Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Jaguar and Land Rover Just Created Transparent Pillars For Cars

Posted by samzenpus on from the wide-angle-view dept.

cartechboy writes We've all been there, driving down a city street and we miss that pedestrian or bicycle because they are in our blind spot. Not the blind spot behind us, but covered up by the A-pillar on your vehicle. This is a growing concern as pillars and cars in general bulk up to meet new, ever stricter safety standards. Now Jaguar and Land Rover might have come up with a solution that eliminates the risk: transparent pillars. Imagine having zero blinds spots as you pull up to that intersection. No concerns about not seeing something or someone that's hidden by that large A-pillar. The technology is called 360 Virtual Urban Windscreen and it provides a 360-degree view out of the vehicle. How does it work? Essentially, a screen embedded in the surface of each pillar inside the car relays a live video feed from cameras covering the angles outside the car. To avoid overloading the driver the screens are off in default mode, and are only activated automatically when the driver uses a turn signal or checks over their head to switch lanes. While there's zero mention of when this tech will go into production, it's clear, this is the future and it's crazy.

191 comments

  1. Volvo by Monkk · · Score: 4, Informative

    Didn't Volvo prototype something like this a while back with some transparent triangles embedded in the frame?

    --
    TomB

    "You can't take the sky from me..."
    1. Re:Volvo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Didn't Volvo prototype something like this a while back with some transparent triangles embedded in the frame?

      A while back, as in 13 years ago:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_SCC

  2. Not transparent... by Arkh89 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not transparent... but "augmented".
    (misleading title, sloppy journalistic work... as always)

    1. Re:Not transparent... by the_skywise · · Score: 2

      Agreed - They could at least put transparent in quotes.

      Is is "transparent" or is it a "reverse cloaking system"?

    2. Re:Not transparent... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      Is is "transparent" or is it a "reverse cloaking system"?

      Neither - they've just invented transparent aluminum!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  3. Wow - technology continues to advance! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With this type of an amazing safety feature, I would go out and buy a new car tomorrow! And I've never bought a new car! And I'm almost 50 years old!

    No, I'm just kidding, except for the last two parts.

    1. Re:Wow - technology continues to advance! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I don't understand why people buy new cars. Buy one that's 1 year old for 30% less and still get "new car insurance" since it's less than five years old. I guess it's the fanbois that like the New Shiny and just have to have it now.

    2. Re:Wow - technology continues to advance! by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not at dealerships. Last time I went to a new car dealer, I found the 2-year old like-new certified pre-owned car at 90% of the MSRP. Sure, I could have looked in the classifieds, but I haven't found the prices drop as fast as people assert.

      Many people assert that you have an increased chance of a lemon. If you have a lemon, are you more likely to sell it when it's showing no problems, or keep it? So, lemons would be disproportionately for sale. If you disagree, what part do you disagree with?

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    3. Re:Wow - technology continues to advance! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is someone selling a one year old car? Could it be because it's a lemon? Or because they abused for fun? Or because they had an accident with it and just camouflaged enough to sell it?

      Personally, I think the best is buying a new "last year model" car.

    4. Re:Wow - technology continues to advance! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to add, I always sold my used cars when I couldn't run them anymore into the ground without massive investment. Hence I don't trust anybody else's used cars.

    5. Re:Wow - technology continues to advance! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why people buy new cars. Buy one that's 1 year old for 30% less and still get "new car insurance" since it's less than five years old. I guess it's the fanbois that like the New Shiny and just have to have it now.

      New cars don't smell of other people's bottoms.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    6. Re: Wow - technology continues to advance! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why comment on consumer items? But this is more like rediscovered. When there was a university called GMI, and one called the Ford Design Institute, prior to being sent overseas. They prototyped pillar less vehicles using space age plastics, Damn sharp looking vehicles, the streets of Flint were used as concept drivers took to the roads. Amazing how the redesign looks so familiar.

    7. Re:Wow - technology continues to advance! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why people buy new cars. Buy one that's 1 year old for 30% less and still get "new car insurance" since it's less than five years old. I guess it's the fanbois that like the New Shiny and just have to have it now.

      Depends on where you live. In the Dallas area, used cars are only a couple of thousand less than new. It's really frustrating and makes you wonder why anyone would buy used. If you're willing to drive up to Oklahoma and spend some time looking around, you can get cars for 30% off or more, but that can be a hassle and a lot tougher to deal with if you get a lemon.

    8. Re:Wow - technology continues to advance! by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      Two year old cars could be coming off a lease, or former rentals. If anything the lemons will have had a lot of kinks worked out by then under the original warranty. If you live in a state with used car lemon laws, you'll just get a lot of free service in the event of any "surprises". And perhaps that's why those used cars are only 90% MSRP at the dealer - they are accounting for the need to service a used car with a like new warranty.

    9. Re:Wow - technology continues to advance! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Used car dealers have a simple business model. Charge double what it's worth then gouge the chumps in financing.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  4. You mean Tata by Virtucon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Tata Motors owns both Jaguar and Land Rover, so Tata Motors has invented.. or Jaguar and Land Rover, divisions of Tata Motors

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:You mean Tata by lgw · · Score: 1

      Before Tata took over Jag, it had fallen far behind competing brands in terms of cool tech like this for luxury cars. Tata has made great leaps in closing that gap. It's great to see some new stuff as well.

      Personally, I'm still a bit skeptical of "Tata quality", given some of their other products, but everyone was equally derisive of the quality of Japanese cars when I was a kid, and Korean cars when I was first driving. Who knows - Tata could pass the Japanese brands for quality in a few years.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:You mean Tata by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Tata could pass the Japanese brands for quality in a few years.

      It takes about 15 years of steady progress to get from "shitty ______ car" to "I'd consider ______ cars these days"

      The Korean cars are very acceptable in quality, and the price difference between them and the Japanese of similar models is almost enough to make the switch.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:You mean Tata by lgw · · Score: 1

      True enough, but Jag wasn't that terrible when Tata got them. If Tata is serious about improving quality, they don't have far to go. If instead it seeks the quality of the Nano, then starts making forward progress, well, 15 years is optimistic.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:You mean Tata by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      Korean crash test safety is a joke, they only hold up in the specific crash orientations tested.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    5. Re:You mean Tata by Balthisar · · Score: 3, Informative

      Remember that Tata bought JLR from Ford, and Ford had made huge progress in improving JLR quality -- especially Jaguar (yes, ignorant people still say Ford sucks, but this isn't the late 20th century any more).

      When Tata buys JLR (or Geely buys Volvo) this is a complicated trade and not as simple as "new owner starts with bad quality." Aside from the physical assets like the plants, there are large layers of technology transfer agreements (who owns Jaguar's aluminum self-pierce rivet technology?), purchasing agreements (Ford still supplies both Geely and Tata critical parts), and consulting agreements (product design engineering support, manufacturing support, etc.). Of course over time all of these will dissipate, but it takes one or more whole new generations of vehicle platforms for this to happen.

      In the meantime the JLR and Volvo plants are still extant and operated by the same people who've always operated them. A new owner cannot simply walk in and change the entire manufacturing process and quality processes; that's too expensive and building cars is much, much, much more complex than the average person can fathom.

      The trend these days is for the acquiring company to get better rather than to make the purchased company worse.

      --
      --Jim (me)
    6. Re: You mean Tata by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      Shortly after buying them, Ford made one single change that drastically improved the reliability of all Jaguar cars that followed to this day. They cancelled their contracts with Lucas Electrics

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    7. Re:You mean Tata by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do you also call a Ferrari a Fiat? a Lamborghini a Volkswagen?

    8. Re:You mean Tata by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      do you also call a Ferrari a Fiat? a Lamborghini a Volkswagen?

      Yes, it really pisses the owners off.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    9. Re:You mean Tata by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I knew of an acquaintance who bought a Jaquar in 2012 and about 3 months in, he was taking the car to the dealership every week to get something or the other repaired. I asked him what the issue was and he said, they have serious quality problems, but he drives one for the status symbol.

      Interestingly, he was not the only one that said that.

      I am not sure how quality has improved, but it has certainly not improved in the how reliable the cars are made.

    10. Re:You mean Tata by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      It takes about 15 years of steady progress to get from "shitty ______ car" to "I'd consider ______ cars these days"

      The Korean cars are very acceptable in quality, and the price difference between them and the Japanese of similar models is almost enough to make the switch.

      For a manufacturer perhaps. For a consumer who got bitten by buying a "sh*tty car" well, it can take far longer to never.

      I know back in the 80s when Hyundai first went into cars and introduced the POS Pony to North America. A car that would only start if you managed to twiddle the radio knob, the phase of the moon was right, it was sunny outside and you blinked the headlights 3 times. And maybe even honked the horn.

      Oh and yes, sunny day required. If there was a hint of moisture, it would stall.

      These days though, Korean cars aren't too shabby - they took a lot of design cues (and designers) from Europe, a few engineers from Japan and end up producing decent looking and performing cars with quite high quality.

    11. Re:You mean Tata by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, ignorant people still say Ford sucks, but this isn't the late 20th century any more

      No. People that read Consumer Reports still say that Ford sucks.

  5. overwhat? by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Unless there is something particularly distracting about them....like a perceptable lag, then I don't see how being able to see more of whats around you can be overload. I am already used to looking at a scene that includes the sky, trees, and a whole mess of information beyond what I strictly need....hell, half the road is generally irrelevant as long as everybody is doing their job.

    OTOH at night, screens emit light, so what it will do is light up the inside of the car making occupants more visible than they would be during the day, and possibly more visible than the pedestrian outside the car, I almost wonder if more accidents wont be saved by calling up the attention of pedestrians to the car than the other way around.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    1. Re:overwhat? by pz · · Score: 1

      Agreed. My initial reaction to the CGI video is, "wait, why did they TURN IT OFF?!! That's useful information!!"

      I can do without the heads-up stuff they were doing (do we really need to be warned about pedestrians like that, or how many parking spaces are available at a garage that we're passing?), but the A and B pillar pseudo-/virtual-transparency are awesome.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    2. Re:overwhat? by Sarlok · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To clearly see a scene on a screen, you focus on the screen. To clearly see what's outside the car, you focus outside the car. One distraction is that your eyes have different points to focus on to see contiguous parts of the same screen. You don't really get to experience that distracting effect from a flat 2d picture or video of the system.

    3. Re:overwhat? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "I almost wonder if more accidents wont be saved by calling up the attention of pedestrians to the car than the other way around." - that would certainly be true especially if ALL road users and pedestrians attention was perked up. But the reality is that all people get distracted either walking, cycling or driving. The extreme answer would be that every vehicle and every person should have an audible sensor on them, on vehicles it alerts on presence of pedestrians, bicycles and all motor vehicles and on pedestrians it alerts on bicycles and motor vehicles. I think that might be the only way to get as close to an accident free life as possible.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    4. Re:overwhat? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Much of the time drivers don't focus on specific objects, or use memory to focus at a set distance when looking in a particular mirror etc. Having screens on the pillars is unlikely to cause most drivers to re-focus on the screen, they will just look past it as they sweep their eyes over the windscreen and side windows to check for oncoming vehicles. Only if they see movement or non-tarmac colour will they bother to focus on what is actually there.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:overwhat? by sholden · · Score: 1

      Cars are reasonably visible at night already, with the headlights and taillights and whatnot.

      If the screens are linked to the indicators then cars are already very visible when you add flashing lights at that point.

    6. Re:overwhat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless there is something particularly distracting about them....like a perceptable lag, then I don't see how being able to see more of whats around you can be overload. I am already used to looking at a scene that includes the sky, trees, and a whole mess of information beyond what I strictly need....hell, half the road is generally irrelevant as long as everybody is doing their job.Since they only work for the driver, I bet they'd be really annoying for the passengers.

  6. How far will it go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just how stupid will people have to become before they are not allowed to drive? Can't be bothered to turn your head or use your mirrors? We have sensors for that. Can't be bothered to maintain a safe distance from the vehicle in front of you? We have a beeping alarm for that. Can't be bothered to learn good driving habits and drive safely? We got you covered. MABYE SOME PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE DRIVING AT ALL.

    1. Re:How far will it go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know, maybe you can see through the pilars without the technology, but 99.999999% of poeple can't. Idiot.

    2. Re:How far will it go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I see someone walk or disappear behind a pillar I have enough memory to know that they are there and enough foresight to know that they are likely to emerge from behind the pillar. I also know that opaque objects can obscure vision. Maybe you don't have these important driving skills?

    3. Re: How far will it go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't know. I understand your point, really. I have pretty good driving skills and situational awareness.

      I also have a car that, like so many of its modern brethren, has really poor sight lines in certain places. It has a backup camera and a blind spot warning system. Both are insanely useful in that particular car. The car I had before that did not have those things, and really didn't need them. It was just designed differently.

      You can argue that some designs suck and I'll agree, but if design shortcomings can be compensated for with technology, why not?

    4. Re:How far will it go? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 3, Insightful

      +1 insightful. People aren't running over pedestrians due to nefarious overly-wide A pillars; they're running over pedestrians because they're not paying attention and are talking on their phones and are more concerned with looking for a break in traffic so they can gun it through the intersection so they just run over people. it's ultimately because people are selfish. that's why when I'm a pedestrian I carry a "deterrent".

    5. Re:How far will it go? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      It will go very far. The same tech is going to be used for the new windowless airliners coming out, very soon now.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:How far will it go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that you think only bad drivers benefit from sensor technology proves that you yourself are a worse driver than you imagine its users to be.

      Stop driving forever. There is no possibility of you ever being competent to operate a car safely, and anyone who hands you a set of car keys is committing an act of criminal negligence.

    7. Re:How far will it go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 insightful. People aren't running over pedestrians due to nefarious overly-wide A pillars; they're running over pedestrians because they're not paying attention and are talking on their phones and are more concerned with looking for a break in traffic so they can gun it through the intersection so they just run over people. it's ultimately because people are selfish. that's why when I'm a pedestrian I carry a "deterrent".

      Feels like a solution in search of a problem, how skinny must something to for you not to see it because of the A-pillar?

      Now if we did something about those humongous C-pillars that some cars have giving them massive blind spots towards the rear, which is often as simple as using larger side mirrors.

    8. Re: How far will it go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After over 30 years of driving *and no accidents or incidents of any kind* I can assure you that your detailed and thoughtful analysis of my driving skills is... completely wrong. I can see you put a lot of effort in. Good job. But wrong.

    9. Re:How far will it go? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      I see it as progress. I'd rather have a visual of the sides of my vehicle shown on the wasted space on the bottom of windscreen (i.e. if you looked through you only saw the bonnet(hood) ) without having to turn my head to only look in one direction. The sooner we can get rid of external mirrors the better, (mind you if the camera broke you'd be snookered). Without mirrors and all the relevant info on the windscreen (and maybe audible sounds for bikes etc), you could see things like bikes appearing rather than "just appearing" whilst you were looking over your shoulder in the other direction. I'm sure some of the truckers and bus drivers in towns and cities would love a system like this.

      MABYE SOME PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE DRIVING AT ALL. - this attitude assumes that everyone is alert 100% of the time and never ever lapse in concentration - that's utopia and it unfortunatley doesn't exist

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    10. Re:How far will it go? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      What if they disappeared behind the pillar whilst you were checking something on the other side of the vehicle and you didn't see them before they "hid" behind the pillar?

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    11. Re: How far will it go? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      I can say the same thing about driving and no accidents but i've had some near misses with bicycles and pedestrians appearing out of nowhere because i was checking mirrors on the opposite side (trying to work out if the motorbike on the outside of you is going to go passed or hover in your blind spot)

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    12. Re:How far will it go? by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 2

      I'd argue that A pillars have been getting progressively fatter to the point now that in some cars they are dangerous. Having years of FPS gaming experience I have hawk like spatial awareness, but even I've been caught out with once or twice with entire cars hidden behind the A pillar at certain angles. Some cars are worse than others, the worst I've had is the Holden/Vauxhall Monaro/Pontiac GTO. The A pillars in that thing should be illegal.

    13. Re:How far will it go? by sociocapitalist · · Score: 2

      +1 insightful. People aren't running over pedestrians due to nefarious overly-wide A pillars; they're running over pedestrians because they're not paying attention and are talking on their phones and are more concerned with looking for a break in traffic so they can gun it through the intersection so they just run over people. it's ultimately because people are selfish. that's why when I'm a pedestrian I carry a "deterrent".

      No - I work with someone who is very serious about life and work and he recently had a significant (his car totaled) accident at an intersection because the car arriving from his right was hidden by the right front A-pillar until they were too close for him to stop.

      In this country (France), if there are no signs to the contrary one must yield to traffic coming from the right. Regardless of how idiotic this may be, it is the law here and my colleague was held to be responsible for the accident.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    14. Re:How far will it go? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      that's why when I'm a pedestrian I carry a "deterrent".

      What, a cardboard cutout of a cow, or a clown on fire, or something else they're more likely to notice than you?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:How far will it go? by Garble+Snarky · · Score: 1

      All humans are too stupid to drive, which is why computers should be driving instead.

    16. Re:How far will it go? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 0

      ok, so he can take comfort that he can blame a piece of metal for the accident rather than taking personal responsibility. if i had a car with a big honking A pillar, I would tilt my head a little to make sure there were no cars (or people) there before proceeding.

    17. Re:How far will it go? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      nothing will get people's attention like a 2nd amendment deterrent...

    18. Re:How far will it go? by rwise2112 · · Score: 1

      I'd argue that A pillars have been getting progressively fatter to the point now that in some cars they are dangerous. Having years of FPS gaming experience I have hawk like spatial awareness, but even I've been caught out with once or twice with entire cars hidden behind the A pillar at certain angles. Some cars are worse than others, the worst I've had is the Holden/Vauxhall Monaro/Pontiac GTO. The A pillars in that thing should be illegal.

      Well a lot of cars have air bags in them now, which explains the bulking up.

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    19. Re:How far will it go? by chispito · · Score: 1

      nothing will get people's attention like a 2nd amendment deterrent...

      You carry a gun to deter distracted drivers? How's that working out for you?

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    20. Re:How far will it go? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 0

      open carry is legal in many states, and gets people's attention. it's in the constitution.

    21. Re:How far will it go? by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      ok, so he can take comfort that he can blame a piece of metal for the accident rather than taking personal responsibility. if i had a car with a big honking A pillar, I would tilt my head a little to make sure there were no cars (or people) there before proceeding.

      He does take responsibility for it jerky - I am saying that the A frame can get in the way of visibility.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    22. Re:How far will it go? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      My truck is like that. The left a-pillar completely blocks sight of oncoming traffic when going around left turns on rural roads.

      Of course it took me about 1 day to notice and get in the habit of moving my head when that geometry comes up.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  7. Driver in video was unfamiliar with the car by OzPeter · · Score: 1

    If you watch the video in TFA, when the driver turns right at an intersection, the windscreen wipers come on (even though it is not raining). This is a major indication that the driver did not know on what side of the steering column the control for the indicator lights was. Given that he is turning right I bet that for that car the indicator light controls are on the left of the column.

    I know all about this as I have done it so many times myself when changing different brands of cars.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Driver in video was unfamiliar with the car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I've never seen a car that didn't have the turn-signal lever on the left. Is that because I'm an ignorant American?

    2. Re:Driver in video was unfamiliar with the car by OzPeter · · Score: 2

      Really? I've never seen a car that didn't have the turn-signal lever on the left. Is that because I'm an ignorant American?

      Ignorant? yes. American? Well that I don't know.

      My understanding is that it is related to where the car was manufactured. I found this thread that talks about it Why are New Zealand turn signal controls backwards?. (And from my point of view, "backwards" is a contextual adjective ;-) )

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    3. Re:Driver in video was unfamiliar with the car by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      In my experience (never driven in Oz, but in NZ, Continental Europe, the UK, and the US), the turn signal stalk is always on the left, for left-hand drive cars, and on the right, for right hand drive cars.

    4. Re:Driver in video was unfamiliar with the car by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      On the dash, just above the gear shift buttons. 1960 Chrysler.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:Driver in video was unfamiliar with the car by _merlin · · Score: 1

      In Australia, many European cars (e.g. BMW, VW, etc.) have the turn signal stalk on the left even though they're right-hand drive models.

    6. Re:Driver in video was unfamiliar with the car by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      That's how it is in Thailand, at least. The Nissan and Toyota trucks I drive there have the turn signal on the right. For the first 3 days I typically end up using wipers to signal a turn and blinkers to clear the windshield. It's not that effective.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    7. Re:Driver in video was unfamiliar with the car by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      No, in the UK it is standard for the turn signal stalk to be on the left, right is usually the wipers.

      It is actually a bad design, as you tend to have the headlight main beam selector/flasher on the left stalk too, plus you use your left hand for changing gear as well, since most UK cars are manual as well as RHD.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    8. Re:Driver in video was unfamiliar with the car by ReluctantRefactorer · · Score: 1

      There are clearly rainspots on the windscreen. He never touches the right stalk. The XJ has rain-sensing wipers.

      --
      RR
    9. Re:Driver in video was unfamiliar with the car by EnglishDude · · Score: 1

      It also varies depending on the brand. I'm in the UK, and Japanese cars tend to have the turn signal stalk on the right, and the wiper on the left. European cars (Ford, Opel/Vauxhall, etc) tend to have the turn signal stalk on the left and the wiper on the right. My parents Merc has only one stalk on the left, it's for both turn signals and wiper. I remember a 80's Citroen CX had no stalks, instead had switches on the dashboard for the turn signal & wiper - the same car has unusual cylinder gauges as well.

      On the other hand, when I went to USA for holidays, I hired a 2014 Toyota Yaris and it had the turn signal on the left and wipers on the right. It also even varies within the same brand. For work, we have a Ford Galaxy and a Ford Focus, and I own a Ford Mondeo and a friend owns a Fiesta. The Focus and Fiesta has the exact same stalk configuration, and the Galaxy and Mondeo has the same stalk configuration but different between the two pairs. Pain in the arse when I try to turn on main beams, wiper washers or rear wiper.

  8. Will never work in LA by azulza · · Score: 2

    To avoid overloading the driver the screens are off in default mode, and are only activated automatically when the driver uses a turn signal or checks over their head to switch lanes.

    As drivers in LA never use their turn signals or turn their head to check their blind spot, these miraculous "transparent pillars" (which aren't transparent, go figure) will never be used...

    1. Re:Will never work in LA by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      As drivers in LA never use their turn signals [...]>

      Hey! They don't need to know my business!

  9. KISS by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    Oh, boy. Two more things to go wrong in the vehicle. Reliability, smileability. The driver could just pay attention better and shift their head slightly... Oh, wait, that would be too easy and too low tech.

    1. Re:KISS by novium · · Score: 2

      I don't know if video screens are the answer, but surely the pillar problem is an annoying one. When I got my new(er) car, making left turns to merge onto a busy road became quite nerve-wracking, as I had this huge blindspot that no amount of craning my head could compensate for right smack dab where I needed to be looking. This was a problem especially on turning out from the road I lived on, because the view on the left was further obscured by a building and the road to the right was an overpass and so basically cars would drive into the blindspot before you could see them anyway. I missed the hell out of my old car at those times.

    2. Re:KISS by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      I've found that properly adjusted mirrors, and active monitoring of traffic via all the mirrors is enough to avoid rubber necking the blind spot. The problem is, most people don't have their mirrors set correctly.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:KISS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just bought a civic, something I never thought I would do. It actually has surprisingly few blind spots, especially when compared to my last car, a monta carlo.

    4. Re:KISS by TWX · · Score: 2

      The solution is to stop using laminated layers of thin sheet metal for the roof pillars and to use something more durable for a given volume.

      The implementation of side-curtain airbags and of stronger roof-strength requirements should not come at the expense of something as fundamental as view.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:KISS by TWX · · Score: 1

      Mmmhmm... I've got my side-mirrors adjusted way out, as the central windshield-mounted rearview mirror covers more than a straight shot out the back window. Occasionally I'll have to narrow the angle on one side if I'm backing up into a narrow spot, but that's rare.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    6. Re:KISS by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      The driver could just pay attention better and shift their head slightly... Oh, wait, that would be too easy and too low tech.

      Changing the behavior of hundreds of millions of people is not "easy".

    7. Re:KISS by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Agreed; but good luck with that.

      These are the same companies that make 11 second cars; but never put 11 second NHRA cages into them. So fast it's street legal, but not track legal because it's too unsafe.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:KISS by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If they go wrong, you are no worse off than if they weren't there in the first place. They are a benefit when working, and no worse than missing for all reasonable failure modes.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    9. Re:KISS by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I needed a larger family car, and I looked at the Subaru Tribeca. I refused to consider it because the A-pillar was unsafe. I looked it up, and there were regulations on how much vision you are allowed to block, and makers use that as a target. So many want the stiffness and strength from a strong A-pillar that they compromise vision to get it.

      It wasn't really any wider than any other, but it was closer, and that made it bigger.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    10. Re:KISS by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I've never met anyone who complained about other's mirrors who had their own adjusted properly. All could hide a bicycle or motorbike in tight traffic. At least the people with the "improper" settings can see behind them from their side mirrors, actually eliminating blind spots, though requiring a head-check (as recommended).

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    11. Re:KISS by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      So fast it's street legal, but not track legal because it's too unsafe.

      That's how it should be. Why should the person that buys the performance car be saddled with the weight of a roll cage and tranny shield when they'll drive it around in town all the time and never see 40 MPH? And that's NHRA rules. To take a car on a banked track and go 100+ mph in it, you need seatbelts and a motorbike helmet. SA isn't needed unless you have a cage. And NHRA rules are more strict because they assume a greater likelihood that you put your car together with bailing wire. The track days generally are quite lenient on standards, for generally stock cars.

      So your 11 second car is NHRA illegal, but SCCA legal. Are you asserting that NHRA is "safer" than the SCCA for that? I've not seen stats, but from the number of crashes that end up on YouTube, I'd guess that NHRA is less safe, but that may be because NHRA is more likely to be filmed. When I was heavily active in the SCCA (and only barely active in the NHRA), any SCCA incident, of any kind was well known for hundreds, if not thousands of miles.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    12. Re:KISS by Circlotron · · Score: 1

      Australian Holden cars from 1971-1978 had a low tech solution to the blind spot problem at the front - the A pillar, though deep, was made narrower than the distance between the average pair of pupils. That way you only ever had at most one eye blocked. Very crashworthy cars for their day too. http://www.australiastoughestc... https://www.google.com.au/sear...

    13. Re:KISS by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      You could say the same about indicators - why not just indicate by sticking your arm out the window and wave it about like it was done in the past? The march of progress continues.....

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    14. Re:KISS by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "correctly" is where you can just barely see a tiny bit of the car in the mirror, because when you have them set like that, you get a clean panoramic view looking from left to center to right and back again and they all make sense. and the "correct" way to merge is to turn your head to check your blind spot.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:KISS by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      What do you ever mean "Changing their behavior"??! They should already have the right behavior of looking before launching. S.O.P. Otherwise they shouldn't have a license to drive.

    16. Re:KISS by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      "If they go wrong, you are no worse off than if they weren't there in the first place."

      The problem is when people become dependent on the tech. Complex systems that add little yet create dependency are the worse. That's why KISS. Basic good systems engineering.

    17. Re:KISS by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So, because it's an improvement you don't like, it's no longer an improvement? That doesn't work for me. It helps or doesn't help. And it never hurts. So there's no valid argument against it from an engineering perspective.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    18. Re:KISS by novium · · Score: 1

      Mirrors only help you see what's behind you; they won't help a big ol' blindspot at 2 o'clock

    19. Re:KISS by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      An 11 second car is almost unstreetable. Overpowered for anything but going in a straight line. I'm thinking in particular of the 700HP challenger.

      Last I looked there were something like 10 NHRA drivers for each SCCA one. Might have changed.

      Granting multiple sanctioning bodies and rules complicate things a lot.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    20. Re:KISS by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of the unofficial official tuner cars. The Hennesseys and Saleens of the world. Many of those can beat the 11s time you gave while being streetable. The supercars are very streetable. McLarens and the like. And an NHRA event might not let you run if you put a dial-in time that requires safety gear you don't have. But I've run at NHRA tracks where you can put a 20s dial-in time on a street legal car, and break out with a 10, and they'll give you a talk, but will let you run again, at open days, I've not tried official competitions. Running on a budget, I know plenty of people that put a dial-in time that was just above the level for the next set of safety gear, and would deliberately run slow so as to not break out. It was no longer about the best reaction time and driving for the car, but how to just barely beat the guy in the next lane. When you are against a slower car, it's not hard. You time it to just barely cross first. But against a faster car, it's much harder.

      Oh, and SCCA has 55000 members, and NHRA has 40000, so SCCA is larger. The difference is that every NHRA membership is a "license", and SCCA members don't need to be drivers, and there are separate licenses for different events (though most have none required). So the NHRA claims to be bigger, but only by ignoring SCCA members it finds "inconvenient." Counting purely "members" or "drivers" as a while, SCCA is bigger, not 1/10th the size. Counting those with competition licenses only, NHRA is bigger, but only because it has lower requirements for a "license". If the SCCA called every membership an autocross or rally license, then they'd go from smaller than to bigger than the NHRA. Also, if you count unique drivers in officially sanctioned events, SCCA would be even bigger still.

      Topic? What topic?

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    21. Re:KISS by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      No, you apparently didn't read what I said. It is not a matter of what I like or dislike. It is reliability issues (engineering) and how it will changes people's behaviors (behavioral). Try reading more slowly.

    22. Re:KISS by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Reliability. If it works, you have a better result. When it doesn't you have the same result. Behavior assertions assume the answer, then say "but behavior" to justify the pre-determined result, thus were ignored as adding nothing to the discussion. I read it. You are wrong. That I think you are wrong doesn't mean I just didn't understand you. It means I think your augment is invalid, thus your conclusion is wrong.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    23. Re:KISS by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I think we're working with a different definition of 'streetable'. 'Super cars' are barely streetable IMHO. High 11s might be streetable, low 11s not so much. My 18 year old self would disagree of course.

      In my experience you get one pass faster then you safety equipment allows. Then the tech guys are on you.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    24. Re:KISS by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      Hennessey claims their Viper is streetable (i.e., could be use as a daily driver, is no less practical than a "stock" viper), and will run the 1/4 under 10s.

      In my experience you get one pass faster then you safety equipment allows. Then the tech guys are on you.

      Not in my experience. Ah Houston Raceway Park, abut 20 years ago, on open days, they'd be pretty relaxed about the rules. Sure, they turned away a 240Z with a 10s dial-in who hadn't made a single run, but some of the guys with a higher dial in were allowed multiple too-fast runs. I think they were really worried about tranny shields, so those close to those numbers were given scrutiny, but they didn't care about roll cages, for those close to the numbers for them. But if you watch a few transmissions blow up under high load, you get worried about the explosion that leaves a corpse that looks like 100 shotgun blasts hit it.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    25. Re:KISS by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Sacramento raceway. They're pretty strict. 'That was your last run until you get a ..."

      Who daily drives a car with a motor that goes 5-10K miles between rebuilds and bites hard if your concentration lapses? No me, that's for sure.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    26. Re:KISS by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      When I lived in Dallas, I saw a few Ferarris, Lambos, and tuner cars (Hennessey and Saleen) stuck in daily traffic on a regular basis. Just yesterday I drove past a McLaren stuck in traffic, and routinely pass R8s, Masaratis, and Aston Martins. But I'm not in Dallas anymore. The R8 (assuming the big engine) would be able to get about 11s.

      I've driven non-streetable cars as daily drivers for years. You get used to the fact that 1/10s lapse in concentration can kill.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
  10. good use of the technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A logical and practical use for the 'transparent' bonnet (hood for the yanks) tech they previewed a while back. Using it for the bonnet is great for 4WDing, but this is good for on-road, especially parking I would think.

  11. Created? by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Describing a concept, and making a fake CGI video of how it might work, does not mean they have "created it". They haven't even revealed where this is at in the development cycle, and the video is very clearly pure CGI. (for one thing, nothing on these augmented displays will look right except from the driver's perspective, which will be annoying for passengers, and the camera does not show the driver's perspective in this video).

    With the "B column" (the column between the front and back door), why should I have to turn my head >90 degrees to see an oddly shaped screen that shows me what is only right behind the column? When I signal how about show me EVERYTHING to that side of the vehicle on a screen that's, um, like right in front of me so I don't have to take me eyes off the road or crane my neck?

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Created? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You make some good points but I am curious as to what Bennett thinks.

    2. Re:Created? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      I concur. The idea I've had is that we'll eventually get to a wearable visor that projects 360 degrees in 180 degrees, and as you move your head, changes the view. The middle 90 or 120 degrees will be real-space, and the remainder will be compressed to fill the visual field and give full 360 view.

      That always made more sense than having the rear 180 projected above or below the front 180. That, and you'd have massive discussions on whether to mirror or "true" view. The current mirrors mirror because that's all they can do. But when you can do either, which is better? I'd guess that true view would be better (what you'd see if you turned your head), rather than the mirrored image, but someone should test that before it's implemented.

      Though, when talking with "good" drivers, one thing I've seen in common is that they "see" around them in a radar way. They keep distance-vector image of traffic in their head. Why not do a top down radar screen, like we the military use in movies? That'd highlight any nearby vehicles.

      But driverless cars are where the future is, anyway.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    3. Re:Created? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I concur. The idea I've had is that we'll eventually get to a wearable visor that projects 360 degrees in 180 degrees, and as you move your head, changes the view. The middle 90 or 120 degrees will be real-space, and the remainder will be compressed to fill the visual field and give full 360 view.

      I don't think that will happen for anyone other than perhaps fighter pilots, who actually wear visors. Maybe race drivers, they would certainly benefit. The rest of us would benefit more from the the driverless cars of the future you predict, anyway. I don't want to have to wear some shit on my head when I drive, sometimes I get headaches.

      Eventually, when we get contact lenses with camera and display elements in them then that will be fairly compelling... for those of us who can tolerate contacts. I'm not even sure whether that includes me, I've never tried.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Created? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      As a regular driver, I'm sure Bennett Haselton would approve, although he would probably require a few pages to discuss the online security implications of these cameras.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    5. Re:Created? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The problem with safety devices is that they are illegal unless they'd let a mostly blind old lady with no reflexes and zero attention span provably improve her driving with no training and no practice or instruction. I've had safety inspectors assert that any 5-point harness is illegal because they've never seen one that would allow the sandard 3-point system to work properly both while the 5-point was in use and not in use. That and most people (illegally) mount a 5-point harness to the existing mounting points (unless they replace their entire driver's seat). So a 5-point harness is essentially illegal in the US for street cars, despite being provably better than 3-point belts.

      With that in mind, I expect things that make people feel better, rather than actually increase safety.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    6. Re:Created? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So a 5-point harness is essentially illegal in the US for street cars, despite being provably better than 3-point belts.

      Nah, it depends on the state. You can improve the system in some places. Also, if you mount a 5-point to the 3-point mounts you're a fool, that's a waste of effort. You really need a cage.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Created? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I've never heard of any where it's legal to pull a 3-point system to install a 5-point system, and I've seen 50-state organizations indicate that a 5-point harness is likely illegal (SCCA) and shouldn't be done without care to all local laws and regulations. You may improve a safety system, but any 5-point harness without pre-tensioners would be removal, not improvement of a safety system.

      A 5-point system helps even without a cage. So where would you mount it without one? Or don't improve your safety by 50%, if you aren't improving it by 100% you are a fool for only improving it slightly?

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    8. Re:Created? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You may improve a safety system, but any 5-point harness without pre-tensioners would be removal, not improvement of a safety system.

      That assumes your car has those, lots of cars don't. The W126 Mercedes was the first car on which they became standard... in the long-wheelbase editions, which means my 1982 doesn't have them. But lots of newer cars don't have them either, like most cars of the 1990s.

      A 5-point system helps even without a cage.

      Not really. The seat mounts can't handle the load, and the original mounts aren't in the right place. The racing harness is designed to keep you in place in a car with proper crash protection around you. In the 1960s race cars still had wacky little half-seats, around then they started to become part of the crash protection and that's when race cars got harnesses.

      A 5-point system without a cage is usually mounted to the seat, and usually reduces the safety of the vehicle as a result. You can get a cute little half-cage or even a roll bar with a proper place to mount the straps, so you don't need a full cage, but you need to add something.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  12. That's not the problem; the rearview mirror is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And not in the way you think. I adjusted my mirrors so I have minimal to no blind spots in the back... but in every sedan I've ever driven, at 6'0" tall my eyes are exactly at the level of the rearview mirror, which means when I pull up to an intersection, I cannot see any cars coming from my right because the mirror is directly in my line of sight.

    Why doesn't anyone make a rear-view mirror where you don't have to be 5'2" or shorter for it not to block your vision?

    1. Re:That's not the problem; the rearview mirror is by MasterOfGoingFaster · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't anyone make a rear-view mirror where you don't have to be 5'2" or shorter for it not to block your vision?

      I have this same issue. Generally, I can invert the mirror to get it higher, as most have mounts on the top of the mirror.

      --
      Place nail here >+
    2. Re:That's not the problem; the rearview mirror is by Cabriel · · Score: 1

      I'm 6'2" and I've never driven a Sedan where I couldn't lower the seat so I look beneath the rearview mirror. My current car is a Toyota Yaris and I definitely don't have an issue with that.

    3. Re:That's not the problem; the rearview mirror is by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Go drive a Corvette. Specifically a 1957. The mirror is on the dash. I can't think of any others like that, but at least one car came that way.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    4. Re:That's not the problem; the rearview mirror is by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Do you lower the seat, or recline it? The recline isn't safe, when you can't get a good grip on the wheel at all positions. But I see people over-recline all the time.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    5. Re:That's not the problem; the rearview mirror is by toddestan · · Score: 1

      The problem with most sedans when you're over 6 foot is that you barely fit into them anyway. You're already looking out the top of the windshield, so the only solution would be to lower the mirror, such as putting it on the dash as seen in some classics, or make the car taller like a truck or a Scion xB so that you can place the mirror higher. The problem is even worse in newer cars with their obnoxious sloping rooflines, where despite having plenty of head room I find eye level to be the sun visor. I suppose another solution would be to make the rear view mirror semi-transparent so you can see both through it and what's reflected in it, though it seems to me it would be really tough to make it work right in all lighting situations.

    6. Re:That's not the problem; the rearview mirror is by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The recline isn't safe, when you can't get a good grip on the wheel at all positions. But I see people over-recline all the time.

      If you can't see over the wheel and under the roof while keeping your hands at 10 and 2 and your arms bent 90 degrees and also operate the pedals then you're in the wrong seating position at minimum, and possibly the wrong car.

      Sadly, many of us simply don't fit properly in many cars. I have a freakishly long torso, so I just don't get in Hondas, Toyotas, or budget VWs. Mercedes and Nissan are OK, Subaru is better. I got an Audi that fits me pretty well, but it's a big one.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:That's not the problem; the rearview mirror is by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Go drive a Corvette. Specifically a 1957. The mirror is on the dash. I can't think of any others like that, but at least one car came that way.

      It was on the dash in my 1960 Dodge Dart, too. That's over now because rear impact safety regulations have raised the trunk line.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:That's not the problem; the rearview mirror is by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You just D-K'd your self. You know just enough about cars to think you know something about cars.

      The trunklines didn't go up for crash safety. They went up for aerodynamics.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    9. Re:That's not the problem; the rearview mirror is by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      But we are too stupid to walk away. "But it's pretty."

      I've had to walk away from a Nissan because there wasn't enough headroom. My head was solidly on the ceiling when the seat was adjusted for the proper position. I've also had to scratch off the Ford Taurus because the steering wheel column interfered with my ability to work the pedals.

      The only car I've ever sat in where I couldn't work the pedals with the seat in the rearmost position was the Totota MR2 ('91+). Not that that was disqualifying, but that it was interesting at the time.

      I've never found a car that had the steering wheel protrude enough for me. I prefer to be far from the pedals and close to the wheel, in a more upright position. I've seen people drive with the seat adjusted such that if they are leaned back into the seat, they can't touch the top of the steering wheel. They drive only using the bottom half of the steering wheel. Yesterday, I passed someone on the highway (going slow int he fast lane) with locked elbows and hands at 10 and 2. And I know people who buy a car and constantly complain about the seating position, as if they never sat in it before buying it, and would never take it back, but want to tell everyone about it. Part of the test drive is making sure you actually fit. I think my best fit was in the '99+ Miata. Headroom was an issue, but I lived in Dallas with covered parking at home and work, so that didn't bother me often. In Dallas it rained hard, but not often (not like Seattle or other places with many light storms). So I'd leave the top down most of the time. Sometimes a month or more between uses. I have no idea what the headroom would have been like under the hard top. But I like the low seat, straight legs, and close wheel. The aforementioned MR2 was also a good fit, but wasn't purchased for other reasons. My current RX-8 has good seating position, but the visibility is shit. My "family" car is a Scion xB, and it's actually not a bad seating position, though much more truck-like than I prefer.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    10. Re:That's not the problem; the rearview mirror is by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The trunklines didn't go up for crash safety. They went up for aerodynamics.

      Who told you that? That's hilarious. Every automaker has complained about having to raise that line to deal with legal requirements, not to make them better pass crash tests, but because they've been legally required to raise the rear impact zone. Raising the rear increases drag, on its own; when you kick it up over the rest of the lines of the car, you're ultimately just increasing area. Sometimes it's an intentional part of a design meant to increase downforce, but that's exceptionally rare.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:That's not the problem; the rearview mirror is by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Every automaker has complained about having to raise that line to deal with legal requirements, not to make them better pass crash tests, but because they've been legally required to raise the rear impact zone.

      Who told you that? The complaints about bumper height are old, and that sounds like someone complaining about bumper height regulations in a new way. I've never seen any regulation that raises the rear impact zone, and I doubt one exists.

      Raising the rear increases drag, on its own; when you kick it up over the rest of the lines of the car, you're ultimately just increasing area.

      Nope. The high-back is more aerodynamic than any other shape (for practical car shapes). The "teardrop" was considered best for a while, but they learned that the long tail caused more drag than it reduced, and it was more efficient to stop the point nearer the middle of the teardrop. That makes for a very high back. And that's more efficient than a low-back.

      You've been reading too many 100 year old aerodynamic books. They managed to make cars, designed with aerodynamics in mind that were better in reverse than going forward.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
  13. Transparent aluminum... by RossGreiner · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... That's the ticket, laddie.

  14. Great.. by RevSpaminator · · Score: 1

    Another thing to break and cost thousands to repair.

  15. holy crap by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    They're smart enough to make transparent pillars but - BUT - THEY PUT THE STEERING WHEEL ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE CAR!!!!

    Just, wow.

    I don't even want to get into the thing about their driver going down the wrong side of the street.

    --
    Do you have ESP?
    1. Re:holy crap by styrotech · · Score: 1

      BUT - THEY PUT THE STEERING WHEEL ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE CAR!!!!

      Just, wow.

      I don't even want to get into the thing about their driver going down the wrong side of the street.

      How can the right side of the car be the wrong side?

      But yeah they weren't on the right side of the street - I'll give you that one

    2. Re:holy crap by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes, "flamebait" - because someone's too stupid to recognize humor....

      --
      Do you have ESP?
    3. Re:holy crap by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's an obvious attempt I'll give you that, but it's of the dumb Irishman/Southerner/Pole/Nword variety so maybe you just annoyed someone in the bunch you are making fun of.

  16. Or just make the A-pillar narrower. by MasterOfGoingFaster · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here's a better idea - make the A-pillar (as viewed from the drivers position) no wider than the distance between the center of your eyes. This prevents the pillar from blocking your vision, and no electronics are needed.

    --
    Place nail here >+
    1. Re:Or just make the A-pillar narrower. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Here's a better idea - make the A-pillar (as viewed from the drivers position) no wider than the distance between the center of your eyes. This prevents the pillar from blocking your vision, and no electronics are needed.

      I don't have stereo vision, you insensitive clod!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Or just make the A-pillar narrower. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Safety regulations require the thicker A-pilar. A smaller A-pillar wouldn't be able to keep the roof from bashing in during a roll over.

    3. Re:Or just make the A-pillar narrower. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldnt be driving then. No depth perception. Crashy crashy.

    4. Re:Or just make the A-pillar narrower. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Safety regs call for a stronger pillar, not a wider pillar.

    5. Re:Or just make the A-pillar narrower. by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Informative

      What the GP describes was called the invisible A-pillar and was SOP for decades.

      A smaller pillar could do the job just fine. But it could not be stamped and folded out of cheap sheet metal.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:Or just make the A-pillar narrower. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I've never seen that as a requirement. My half-blind mother has driven all her life. Better than average crash record.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    7. Re:Or just make the A-pillar narrower. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I don't have stereo vision, you insensitive clod!

      You're not supposed to be watching your stereo...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    8. Re:Or just make the A-pillar narrower. by hackertourist · · Score: 2

      Small A-pillars were SOP when behavior in a crash wasn't subject to legislation. As a result, you'd have A-pillars that buckled into the passenger compartment at the slightest provocation.
      These days, the goal is a door frame strong enough that you can still open the door after a crash.

    9. Re:Or just make the A-pillar narrower. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Here's a better idea - make the A-pillar (as viewed from the drivers position) no wider than the distance between the center of your eyes. This prevents the pillar from blocking your vision, and no electronics are needed.

      You can't reasonably do that, the A-pillars have grown to meet the engineering demands of modern rollover safety standards. Everyone has complained about it, but they are still horribly big compared to the cars of the 80s. Eventually they'll figure it out, but right now it's still a problem.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Or just make the A-pillar narrower. by MasterOfGoingFaster · · Score: 1

      You can't reasonably do that, the A-pillars have grown to meet the engineering demands of modern rollover safety standards.

      I agree a narrower width has to be compensated for, but there's plenty of room for that if you increase the depth. It may require a special structural component to be placed there, but this is within the realm of what can be done, I'm sure.

      But you may have knowledge that i lack, and there may be something I've overlooked. Please share if you have more details.

      --
      Place nail here >+
    11. Re:Or just make the A-pillar narrower. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I agree a narrower width has to be compensated for, but there's plenty of room for that if you increase the depth.

      If you make the A-pillar too deep, you'll have the same problem. You won't be able to see through it sideways. You can see this effect at work in the back of many cars, where it's often quite annoying. Hopefully advances in materials science (e.g. cheaper carbon fiber) will let us have skinny A-pillars again.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  17. How do they compute the perspective? by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 2

    When I'm driving, I'm usually make small movements with my head. A static, non-head-tracking display may well be more distracting, and probably more dangerous, than the original blind spot.

    1. Re:How do they compute the perspective? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd question "more dangerous" - no more dangerous than an annoyingly wonky mirror.

      As for tracking, the obvious point would be an eye-tracking camera. Such already exist in driver-fatigue systems, so that is a solved problem.

  18. Fiat Multipla by Chalex · · Score: 1

    Or we could all just drive a Fiat Multipla and avoid those pesky vertical A-pillars to begin with.

    1. Re:Fiat Multipla by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Yeah! I don't have any A-pillars in my convertible.

    2. Re:Fiat Multipla by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Yeah! I don't have any A-pillars in my convertible.

      Me neither on my horse!

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  19. Vertical lane changes? by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 2

    The summary mentions the screens activating when a driver "checks over their head to switch lanes." Are new Jaguars and Rovers able to leap up or fly or something? I don't understand how or why you might check over your head to begin with, and especially in the context of making a lane change.

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    1. Re:Vertical lane changes? by comrade1 · · Score: 1

      Just how far are you on the autism spectrum rating scale?

    2. Re:Vertical lane changes? by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      I think you have accidentally uncovered their plans to include this tech in their secret flying cars!

  20. You're joking, right? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

    Essentially, a screen embedded in the surface of each pillar inside the car relays a live video feed from cameras covering the angles outside the car.
    More crap to break
    So there is a camera on the inside, to detect when I turn my head? Like when I'm at a stop light and turn to the passenger?
    If you can do it for the A pillars, why have windows at all? Cameras all around!

  21. Cool by Alomex · · Score: 1

    This is cool but why is he driving on the wrong side of the road? They should fix that first.

  22. Kind of underwhelming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The video is a bit underwhelming. The images in the pillars can barely be seen, and the objects the are supposed to enable you to see (like the guy on the phone coming from the left) could be seen anyway. I would be more interested in a system that completely eliminates the blind spots on the back left and right.

  23. I had this on my old car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Had this feature "installed" on my Subaru Forester 2003. The trick is simple -- have a pillar's diagonal cross-section smaller than the distance between your eyes -- and you suddenly have a continuous field of view

    My new car has standard pillars, which is an inconvenience for me and risk for pedestrians

  24. Dumb Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's needed is thinner pillars that are re-enforced to meet safety needs/regs. This bullshit tech is just being conceived to have a wow factor, not serve a real purpose.

  25. Parallax and perspective by Attila+the+Bun · · Score: 2

    I was going to ask how they deal with parallax and perspective: the need to account for the position of the driver's head so the the projected image properly lines up with the scene beyond. But the images in TFA make it clear: they haven't. This is a mock up. Nothing has been created, and Jaguar - Land Rover hasn't the faintest idea how to make it work for real.

    1. Re:Parallax and perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinect cameras detecting where the head is and normal cameras see where the eyes are. The tech already exists, and since these are luxury cars they can afford it.

      Although, really real time processing does not yet exist, and even a 100 milliseconds of delay would be too distracting.

  26. How reliable would this be? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it have to be - and stay - perfectly aligned for this to work? And perfectly adjusted to the driver?

    Cars take a lot of punishment ... it's one thing for a headlight to be knocked a little out of alignment, but a video screen designed to make it look like the thing it is mounted on is invisible would require cameras to stay in near perfect alignment.

  27. Created? by P1h3r1e3d13 · · Score: 2

    nothing on these augmented displays will look right except from the driver's perspective

    And only from one head position!

    Every time some concept car âoeinventsâ video-cameras-instead-of-mirrors, I wonder whether it's occurred to anyone that mirrors show a different view depending on the position of the viewer. Is that so fundamental that we just forget it entirely?

  28. This is a pointless invention... by Hey_Jude_Jesus · · Score: 1

    In five years we won't be driving ourselves any more, but an on board computer will.

    1. Re:This is a pointless invention... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're insane. I'll still be driving my 1994 Dodge Dakota in five years.

  29. Overly complex way to fix problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had an Acura in the 90's with an odd feature on the brochure. 338 degrees of unobstructed view for the driver. And it was true. The pillars weren't wide and all sloped. So the pillars weren't much noticed, and they only covered 22 degrees of a possible 360. Excellent all around visibility. I got so used to it my next couple vehicles seemed claustrophobic vs that car. Only a convertible with the top down is better. This method maybe would be good for some vehicles that can't be designed otherwise. In most cases just high tech gizmos. It is possible to design in a number of ways to get excellent visibility without resorting to this.

  30. Is this really much of an invention? by rssrss · · Score: 1

    I bought a 2014 Honda Accord a few months ago. It has a camera in the trunk lid, that gives an image of what is in back of the car on the center panel display when the transmission is in reverse. When you turn on the right turn signal a camera in the right hand mirror housing displays an image of the right side of the car and the adjacent space. There is no such camera on the left side. I assume this is because they don't want drivers moving left to look to their right towards the center panel display.

    I believe that many current model cars have similar cameras and displays.

    A 360 display would be a step further in the evolution of these displays. But, I am not sure they are totally necessary. Vision forward and within the front 180 degrees is really not much of a problem. The A pillars are small and it is easy to look around them with very small head movements. Only the areas to the side and back and below the trunk lid are obscured. The back up and right turn cameras cover those areas, the only real blind spot is to the left and back.

    BTW: Car talk has a detailed explanation of how to position your side mirrors to minimize your blind spots.

    --
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
  31. Oh, great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lovely. Now those high incomes snobs will be able to watch my blood splatter in surround-vision while they run me over.

    Sounds like they went the cheap route, with a fixed camera feeding an LCD, instead of the FPGA being fed by multiple cameras.

  32. Waste by Bram+Stolk · · Score: 1

    Such a waste of money.
    This will not make it onto the roads: overly complex.

    The money would be better spent on actual transparent material.
    If we could manufacture a material as transparent as glass or plastic, with similar properties as steel, they would make excellent pillars.

    --
    Bram Stolk http://stolk.org/tlctc/
    1. Re:Waste by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Or just use thinner pillars like they did up until about 20 years ago...

    2. Re:Waste by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Such a waste of money.
      This will not make it onto the roads: overly complex.

      The money would be better spent on actual transparent material.
      If we could manufacture a material as transparent as glass or plastic, with similar properties as steel, they would make excellent pillars.

      ` Yeah, and if we could just find a way of getting cold fusion to work we'd have almost unlimited power.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    3. Re:Waste by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      If you make the pillar thinner, where does the side airbag go?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    4. Re:Waste by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      In the door, ceiling or seat? Making a car more dangerous in order to add safety features seems a bit pointless don't you think?

  33. Angles? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    This could be nausea inducing if they don't know exactly where someone is looking from. What if the driver turns his head but is looking in the rear view mirror? Can the rear posts figure out that they need to project an image to the mirror and back the the driver's eyes? Do these displays look bewildering to passengers who might incorrectly warn the driver? "Look out!" It might be better to figure out how to design hollowed posts with honeycomb designs that sacrifice safety for err.. safety.

    1. Re:Angles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe restrict the projection to a narrow angle of "correct" view, aimed at the head of the driver only.

  34. ATMOS Says... by zawarski · · Score: 0

    "You have reached your final destination."

  35. Solved in 1964 by havana9 · · Score: 2

    I think Jaguar solved the problem of bild spots on their cari in 1964
    http://www.sportscardigest.com/wp-content/uploads/1964-jaguar-xke-series-1.jpg
    With style, I must add.

    1. Re:Solved in 1964 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Jetsons did a better version in 62.

    2. Re:Solved in 1964 by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

      Though having 3cm thick a-pillars does seem to avoid the blind spot problem, I don't think those pillars could support the car's static weight, let alone the weight + momentum of the car or cars from a bad collision or roll-over.

  36. Looks very dumb. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Already BMW uses two cameras under the wing mirrors and one rear facing camera to create a "top view" displayed in the console. It helps in parking. It would not be too much to use the same mirror cams to face rear wards at higher than parking speeds, and create a "front view" for display. Or use one or two more side facing cameras to create a clear picture of cars in the blind spot in the console.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  37. Boo doo be do bop bop by TehZorroness · · Score: 1

    I'm the future, and this is crazy,
    so here's my number, call me maybe...

  38. mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just take a wide narrow mirror and slap it where mirror use to be, now you have a full coverage to 160 degree behind you and a second point of view that covers the dead angle when you turn your head to check things.

    Problem is people too often just glance around without thinking the situation.

  39. FTFY by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    Jaguar and LandRover show of amature video masking in tacky engineer-made product video.

    'nuff said.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  40. Other non-transparent things blocking the sight? by the_arrow · · Score: 1

    I have a baby-seat fitted in the back seat on the right side. It gives me a huge blind spot when changing lanes or turning right.

    I guess it can be made transparent too, but what about the baby sitting in the chair? Or other passengers in general?

    Yes, making the pillars transparent (or removing the m completely) will make it better, but as long as other people are non-transparent (and as long as drivers never turn their heads!) there's always going to be blind spots.

    --
    / The Arrow
    "How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
  41. not 3d, eyes won't focus by bammmmm · · Score: 1

    and why would it only turn on if you look directly? contrary to the resolution, the peripheral awareness is quite high and useful. it's clearly a not very well thought through mockup. the silly flow me car, potentially obscuring a child or at least a bit of view with its opaque label is another proof of that.

  42. Re:Government & Stealth Malware by tehcyder · · Score: 2

    You appear to have copied and pasted the entire internet into your post.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  43. Re:Government & Stealth Malware by Barsteward · · Score: 1

    its far too long, i wouldn't even read it if it was interesting

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  44. But but by Torp · · Score: 1

    What about the transparent aluminium?

    --
    I apologize for the lack of a signature.
  45. I want to get into this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Iv thought of this for years and now its coming true! i want to help with this tech! DANGIT

  46. spacer by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Well, you can get a spacer for some vehicles, it can be a challenge to retain ABS but it is possible.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:spacer by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What would a spacer do? My personal problem is that the pedals are too close, the seat too high, and the steering wheel too far away. I've sat in cars with adjustable all of that, and moved the seat back and down as far as it'd go, the pedals as far away as they'd go, and not counting that the steering wheel was too far away, the pedals were still too close.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    2. Re:spacer by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      My personal problem is that the pedals are too close, the seat too high, and the steering wheel too far away.

      Right, if you have a spacer behind the steering wheel, that brings it closer. Unless, of course, it doesn't have tilt. My latest car has a telescoping column, so it's not a problem, I just adjusted the wheel back towards me.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:spacer by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You mentioned ABS, I was thinking it was like the blocks they put on pedals for short people.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    4. Re:spacer by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You mentioned ABS, I was thinking it was like the blocks they put on pedals for short people.

      Yeah, I self-replied much later with a correction, sorry. I meant SRS. I think in acronyms in car-land, too. Sometimes the wrong ones.

      Spacers can dick with the airbag clockspring arrangement. If your car is old enough this ain't an issue. But ISTR it's illegal to defeat a working airbag.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:spacer by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      100% legal to disarm your own airbag. Illegal to sell the car after. You may pay someone to disable it for you, but nobody will (there's uncertain liability around the act, so nobody will do it). After all, what's the first S stand for?

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
  47. Transparent Aluminum by Rato+Ruter · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know why this isn't an option?

  48. woops by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Well, you can get a spacer for some vehicles, it can be a challenge to retain ABS but it is possible.

    I meant SRS, I don't know how ABS came out

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  49. Doomed to Fail... by goofyspouse · · Score: 1

    For one reason, and one reason alone: "only activated automatically when the driver uses a turn signal".