures are all to easily abused in this Orwellian Age.

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    9. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Bigger crashes make bigger news. If the driver of a tractor-trailer falls asleep at the wheel, that runaway truck can do significant damage. If the driver of a ford escort falls asleep at the wheel, he may cause some damage, but nothing comparable to the previous example.

          The media tends to pick up stories that involves the most blood, or the most dramatic scene. Here's an example. Several years ago, my sister was driving home, and the driver of an oncoming car fell asleep at the wheel and drifted into her lane. Both cars were absolutely totaled, and both drivers were hospitalized. By the car being totaled, I went to gather her belongings from the car. The left front wheel was under the drivers seat. I couldn't get my legs into the car between the dash and the seat. They both survived, but they were both banged up pretty well. There was no mention of it at all.

          Right around the same time, a tractor-trailer hauling fuel misjudged a turn, and rolled the truck over. It caught fire. He was fine and walked away from it. There were no other people involved. That was front page news for about a week. Oh the fire, oh the disaster. What can we do to make the roads safer? Are truckers allowed to drive too much? Should truckers have mandatory lower speed limits? blah, blah, blah. They hit it for all it was worth.

          Truckers actually have strict rules they work under, as far as the max allowable hours driven in a day. Not to say I haven't seen my share of sleep truckers (or at least non-attentive ones), but I've seen a lot more sleepy and non-attentive automobile drivers. I'd strongly suspect there are more uncaught DUI cases than sleepy drivers.

          Now, if you have a trucker that's been drinking and falls asleep behind the wheel, while hauling a trailer full of fuel, flips it, and it explodes, *THAT* would make the news. If he lands it on a bus full of nuns, or in a school yard, that'll make front page everywhere.

         

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    10. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by captainpanic · · Score: 1

      Nope.

      However for your good faith effort I will reply rather than mark you troll.

      "Let's make it mandatory! Then every infraction will be posted to the police, and the media, and maintained on a public page. Captain Panic, who was pulled over on suspicion of driving tired, pleaded not guilty, saying that he was just trying to figure out more information about the grooved pavement in front of him."

      "Pshaw! Likely story!"

      "Captain Panic's employer has been contacted and his hours have been cut since, as he cannot drive properly rested, he must be working too hard."

      No, surveillance measures are all to easily abused in this Orwellian Age.

      But there are GPS systems that will beep if it detects you break the speed limit. Nobody seems to oppose those systems?
      Safety features are a unique sales point - the first seatbelts were not enforced by law, but were instead invented by the Volvo car company.
      In fact, cars are full of automated warning lights, beeps, and safeguards (oil temperature, tire pressure, rev limiters, sensors detecting which seats are used and whether the person wears the seatbelt, rain sensors, light sensors, etc, etc)... what's the matter with one more - one which does not change the driving experience in any way, unless you doze off?

      As far as I understood, this thing will not communicate to the police. It will not shut down your car. It will not force you to stop. It will just give an alarm to keep you awake. It leaves all further responsibility with the driver... Please explain why drivers would oppose this?
      If any device in cars would be a danger to us, in this Orwellian Age, if would be the GPS. that already has a built in communication system. It can detect your speed (which you will break more often than the tiredness thingy - and also, there is no law against tired driving as it is very subjective).

      Mark me as troll btw? Why? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
      I think I was on topic, and we just disagree.

    11. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter, neither of them should be driving.

      I agree, which is why I wondered if it would give a drunk driver a warning. It could be just an extra reminder to someone that they shouldn't be driving. A giant fist coming out of their airbag is my first choice, but we all can't get what we want.

    12. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      [standing on his sarcasm box]

          I propose that we all can tag vehicles for being stupid. If enough people flag them as being stupid drivers, they are removed from the road. There's no in-car interlock that seems to work well enough to keep stupid people from driving.

      [stepping away from his sarcasm box]

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    13. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by cgenman · · Score: 1

      While I agree that truckers are by and large a far more responsible bunch than we give them credit for (and than they used to be), they also seem to be early adopters of new technologies. GPS, for example. If there were anywhere that would start with these, I could see truck driver employers mandating their usage by their drivers. That doesn't seem any more intrusive than some of the other things truckers put up with, especially if the technology actually works as advertised. If the technology matures, you might see GM installing friendly "wakeup calls" in the dash as a "service" to their drivers.

    14. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          You know, I got one of those calls. Well, I'm not a trucker, but I had set myself up with a tracking system in my car. It fed two cameras, and kept my site updated with coordinates, speed, heading, altitude, and automatically moved my marker on Google Maps. Around 3am, I was tired, so I pulled over in a rest area in California, Arizona, or New Mexico (I'm not sure which, it all looks the same). I laid my seat back to take a nap. I was only out for about 1/2 hour, when I got a panicked call asking if I was ok.

          When I stopped, I just saw that it was a rest area. I parked in a fairly quiet corner, with my car facing away from the road. I didn't bother to look at the map to see what it was showing. As it turns out, if you looked at the cameras, all you could see was empty desert. If you looked at the map, I was several hundred feet off the road, heading South, and not moving.

          Back to the topic, I wonder how the eye tracking would perform when checking blind spots or backing up. You may not even be facing forward, so it can't check you all the time. And as I was taught, you can't only trust the mirrors, turn your head to check blind spots. So negative reinforcement (the wakeup alarm) would be a very bad thing, reinforcing bad habits in drivers.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    15. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      That's why GP suggested "mandatory". Since when drivers were asked about any safety features?

      I do not remember being asked what I think about seat belts. It is slapped on me, though not me wearing seat belt very hardly affects anybody but me.

      That is what "mandatory" means. It means we will do it regardless whether you wanted or not. If drivers embrace the feature there is no need to make it mandatory, they will be asking for a feature themselves.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    16. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      But there are GPS systems that will beep if it detects you break the speed limit. Nobody seems to oppose those systems?

      *raises hand* ... I do. The ability to have my movements and speed monitored are the primary reason I never have, and never will have, GPS implanted in my car. For that matter, I also turn the GPS radios off in my cell phones unless I am going on a hike alone or something similar.

    17. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      While I agree that truckers are by and large a far more responsible bunch than we give them credit for (and than they used to be)

      I've been driving since 1968, and in my experience that's simply not true, at least in the US. Truckers use to drive VERY safely. The ones on the highways now drive like maniacs by comparison. They tailgate, pull out in front of you, speed, you name some bad driving practice and they'll do it.

      It didn't use to be like that.

    18. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Drivers usually know when they're tired, but they tend to drive anyway. They don't need some electronics to tell them this.

      Read TFS again. It sounds an alarm when your eyes are closed for more than a blink. I'd welcome this, as any sane person should. I'm not so sure I'd want it mandatory, but I know I would like one.

    19. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      I do not remember being asked what I think about seat belts. It is slapped on me, though not me wearing seat belt very hardly affects anybody but me.

      I guess you're too young to remember when seat belts were considered as controversial and radical as gay marriage, global warming and alternative power are now.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    20. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worst part is that typically they are right. This helps everyone build up a mental model of being safe drivers, when in the long run it is just a matter of time before that accident happens

    21. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

      Fair answer, hence why I held off on downmodding.
      (Though if I were to accuse, you're right I should be thinking flamebait, not troll.) But I'm not because I read your post twice and it's in good faith.

      Unfortunately Super-Surveillance is all the rage right now. You're perfectly right that this tired-sensor does not *yet* talk to the police... but I fear it's "when-not-if" in these matters. Sadly, this has led me to look for the abusability of anything these days.

      If you want to amp this up to "official notify" level you're welcome to email me and then if I match both halves I'll drop you a note.

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    22. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      The difference between subjects being

      seabelt (concerns 1 person), gay marriage (2, if you are atheist, millions, if you are religious), global warming (potentially 6B), and alternative power (potentially 6B).

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    23. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Forcing a law through that could potentiality save 100s of lives but inconveniences all driver is a mistake

      I would normally tend to agree with you; I've worn seat belts since long before they were mandatory (not wearing on almost killed me), but I was and am against mandating them, at least for adults. Your not wearing a seat belt isn't going to harm me. But this is a completely different animal. If you fall asleep at the wheel you're liable to hit me head on. How would this device in any way inconvinience you? The system is completely passive and only goes off if your eyes close for a predetermined period of time. It's no different than having a passenger yell "Hey! Wake up! Look out!"

      I just don't see your argument.

    24. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by TheRealGrogan · · Score: 1

      I'm not having some fucking camera in my vehicle that's keeping track of my eyes. I would poke the camera's eye out and bypass it if necessary, if I bought a car and it had that fitted as a mandatory "feature".

      The same with some mandatory intoxication detection device.

      People don't even necessarily close their eyes when they first start going hypnagogic so this isn't even going to be all that effective.

      It seems there are a lot of righteous, fearful people who think this is a good idea. Typical idiots who empower governments to make stupid laws such that you can't even have a drink or two anymore.

      You all make your own beds. I used to blame governments for the state of things... now I blame the public for being so idiotic and letting their freedoms and control of their own lives be subverted.

      You vote for these people. You defend and condone their actions in the name of safety and security for you and your family and your money. You are anything but safe or secure and the nanny state that you think is protecting you is the greatest of enemies.

    25. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by tftp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It sounds an alarm when your eyes are closed for more than a blink. I'd welcome this, as any sane person should.

      There are several problems here.

      The first problem is that tired people are not necessarily closing their eyes. What happens is that they drift away in their thoughts and lose concentration; they keep looking but stop seeing. A camera like that can't help here. An EEG helmet might be more effective but totally impractical.

      The second problem is that in southern states (CA to FL) you must use dark sunglasses from 6am to 8pm during summer (and a bit less during winter) simply because there is too much of sunlight here. How is the camera going to see through the dark lenses of those glasses, and reject reflections at the same time? And at night, with glasses or without, it's too dark for the camera to see the driver's eyes anyway.

    26. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Lets not! Especially since it could have the perverse effect if increasing traffic accidents.

      If you're trying to stay awake driving, you have already been driving unaware BEFORE your eyes close. If you have a device that will supposedly let you know if there's a problem, you might be more tempted to try driving when you shouldn't be.

      The other applications are far more interesting, appropriate, and cost effective.

    27. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not meant to be a 100% thing but if it prevents accidents it's extremely worth it (assuming the price isn't too high of course). Once while driving I closed my eyes for about 3 seconds before my body/brain/whatever sent an "OH SHIT DUDE" signal that jolted me awake, but imagine if my body didn't realize I was falling asleep during a situation where it wasn't okay. An alarm would be another layer of protection against this, and there's no reason it has to be a normal camera, cheap night vision would suffice. As for the sunglasses thing, you could easily detect sunglasses and simply turn the alarm off if the driver's eyes can't be positively identified at all. Again if you're sleepy and your mind wanders and you end up crashing because of it, this system won't help you, but it won't hurt you either in such a situation. It's meant ONLY for the conditions that you fall asleep and close your eyes, which I'm willing to wager is a significant portion of sleep-related accidents.

    28. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by tftp · · Score: 1

      It's meant ONLY for the conditions that you fall asleep and close your eyes, which I'm willing to wager is a significant portion of sleep-related accidents.

      I'm not ready to bet that your assertion is true. I have *never* closed my eyes for long (more than 0.1s) when driving; however I observed that when I'm tired I'm simply less attentive to surroundings.

      It's not meant to be a 100% thing but if it prevents accidents it's extremely worth it

      It will breed complacency. People - especially tired people - will allow themselves to relax "just a bit" because the alarm will wake them up in time.

      (assuming the price isn't too high of course)

      And of course the price will be high - why not, if the device is mandatory and the only way to not buy one is to not own a car? Do you think car insurance is affordable to any driver? Do you think the mandatory alcohol-testing ignition interlock is cheap? Once something is mandated the prices will be sky high - just because they can be.

      An alarm would be another layer of protection against this, and there's no reason it has to be a normal camera, cheap night vision would suffice

      By any means, if you want it then go and buy one. Or make one for yourself. I just don't want it to be mandated. However you will find that at night reflections of external lights from glasses (even from transparent, prescription ones) will make it difficult for the camera to see the eyes. You will need a tremendous dynamic range of those cameras, something that eyes - an amazingly fine instrument, by the way - are barely capable of.

      you could easily detect sunglasses and simply turn the alarm off

      Sure you can, but won't that defeat the purpose? Sunglasses are very useful, and people who return home (after work, tired and all) often drive against the setting sun.

      If you *really* want something that will alert you to you falling asleep, glue a few buttons to the steering wheel, where you normally keep your fingers. When driving, press a certain button when the alarm beeps a certain tone. If you fail to do that within some short time then the real siren spins up, loud enough to wake up the dead. You can build such a thing *today* out of common parts (look at Z-Wave door/window sensors, for example, no wires to drag from the steering wheel.)

    29. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Uh, what exactly triggered this rant? I don't think the discussion of it being mandatory was anywhere in the parents post. Don't drink and type (said I after drinking 3 single malts and a very passable Bordeaux)!

    30. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by owlstead · · Score: 1

      I don't get it. But I know a lot of drivers that would be very much helped with this device. Many people would like to have a warning when they actually doze off. I had a friend who had a night job while he was obviously the wrong person for it. He crashed his car after falling asleep behind the wheel. He could hardly have stayed at the factory floor though. If he could have a (preferably cheap) device that went off when actually falling asleep he would have pounced on it.

      If it would issue a warning if you have tired eyes then this would be a problem.

    31. Re:Perfect for traffic - let's make it mandatory? by TheRealGrogan · · Score: 1

      No? I thought it was in the post I was replying to. (There are more than one advocating it to be mandatory) I must have replied to the wrong one.

      You're right though it was just a rant. I don't mean to offend (only) one specific person :-)

  4. Trouble ahead ... by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So rather than 10 crashes because people fell asleep...

    We have 20 crashes because rather than stopping for a coffee and a rest people relied on this and crashed when the alarm went off ...

    If you are driving tired you are an accident waiting to happen .. falling asleep is just the worst case

    --
    Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    1. Re:Trouble ahead ... by nunojsilva · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And I wonder what if the system detects it correctly, issues an alarm, but the driver doesn't wake up with the alarm? Maybe the environment is already noisy (for sound alarms), has lots of lights (light alarms) or the car is shaking a lot (vibration alarms). Or maybe the person is so tired that the alarm doesn't work at all.

      I think someone should just not drive when tired. If a person is aware that may fall into sleep at any moment, then maybe it's just stupid to drive anything.

    2. Re:Trouble ahead ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So rather than 10 crashes because people fell asleep...

      We have 20 crashes because rather than stopping for a coffee and a rest people relied on this and crashed when the alarm went off ...

      If you are driving tired you are an accident waiting to happen .. falling asleep is just the worst case

      The guard rails and rumble strips are a loud enough alarm for me! Of course, when the people outside the car start screaming, it's too late.

    3. Re:Trouble ahead ... by Zakabog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So rather than 10 crashes because people fell asleep...

      We have 20 crashes because rather than stopping for a coffee and a rest people relied on this and crashed when the alarm went off ...

      If you are driving tired you are an accident waiting to happen .. falling asleep is just the worst case

      I imagine the opposite, where the alarm sounds off and the driver goes and takes a rest rather than continuing driving. Or in a scenario with passengers, one of the passengers say 'Hey you're falling asleep let me drive/take a rest.' It'd be harder for the driver to say 'I'm fine to drive' when there's an alarm like this going off ever few minutes.

    4. Re:Trouble ahead ... by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So rather than 10 crashes because people fell asleep...
      We have 20 crashes because rather than stopping for a coffee and a rest people relied on this and crashed when the alarm went off

      I really don't think that people are so stupid that they will think that they are not tired because a car alarm hasn't gone off. Do you also think that people won't use brakes because they can stop by driving into a wall and have the airbags protect them?

      If the car starts beeping to wake you up then you have long gone past the time that you should have stopped for a rest. While you might not actually close your eyes, extreme tiredness slows the reflexes to the same level as driving while intoxicated.

    5. Re:Trouble ahead ... by RMH101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem here is that tiredness is something that a) creeps up on you, and b) impairs your ability to make judgements, including "am I too tired to drive?".
      I doubt there's anyone here who's been driving for a while who hasn't ended up driving at least once when they've become very tired, and it's taken a shock to make them realise how tired they actually were.

    6. Re:Trouble ahead ... by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1

      Well, yes. Which makes this alarm a good thing.

      The grandparent was claiming that it would increase the number of crashes by having this alarm. As you say, being tired can impair your judgement about whether you are tired. But that will not change whether you have an alarm fitted or not. If you are too tired to know you are tired, then you won't be consciously thinking that you can rely on the alarm.

      The alarm going off could be the necessary shock to which you referred to get the driver to pull over. So the number of crashes will go down.

    7. Re:Trouble ahead ... by RMH101 · · Score: 1

      I agree completely. Can't hurt, might help, let's have them.

    8. Re:Trouble ahead ... by cusco · · Score: 1

      I've found that for long, boring drives such as Seattle to Bellingham a few coca leaves in the cheek work really well to maintain alertness. The last time I asked at the airport you were still allowed to bring less than a pound back from Peru.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    9. Re:Trouble ahead ... by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      I really don't think that people are so stupid that they will think that they are not tired because a car alarm hasn't gone off. Do you also think that people won't use brakes because they can stop by driving into a wall and have the airbags protect them?

      If the car starts beeping to wake you up then you have long gone past the time that you should have stopped for a rest. While you might not actually close your eyes, extreme tiredness slows the reflexes to the same level as driving while intoxicated.

      Most drivers feel they're above average (BBC article). While I don't think all people are as stupid as you describe, I have enough experience to believe that some are and those are the ones that worry me.

      I ended up behind a car with no brake lights one day so I gave him plenty of extra room to compensate. Another car ended up between us and rear-ended him at a red light. My theory is that they were waiting for the back of the car in front of them to light up before hitting the brakes.

      If you give someone who thinks they're able to operate at full capacity all the time an alarm that alerts them to take a rest odds are they probably won't listen anyway.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    10. Re:Trouble ahead ... by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1

      But do you believe that this safety feature would harm more lives than it saves? The number of people who doze off at the wheel will always be larger than the number of exceptionally stupid people who doze off at the wheel. And even then, a proportion of those stupid people will still be saved by this facility.

      It makes more sense to have the feature than to toss it out because a very small minority of people will abuse it.

    11. Re:Trouble ahead ... by Combatso · · Score: 1

      I know we like to THINK people arent that stupid, unfortunately..... http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/canada/article/655600--gps-directions-strand-ontario-woman-in-swamp

    12. Re:Trouble ahead ... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Better not rely like that on a coffee...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  5. Pretty neat, however.. by Combatso · · Score: 2, Funny

    What if you, like me, drive while wearing these: http://rosem.aloak.ca/acatalog/250315.jpg

    1. Re:Pretty neat, however.. by Combatso · · Score: 1

      or for that matter, with dark sunglasses, like 90% of the people who drive while the sun is out

    2. Re:Pretty neat, however.. by cryoman23 · · Score: 0

      for a silent ride home while drving while asleep :)

      --
      epic sig..... ya i got nothing
    3. Re:Pretty neat, however.. by need4mospd · · Score: 2, Funny
      And I wear my sunglasses at night too.

      Corey

    4. Re:Pretty neat, however.. by Combatso · · Score: 1

      yikes... don't mess around with this guy

  6. Title... by alphax45 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Needs more words that start with "D"

    --
    K Man
    1. Re:Title... by thijsh · · Score: 1

      They figured everybody loves Double D's, so they said: "Fuck everything we're doing six D's".

    2. Re:Title... by alphax45 · · Score: 1

      LOL! Love it :)

      --
      K Man
    3. Re:Title... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "researchers could determine which parts of a poster or advertising spot receive longer attention from their viewers"

      speaking of double-D's, I'm sure the porn industry will be all over this.

  7. Great stuff by Chrisq · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'll be able to keep going now when I'm driving late and tired instead of pulling in at a rest stop, knowing that the car will wake me. Technology has done so much for drivers, with ABS we don't need to slow down in snow and ice, air bags mean we don't need to bother with seat belts and cruise control means you don't need to look at the speedo.

    1. Re:Great stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately i seem to be the only one who read 'Hornyness detector' so I'm not very hyped yet.

    2. Re:Great stuff by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      There's a joke somewhere in there about cruising and looking at speedos, but I'm too tired to make it.

    3. Re:Great stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, i had such a clever comment written for you, but i accidentally pressed "cancel", when my H2 slashdoted couple of damn cyclists.
      Anyhow, back on the topic. Cruisecontrol sure is blessing. Now i can set speed to max and not worry about it, in the old day i had to rely on topler effect from horns of those driving in opposite directions, to make sure i'm going fast enough. It's not, that i don't know how to read speedometer, i'm just slow reader, and if i have to break my consentration, then i would have to start newspaper articles over again.
      Once i also tried to read the books, but din't like it.

    4. Re:Great stuff by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't you hate it when you're trying to make a joke and somebody mods you "insightful"? =)

      For the learning-impaired moderators:

      ABS isn't just for snow and ice. ABS will stop you faster slamming on the brakes on a dry surface than trying to keep from skidding without it; if the tires are skidding, they have almost zero traction, as was demonstrated in a driving course in the USAF. ABS will stop a car faster than the same car without it in any conditions. The added benefit is you can still steer with the brakes slammed on.

      Anybody stupid enough to not wear their seat belts because the car has air bags isn't going to wear their seat belt anyway.

      Not looking at the speedo is safer than looking at it -- you have to take your eyes off the road for a second to see the speedometer. Plus, your gas mileage is much better using your cruise than driving without.

    5. Re:Great stuff by aaaantoine · · Score: 2, Informative

      ABS will stop you faster slamming on the brakes on a dry surface than trying to keep from skidding without it; if the tires are skidding, they have almost zero traction, as was demonstrated in a driving course in the USAF. ABS will stop a car faster than the same car without it in any conditions. The added benefit is you can still steer with the brakes slammed on.

      This is wrong. What ABS does is allow you to control the direction of your car when your tires would otherwise lose traction. In fact, the stopping distance with ABS is actually longer than without.

    6. Re:Great stuff by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, do some research. If your brakes are locked up all your "braking" is the friction between tire and road. When the wheels are turning the brakes change kenetik energy to heat. This was proven decades ago, it's elemental physics.

      For the test, they equip cars with a device with a gun that shoots chalk when the passenger presses a button, when the brakes are applied, and when the car is stopped. It's a VERY effective demonstration of reaction distance and stopping distance -- I've participated in this. I agree it's counterintuitive, but much in physics is.

      Being able to steer while the pedal is mashed is an added advantage.

  8. Awesome title by Haedrian · · Score: 3, Funny

    ++ Definitely Diminishing Distinct Danger

  9. Re:from stuff that doesn't matter, to 100% irrelev by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    I think you got the 100% irrelevant spot on.

  10. Alliteration by captain_dope_pants · · Score: 1

    Is the Register's headline writer now working for slashdot ?

    --
    while (true != false) process_more_stupid_code();
  11. Who cares about the article's content... by elsurexiste · · Score: 3, Informative

    Who cares about the article's content, when the title was written with 6 words that start with "D". It could have been better, though: "Digital Dashboard Device Diligently Detects Driver Drowsiness".

    --
    I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    1. Re:Who cares about the article's content... by Soulskill · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't disregard delving deeply despite distracting descriptors.

    2. Re:Who cares about the article's content... by Dersaidin · · Score: 1

      But the current title is cool because it does it without adding overly superfluous words.

    3. Re:Who cares about the article's content... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Duuuude...

  12. Great for congestion by Gandalf1957 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Because every day the sun shines there'll be thousands of cars at the side of the road with their sunglasses-wearing drivers taking a nap :-)

  13. Lexus by nawitus · · Score: 1

    This is already in some Lexus models. Years ago..

    1. Re:Lexus by Combatso · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but this is a stand-alone device anyone can slap on their dash... like when the GPS came out of the dash and became stand-alone... So I don't need to buy a brand new lexus to get the technology.. I can spend a few hundy and have it annoy me in my Jeep..

  14. tongue tied by auximage77 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Rubber baby buggy bumper!

  15. Application in games by fgouget · · Score: 1

    The Eyetracker also has applications in computer games where players could look around themselves without requiring a joystick to change their viewing direction

    Hum, if I look to my left all I see is the wall. So will this system also move the computer screen / tv around so I see what it is trying to show me in game?

  16. Head movement by Laser+Dan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder how well it copes with head movement.

    TFA shows very zoomed in images of eyes and two large cameras, but they say the system is "half the size of a matchbox". If each camera plus processor is really so small, that's a pretty good system. And they say it can do it at 200 FPS? Thats a lot of image processing.

    I suspect they locate the eyes in a low resolution image first then just process the eye regions at 200 Hz, keeping them centred to account for head movement. Otherwise it would be impossible in the matchbox size with current DSPs.
    Anyone have more details?

  17. Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its' about time people started looking into how to make our roads safer, and keeping tired motorists awake is one good way of doing it. Not everyone has the time or inclination to take a break every once in a while. Perhaps these could be sold separate in places like DubLi to ensure that any Joe could buy one without having to buy a new car?

  18. Way to Improve Device and Headline by srussia · · Score: 1

    Digital Dashboard Device Detects Driver Drowsiness, Delivers Desoxyn

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
  19. Multiple possible applications by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

    "Hey! Stop staring at your passenger's breasts and look at the road!"

  20. Disturbing Nightmare by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    I was driving along and all of a sudden I woke up to a really annoying sound WHILE crashing in to a tree.

    I prefer not to have loud alarms going off while I am trying to get much-needed rest!

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  21. Use in computers? by Beroya · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see this adapted to work as a pointer interface. Screw drowsy drivers, Nerds everywhere can make better use of this tech.

  22. Cue old joke by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

    I'd rather die quietly in my sleep, like my grandfather, than screaming in fear, like the people in his car

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  23. we're also 'spot on' about the starving babies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not that it's 'stuff that matters' to anyone here, but you never know when consciousness/conscience may 'kick (one) in (the head/heart)'.

  24. Crashy by Migraineman · · Score: 1

    *bing* *bong*

    It looks like you are about to crash. Would you like me to:

    - Engage Google Autodrive?

    - Pre-load 911 into the OnStar system?

    - Locate your nearest next of kin on the GPS system?

  25. A slight flaw by shish · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Eyetracker also has applications in computer games where players could look around themselves without requiring a joystick to change their viewing direction

    1) Player wants to move the in game camera left 45 degrees
    2) Player moves eyes left 45 degrees
    3) The camera moves successfully, but the player doesn't see that because their eyes were pointing at their desk lamp to the side of the monitor
    4) Not profit!

    --
    I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    1. Re:A slight flaw by martas · · Score: 1

      uhh, then don't move your eyes 45 degrees when you want a 45 degree turn. it could just be a standard joystick-like approach, where looking at the edge of the screen causes initiates turning until you look back at the center.

  26. And in version two... by Minwee · · Score: 1

    ...the drowsiness data will be fed directly to your insurance company, so that they can deny any claims that you make and raise your rates because of your "dangerous driving habits".

    Isn't progress grand?

  27. Game applications. by the_saint1138 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I for one am looking forward to this. Time Crisis 2015: (Please look away from screen to reload)

  28. This is not news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this news? Seeing Machines has been doing this for 10 years. Stereo cameras, or single camera, and an API for DIY projects. Oh, and stereo calibration issues make this impossible in an automotive application due to vibration and calibration issues. Where do those cameras go on the dash? The big IR emitter? Hmmm... Detecting Drowsiness eh? Yawn... Full disclosure, I do work for the aforementioned company, but I've been in this area for more than ten years.

  29. Have you seen that god awful mercedes commercial? by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

    People are like that. That Mercedes commercial royally ticks me off, with quotes like "I didn't realize I was drifting into the other lane" and "I didn't realize the car in front of me had stopped." Why the fuck are you driving then?! Yes, its a commercial, but there are really people like this on the road. The world revolves around them and they are not paying attention to what they are supposed to be doing, or their surroundings, or their state of mind. I would not doubt for a minute that these people would rely entirely on the technology to tell them something they should already know, and drive in a dangerous condition prior to the alarm going off.

  30. Great technology by ben-acheson-uk · · Score: 1

    This is great - it would also be ideal for, diabetes, heart conditions and other problems that could lead to loss of consciousness. Potentially it could also note the location of the user by GPS or mobile mast triangulation. That information could then be reported to their doctor, family, and local emergency services over the internet. Add a web portal, and there are all sorts of additional possibilities.

    --
    Ben
  31. Wearing glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guys. Stop worrying about the resolution of the device or ability to track head movements.
    Most people wear some kind of glasses when driving. Sun glasses will render this device completely useless.
    Damn nerds.

  32. Substandard performance. by blair1q · · Score: 2, Funny

    I give it a D.

  33. Blues Brothers... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    We have half a tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's night, and we're wearing sunglasses. LET'S ROLL!

  34. I see Fark has copied this headline. by jackpot777 · · Score: 1

    Word for word, that is.

    Can timothy confirm if he's the same person that submitted this to Fark? Or is Fark stealing headlines (with the added advantage of making money from t-shirts of the headline, should anyone wish to buy one)?

    --
    Shiny. Let's be bad guys...
  35. Mercedes Benz 2010 E Class by paranoid123 · · Score: 1

    The MB 2010 E Class cars already have this. But I don't think it's calibrated for Asians. The thing won't shut off!

  36. Correct, 10 years of research confirms it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm passing on my mod points, because I actually have done research in drowsy driver warnings. You are correct that this warning is too late and drivers need the warning sooner. Also, people are downright terrible at accurately judging how tired they are.

    Back in the late 1990's the US DOT started funding a series of projects on this topic for commercial truck drivers. DOT wanted a method for measuring drowsiness before things got to the point where drivers were closing their eyes for seconds at a time. A measure called PERCLOS was developed and subsequently implemented in a dashboard mounted sensor (gee, that sounds like the abstract).

    The difference is that the system used a single camera and was actually tested on drowsy drivers in a simulator and validated in a very large road study. The system developed under DOT research issued a warning as drivers were moving up the drowsiness curve, not when they went over the cliff. Truck drivers need to know at least 10-20 minutes before an exit that they need to get off and take a nap since safe parking areas are spaced too far.

    Furthermore, the system was designed specifically with driver acceptance in mind. It was designed to be similar to a speedometer, rather than an alarm clock. It provided objective information on how tired you were and only issued an alarm when you crossed a dangerous threshold. Some cars allow you set similar threshold warnings for speed.
    In terms of coffee, it does help, but not when used the way most of us think it does nor is the impact very large. Also, it doesn't help at all when you're over the drowsiness cliff and are closing your eyes long enough to trigger the system in this article. By then, you're in the cornfield (if you're lucky) or wrapped around a tree (if not).

  37. Infrared eye damage by jrobot · · Score: 1

    This is great until you realize you're cooking your retinas..

  38. I'd avoid this... by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    I know when I'm too tired to drive (which is far too often) - and I don't.
    I hope this ability for judgment carries over once I start drinking...

    I have noticed a surprising amount of analogies between sleep deprivation and intoxication; this is one.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.