Using Brain Waves Can Shorten Braking Distance

cheros writes "A BBC article reports on work at the Berlin Institute of technology where brainwaves are used to trigger brakes. Apparently this cuts braking distance by more than 3m (10ft), but I have reservations about skull electrodes in any circumstances. I'll stick with radar, thanks."

Comments

Too much potential for false alarm

[hawguy]

Seems like way too much potential for false alarm - what happens when I'm driving along and thinking "Crap, I forgot to STOP for milk" or I see someone across the street about to get hit by a car and I think "That car's going to hit him, he better STOP! And my mind goes through the thought process of applying the brakes even though I don't do so"

I bet they can get nearly the same result by using motion sensors to detect the motion of the driver's foot off the gas pedal and over to the brakes - as soon as it sees the driver let up on the gas, it can prime the brakes and get ready for a panic stop based on the driver's next move - maybe instead of saving 12 feet of stopping distance they can only save 6 feet, but in a panic stop from 65mph, 6 feet (or even 12 feet) is rarely the different between a safe stop and an injury collision.

But an unexpected panic stop at 65mph with a 40 ton 18 wheeler right behind you could be fatal - even if he has this magic thought-control system, the laws of physics guarantee that your small car will stop faster than his heavy truck.

Re:Too much potential for false alarm

[artor3]

Why trigger off the brain signal corresponding to the word "stop"? Perhaps they can trigger it off the brain signal that tells your foot to move left and push. My (admittedly limited) understanding of the brain is that it's easier to pick up on motor control signals than thoughts anyway. Added bonus - parents teaching their kids to drive could wear the sensors too, so that now when you slam on the imaginary passenger-side brake, the car actually stops!

Re:Too much potential for false alarm

[TheCouchPotatoFamine]

That's Not How It Works! ... I don't know but i'd imagine the brain gives off signals requiring simultaneous activation of locamator, fear, and decisions areas to indicate an attempt. I don't imagine their looking for something as general as "oh shit". DNRTFA

Re:Too much potential for false alarm

[hawguy]

Why trigger off the brain signal corresponding to the word "stop"? Perhaps they can trigger it off the brain signal that tells your foot to move left and push. My (admittedly limited) understanding of the brain is that it's easier to pick up on motor control signals than thoughts anyway. Added bonus - parents teaching their kids to drive could wear the sensors too, so that now when you slam on the imaginary passenger-side brake, the car actually stops!

I didn't say (or even think) that it was triggered off mentally thinking the word stop - that wouldn't work anyway since I rarely tell myself to "stop" when I see a road hazard.

But as I said: or I see someone across the street about to get hit by a car and I think "That car's going to hit him, he better STOP! And my mind goes through the thought process of applying the brakes even though I don't do so

If I see someone about to get crunched by a car I may involuntarily cringe and mentally imagine stopping, thus triggering the system despite having no intention to stop.

Re:Too much potential for false alarm

[hawguy]

Did you even read my post?

I didn't say (or even think) that it was triggered off mentally thinking the word stop - that wouldn't work anyway since I rarely tell myself to "stop" when I see a road hazard.

But as I said: or I see someone across the street about to get hit by a car and I think "That car's going to hit him, he better STOP! And my mind goes through the thought process of applying the brakes even though I don't do so

If I see someone about to get crunched by a car I may involuntarily cringe and mentally imagine stopping, maybe even clenching my leg muscles, thus triggering the system despite having no intention to stop.

Re:Too much potential for false alarm

[artor3]

Your mind does not go through the process of applying the brakes without your actually doing so. It's not like your muscles have minds of their own and think "oh, that silly brain! he's just messing with me!" Your conscious mind may consider sending the signals, but the signals are not actually sent - if they are, then your muscles would move.

Your brain either sends the signal to the muscles or it does not. That's the signal they should be looking for.

Re:Too much potential for false alarm

[hawguy]

Yes, and if people would always stop at stop signs, and always yield right of way, and never drive too fast for conditions, and not drive while impaired, and not drive while distracted and do everything else a driver should do, driving would be much much safer for everyone. Of course, in the real world, people don't drive like that.

Calling this technology unsafe because of a few bad drivers is like calling airbags unsafe because of a few airbag fatalities.

A few bad drivers? Have you ever driven on a freeway in the USA? Near any large city? Imagine what would happen if you suddenly jammed on the brakes in heavy traffic -- that's what would happen in a false alarm from this system.

I can tell you what happens because I've witnessed a 5 car accident caused by a deer on the road and one driver panic stopped, got rear ended and ended up in the neighboring lane were he got t-boned - one driver ended up going to the hospital. The deer was fine. Fortunately I was on the other side of the road and wasn't involved.

Re:Too much potential for false alarm

[hawguy]

You propose this as a reason for not adopting this technology, but it looks like it could just as easily apply to cars in general.

No, I'm saying that the risk-reward benefit doesn't seem to be there. One intended panic stop can erase the benefit of a dozen cars having a slightly reduced stopping distance.

There's an obvious risk-reward benefit for driving - car assisted mobility is extremely valuable.

Re:Too much potential for false alarm

[yodleboy]

Yeah, the sensor solution works pretty well. I had a Mercedes Benz a few years ago that was able to detect a 'panic stop' situation and would apply the brakes much harder and faster than normally. I tried a lot of times to fool it, but the only times it fired were real panic stops. The difference in stopping time/distance was pretty startling. Once at around 50 mph there was an accident ahead of me and i slammed on the brakes. I stopped so abruptly, it felt like the back of the car was going to come off the ground and keep on going. that would have been funny, a 4 wheel luxury endo. personally, i'd like thought controlled wipers/lights/signals/radio. Hell maybe even shifting. That would be cool.

Cheaper and safer alternative

[Carewolf]

Keep a distance between cars of at least 2 seconds. Who cares about reducing optimal human reaction-time. You might reduce the best-case reaction time from 300ms to 200ms, but you still have 0.5-1s of decision making before reaction-time kicks in, and then another 1-2s while the car breaks.
Saving 100ms in leg movement doesn't seem very important, when the real risk is how long it takes for the brain to raise the alarm and decide on the correct action, and then the actual breaking which still takes a long time.

Re:Cheaper and safer alternative

[Skidborg]

The distance between cars may not matter if the problem is something else entirely suddenly dashing into the street. Wildlife is a real issue in some parts of the world.

Re:Cheaper and safer alternative

[mjwx]

Keep a distance between cars of at least 2 seconds.

2 seconds is the absolute bare minimum distance you need to maintain. 3 seconds is recommended here in Oz because so many factors affect stopping distance. Your reaction time is going to be between 1.5 and 3 seconds alone depending on fatigue and alertness. Very few drivers will be capable of fully applying the brakes in under 1.5 seconds whilst a distracted driver will rarely be able to react in under 3 seconds.

Saving 100ms in leg movement doesn't seem very important, when the real risk is how long it takes for the brain to raise the alarm and decide on the correct action, and then the actual breaking which still takes a long time.

True,

Stopping distance is reaction distance + braking distance. Reaction distance is always at full speed (say 60 KM/h) whilst braking distance is how long it takes your car to stop.

Reaction distance at 50 KM/h is 20.8 metres, at 60 KM/h is 25 metres and at 70 KM/h it's 29.1 meters. this is the distance travelled before even engaging the brakes.

To increase road safety, you want to drive slower and have more room with the vehicle in front of you. Unfortunately if you leave a wide enough a gap between you and the vehicle in front of you in too many cities some moron will try to take up that space cutting a 4 or 5 second gap down to a 1 second gap.

Re:Cheaper and safer alternative

[makubesu]

Because the faster I drive, the sooner I get home, and the less time I spend drunk on the road. Come on man, use your reason!

Re:Cheaper and safer alternative

[Solandri]

Keep a distance between cars of at least 2 seconds.

This is a great idea in theory. But in practice, most of time I open up a space larger than 2 sec between me and the car in front, someone pulls into it. Driving is a collaborative effort between you and the people around you. Unfortunately, this means that actual following distance is dictated by the person who believes in a shorter "safe following distance", not longer. In fact it's sometimes dictated by idiots who think a space barely big enough to parallel park into is big enough for a lane change.

Re:Just what we need a high tech system that can f

[Cryacin]

I need a neuroport like I need a hole in my head!

umm....
It IS a hole in your head.

Re:Just what we need a high tech system that can f

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Hey, as long as they run a wire to my pleasure center at the same time..... //runs off to build a droud

Won't work for the drivers who most need it.

[John Hasler]

n/t

One flaw:

[jd2112]

It's derived from experimental Soviet era jet fighter technology, so you have to think 'Stop' in Russian. But I hear Clint Eastwood is getting one installed in his car.

(If you don't get it search for 'Firefox' on imdb.com)