Slashdot Mirror
Inside Virttex, Ford's Driver Distraction Simulator
An anonymous reader writes "After my collision the world went blank but I didn't see angels and harps because the highway and the crash situation were imaginary, created inside Ford's Virttex (virtual text track experiment cockpit simulator). Functioning much like a simulator for pilots, this domed virtual world on pitching and sliding stilts has been used to test car cockpits and instruments since 2001. It played a role in the development of recent center stacks such as MyFord Touch. In recent years, Ford used Virttex driver distraction research to learn more about what causes driver inattention and what countermeasures Ford can embed into cars to keep people like me from becoming another Darwinian statistic. It also gives Ford a leg up on the competition — Ford says it's the only automaker in the U.S. with a virtual reality simulator of this magnitude."
I wonder what they d... Oh look!!! A Squirrel!!
While speeding is the leading cause for most traffic accidents, one can't deny that unskilled drivers also contributed to a significant portion of traffic mayhem
Current system of testing / passing drivers are often way too insufficient - as long as the driver can manage to drive the test car without any mishaps they are rewarded a driver license - resulted in many drivers who are totally unprepared and unskilled to handle heavy and often very tricky traffic situations (like water planing, ice-skitting, and such)
I believe it comes time to upgrade the DMV with simulator, and those who want to obtain a driver license must first demonstrate their skills in the simulator, with all sort of situational scenario thrown in
This can lessen a significant portion of traffic mishaps and cut down the number of traffic injuries and deaths
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Real-life driving tests are very limited in what they can test. Does the driver continue to drive the speed limit on a slippery road or when visibility is poor? Does the driver stop for pedestrians in unmarked crosswalks? If the car starts hydroplaning, does the driver let off the gas or slam on the brakes?
We have the technology to test all of these situations and more. Why are we still in the 1950s in driver testing?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Stop filling cars with stupid user interfaces for electronic systems that require close visual attention to use! Touch screens are stupid in cars - there's no tactile feedback so you HAVE TO USE YOUR EYES! I think GM are worse than Ford in this respect but they're all at it, even top-end marques like BMW and Mercedes.
I want physical switches with positive tactile feedback whose function is clear and doesn't keep changing in different "modes" just because you're too cheap to provide a separate switch for different things. Cars of the 1960s with great big toggle switches on wooden dashboards were easier to drive than this.
I would say that speeding is the cause of near zero traffic accidents. It merely magnifies other causes (and effects).
I would say that speeding is the cause of near zero traffic accidents.
Speeding vehicles in the hands of the inexperienced drivers are very very deadly
On the other hand, most experienced drivers do not drive like crazy
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Sorry, but speeding rarely is the CAUSE of any accident. Speed differentials can be. And accident damage will increase with speed. But going fast does not, in itself, cause accidents.
And by definition "speeding" is *ANY* speed over the speed limit. Since 98% of people drive over the speed limit (they do here at least), how is it that 98% of cars are not in accidents?
The leading causes of accidents are probably:
* Failure to stop in time because of following too closely
* Not looking/knowing what is in a lane before changing lanes
* Distracted driving of any sort (passengers, phones, controls, etc)
* Falling asleep
* Intoxicated driving
* Reckless driving (weaving, lane splitting, running lights, chicken, etc)
That's not true. The leading cause for most traffic accidents is "failure to yield right-of-way".
While speeding is the leading cause for most traffic accidents
False. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/cats/listpublications.aspx?Id=A&ShowBy=DocType Document 811630 pages 4 and 6 demonstrate that alcohol is just as big a factor in fatal crashes. In fact, I would argue that it is a much bigger factor because a lot more people speed than drink and drive.
I believe the same thing about marriage licenses.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The problem with the term 'speeding' is that it has two meanings. The first is the simple "exceed the posted speed limit". The second is "too fast for the conditions".
The reality is that an experienced driver will drive to the conditions which in some (many?) cases may include "exceeding the speed limit", and in other cases will be driving far below the posted limit. The same driver is, however, very unlikely to drive "too fast for the conditions".
An inexperienced (or careless) driver on the other hand is likely to do the opposite. In your example, the driver is driving dangerously (irrespective of speed). "Shooting through" red lights is idiocy on the grandest scale (again irrespective of speed), and basically means they weren't paying any attention to the road at all.
Because that's what they'll be instructed to do. The idea of this isn't to try and ferret out bad drivers, it is to see what can be done to make cars safer for bad drivers. Bad drivers are a fact of life, we use technology to try and help.
So Ford will do tests like "Please eat lunch while you do this simulation," or "We'll be sending you text messages to read and respond to." I suppose you could refuse to do as they ask but then they'll thank you for your time and get someone else.
The whole idea is to deliberately have people be distracted in various ways and see what things help them avoid problems.
With 30-thousand some traffic fatalities a year, it would be well worth it.
I mean, there are like 20-30 some common scenarios that kids could be faced with in the simulator. Experiences they could have without being actual near misses. Or hits, like the unfortunates who don't make it, or are maimed. You get your driver's test after you've completed all the scenarios and have done actual driving time.
Experienced drivers are better because of their experience and near misses over the years.
It would save a lot of lives.
If you are a designated driver, and your friend is passed out in the back seat, drunk and you stop at a red light and the car behind you falls asleep (sober) and crashes into you, you do know how that gets recorded in statistics, right? It's "alcohol related" because one of the people involved was drunk (and asleep, even if not in control of either car). When *any* alcohol in either car (including the blood stream of the dead body in the trunk) is present, the crash is "alcohol related'. With a definition like that, I'm surprised how *few* crashes are alcohol related.
Learn to love Alaska
Here's the National Advanced Driving Simulator, which is in Iowa. This not only has a Stewart platform, the Stewart Platform is mounted on an X-Y table about 60 feet square. Toyota has an even bigger one with over 100 feet of linear travel.
The need for huge linear travel comes from the need to simulate the feeling of a hard stop. To some extent, deceleration can be simulated with tilt. But at the end of a stop, deceleration suddenly ceases without a change in attitude. You can't simulate that with a Stewart platform. If you want to test people's behavior during hard braking, you need a huge simulator.
It's not like an accident can't have multiple checkmarks on 'cause' - speeding, tailgating, running red light, AND drunk.
I don't read AC A human right