Carmakers Prepare For Augmented Reality Driving
An anonymous reader writes "Car manufacturers at CES are showing off their future integration of mobile computing technologies and automobiles. Quoting CNN: 'As digital tech — and our expectations for it — becomes more mobile, carmakers are taking notice. Many automotive designers here seem to have taken inspiration from smartphones, with their promise of being always connected and their vast menu of apps for every purpose. ... Simply point your hand at them, and the icons open to show real-time information: when that bridge over there was built, what band is playing at that nightclub on the left, whether that new café up the street has any tables available. Wave your hand again, and you've made a restaurant reservation. ... All these advancements may make driving more interesting. Or they may spoil one of modern society's last refuges from the hyper-connected digital world. Either way, they are coming soon.'"
How about when you are driving, you pay attention to driving?
Get out of jail free cards for everyone, guys! Just claim the HUD malfunctioned and gave you a seizure (or simply obscured your view) if you happen to run over some pedestrian.
Who's to say it ain't so?
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
And here's the Facebook page of that pedestrian you just ran over.
Have gnu, will travel.
Stop doing this and make my car drive itself first..thx
Seriously I need that sort of thing like I need another whole in my head. Make my be a better car, not try to turn it into a smartphone.
You want to augment my reality...make some sunglasses that do...make my eyes better.
Driving is sometimes a pleasure and often a pain. However it demands focus and attention for your safety and for others on the road.
Quoting the article- "Simply point your hand at them, and the icons open to show real-time information: when that bridge over there was built, what band is playing at that nightclub on the left,"
This might be entertainment for the people sitting in the backseat - it might even be informative for kids.
This would definitely be a major nuisance for me if I were driving. Don't get me wrong – I am not against technology – but I also believe that there are some places where technology can be a hindrance and IMO this is one of them.
Car manufacturers aren't exactly known for making good user interfaces (apart from the vehicle's primary controls).
In reality, the auto companies and their partners in university labs have been doing work research on HUDs for a while. The augmented reality approach has been tried in research studies as a result of successes in the aviation community. However, there are huge differences between augmented reality for cars when comparing to planes and pedestrians. The point of this post is not that HUDs are bad or unlikely to succeed, but rather that the designers of trade show concepts are ignoring much of the existing research. The concepts in TFA are unlikely to be used for actual products due to safety issues. Expect simpler HUDs focused on safety oriented problems. Here are some of the safety problems:
First, cars tend to hit things quicker. This is a crude point about recovery time, but a major one.
Second, there is considerably more variation in scene brightness due to driving speeds and local factors like buildings and trees. This leads to challenges perceiving the HUD imagery. Demos on trade show floors and labs usually gloss over this factor.
Perhaps the biggest concern is that there humans have perception errors due to the way our brains integrate augmented reality with the real world. First is the issue of cognitive capture. This is when you ignore the real world and just use the HUD for your information. For example, the collision warning system may highlight all the moving vehicles, so you learn to just look for the highlighting. Unlike a video game where every object is known, automotive sensing doesn't work 100% and objects will be missed. Cognitive capture is when you fail to perceive the kid running into the middle of the street because he wasn't highlighted. This can be demonstrated easily in the lab and many studies have concrete evidence of this.
The second perception problem is that HUDs can lead to misperception of distance. A HUD can only have one focal length while the real world has an infinite amount. Mismatches can lead to the driver misinterpreting the distance of an object. This isn't a problem when flying (everything is at optical infinity) or walking (you're moving to slow), but can cause problems when driving.
The third perception problem is masking. This is when the information about the new cafe covers the pedestrian crossing the street.
If your organization has access to this paper, it is an excellent primer on the issues. And yes, it was written in 1997.
I don't want info about bridges and stores. How about it shows the speed of the other cars on the road? Or just some sort of indicator that I'm too close to the car in front of me to stop in time if he slams on his brakes. I'm sure there's plenty of other information that could assist my driving as long as it's displayed as unobtrusively as possible. Distracted driving already causes plenty of accidents.
In local news, police are struggling to deal with the startling increase in traffic around local area strip clubs. Apparently the new "augmented reality" displays in the new cars are showing 30 second previews of their wares.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Highlighting pedestrians and other features, particularly at night, would actually be really useful. There are a lot of things at night or during heavy rain or snow that can be picked up visually, eventually, but are challenging for humans. (Likewise for road signs at dusk.)
Mass transit has been a world wide failure
keep such american bullshit in america.
100 million people are using mass transit comfortably and safely in japan. many more, in europe. in europe, the standards for mass transportation varies depending on country, but in japan, there is no such variance. fast trains are a feature of life there. even in germany, where 200 km/h heavy luxury cars and a culture of expensive highways are present, mass transportation is much more convenient as long as there is a mass transport reaching the destination you want.
dont pose shitty opinions as facts or statements next time. or, keep them in america. it is stupid to drive to a destination by going through all the hassles and effort instead of arriving there by swinging your arms about as if in your back garden with a mass transport vehicle. it is you americans' fault that you let mass transportation to be neglected, and your metros, undergrounds have became hellholes of crime and shit. and dont even get me started on amtrak.
Read radical news here