Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

GM Researching Windshields For Old Drivers

Posted by timothy on Sat Jul 19, 2008 05:42 PM
from the how-about-a-high-beam-blocker-for-everyone dept.
beuges writes "General Motors researchers are working on a high-tech windshield that users lasers and infra-red sensors to identify and enhance important objects for older drivers with vision problems. 'For example, during a foggy drive, a laser projects a blue line onto the windshield that follows the edge of the road. Or if infrared sensors detect a person or animal in the driver's path during a night drive, its outline is projected on the windshield to highlight its location.' And it's not only older drivers who will benefit: 'Some features would be helpful to drivers of all ages. If a driver is speeding, a pink box frames an approaching speed limit sign to draw the driver's attention.' The 65 and older population in the US will nearly double in about 20 years, meaning more people will be struggling to see the road like they used to."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by 427_ci_505 (1009677) on Saturday July 19 2008, @05:45PM (#24257023)
    Because what all drivers need, are distracting colors at high speed.
    • by Haeleth (414428) on Saturday July 19 2008, @07:08PM (#24257565) Journal

      Entirely without reference to speed limits: if you're driving so fast that you couldn't handle a pink box around a road sign, then you're driving faster than you're capable of driving, and you should stop being an idiot and slow the fuck down before you kill someone.

      • by joocemann (1273720) on Saturday July 19 2008, @10:53PM (#24259167)

        Entirely without reference to speed limits: if you're driving so fast that you couldn't handle a pink box around a road sign, then you're driving faster than you're capable of driving, and you should stop being an idiot and slow the fuck down before you kill someone.

        Or the sheer fact that it is designed "...for older drivers with vision problems".

        WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY DOING DRIVING? I'm one of those people who think moving a large heavy object at relatively high speeds around other objects and PEOPLE is a potential THREAT and ought to be considered a privilege.

        If they have vision problems, helping them to continue lying to themselves about their validity as a driver is not the answer. The answer is to pull their license.

        There are many reasons why an unfit driver can convince themselves to keep driving: Pride, embarrassment, a hazy concept of rights, or possibly it all came on so slowly they don't even realize it...

        Maybe this idea will help some people, but what happens when the device fails and they're on the freeway doing 65mph? What happens when the previously unfit driver, now fit by device, becomes unfit due to failure? Do they pull over and call for backup? Does the car automatically shut down? No... In reality they will probably keep driving, unfit for the task, and may or may not get the device repaired most likely depending on if they can afford it.

        Are we going to set up a device-functionality bureau to make sure all these people still get to drive and that the devices are working? Lets get a grip on reality people. NOT EVERYONE ON THE PLANET IS CAPABLE OF DOING EVERYTHING THERE IS TO DO. GET REAL.

    • by Aladrin (926209) on Saturday July 19 2008, @09:23PM (#24258587)

      My first thought was actually: How many will claim their windshield told them to drive that way?

      "I didn't pay attention to the sign because my windshield didn't say it was important."

      "I ran off the road because my windshield said the line went that way."

      etc.

      It's a neat idea, but only if it's absolutely perfect. And is -anything- perfect?

      • by Thing 1 (178996) on Saturday July 19 2008, @10:41PM (#24259089) Journal

        But you would get used to it (if you can teach an old dog new tricks?), just as everything else, most dashes are already obnoxious with lights and gizmo's but you stop noticing at after the first week or so [...]

        I had a car with a heads-up display before. It was very helpful, it helped me keep my eyes constantly on the road instead of looking up and down at the instruments. I highly recommend this type of advancement.

  • by eliphalet (1222732) on Saturday July 19 2008, @05:46PM (#24257029)
    Seems that all drivers could benefit from contrast enhancement in the fog (or rain or snow).
    • by arth1 (260657) on Saturday July 19 2008, @05:55PM (#24257103) Homepage Journal

      I think they would benefit more by learning to adjust the speed and how their vehicles actually handle in inclement weather.
      Being able to better see the car in front of you isn't all that useful if you still aren't able to see the deer crossing the road. In fact, I think it could increase dangers, by making people drive faster than they otherwise would.

      • by westlake (615356) on Saturday July 19 2008, @07:30PM (#24257747)
        I think they would benefit more by learning to adjust the speed and how their vehicles actually handle in inclement weather.
        .

        It interests me when the geek argues that less information - less situational awareness is better.

        I have been caught in rush hour traffic in Buffalo New York when visibility has shrunk to nothing in fog and snow and ice ---sandwiched between drivers who had their own notion of what was safe.

    • Maybe they should do some research targeted at younger drivers too?

      If a younger driver crashes into the car in front of them while checking out the babe in a car to the side,
      side windows that substituted someone old and overweight might reduce accidents.

      No doubt that feature would be a major dud on the showroom floor though...

    • by yog (19073) * on Saturday July 19 2008, @08:25PM (#24258193) Homepage Journal
      Absolutely correct; it's not like the elderly are the only people who have accidents. In fact, teens have about as high a death rate as the elderly from traffic accidents, probably because teens' recklessness is comparable to seniors' physiological limitations, mediated by seniors' tendency to drive less as they age (see this link [disastercenter.com] for some statistics).

      We have enough technology now to really reduce motor vehicle fatalities, yet we haven't implemented many of them. Today, every car should have a collision avoidance system that kicks in when a collision is likely. For example, lots of crashes happen on high speed roads when people change lanes without looking. So why not have the car warn you--for a few hundred dollars you could have these little laser thingies that would detect approaching vehicles from several angles, and squawk at you when you're about to do something stupid.

      Another feature might be a slow-down signal that your car sends out to cars behind you in the event that you suddenly stop, like to avoid a deer or another accident. This might reduce pile-ups on the highway.

      When some idiot is running a red light and is about to cream you side-on, you are not going to have an engine in front of you to absorb much of the impact, just some reinforced side panels and maybe a side airbag or two. That's not going to be of much help if they're going 60 or more. But if you had some explosive collision absorbers in the side of the car, it might bounce some of the force away. Also, the drunk who is coming at you should have an emergency braking system that kicks in to prevent him killing you (and maybe himself). Lots of people hit trees and this would help with that problem as well.

      This is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm no automotive engineer and surely the big brains in Detroit, Berlin, and Tokyo can come up with even better and more practical ideas to make traffic fatalities history. GM's windscreen concept is a great start and at the very least it will stimulate some discussion as Joe Public begins to dimly perceive how technology could save lives.
      • by amRadioHed (463061) on Saturday July 19 2008, @06:21PM (#24257285)

        Using technology to compensate for human frailty is asking for trouble

        So we should get rid of the engine then, right?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Exactly that's why we simply need to have a government mandated "uni-car" that will only go certain speeds on certain roads and will keep a detailed log of all use to be uploaded one a year when you must pay your road use tax since we will have then abolished fuel taxes.
      • by thrillseeker (518224) on Saturday July 19 2008, @06:30PM (#24257339)
        Using technology to compensate for human frailty is asking for trouble.

        Damn those eyeglasses, eh - if you don't have 20/20 vision naturally, you shouldn't be driving ...

        Power steering? Blah - work out in the gym - discard the technology.

        Windscreens? Forget it - only wimps can't carry on a safe comfortable drive with bugs smashing into their teeth all day long at 60 mph.

        Motorcycle helmets and leathers? - only for wusses, of course. And, geez, what about those fighter pilots that wear g-suits - if they can't strain hard enough naturally without having a stroke while pulling 9 Gs for 30 seconds, then they should get out of the cockpit.

        Come to think of it, that's what technology is - compensating for our inability to be from Krypton.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          if they can't strain hard enough naturally without having a stroke while pulling 9 Gs for 30 seconds, then they should get out of the cockpit.

          Well, it certainly keeps you out of the Blue Angels. Although the main reasoning there is an errant twitch from the air-bladder around your legs could cause you to fly into the ground or a teammate, since the stick is between your knees. Thunderbirds don't have this issue, however, since they use a sidestick (begin USAF vs USN argument now, heh).

  • by Minwee (522556) <dcr@neverwhen.org> on Saturday July 19 2008, @05:46PM (#24257033) Homepage
    When you approach a street hockey game, the Super Windshield will also highlight the puck with a blue line when it is being passed and a red line when somebody takes a shot on the net.
  • That is nice.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Saturday July 19 2008, @05:47PM (#24257043) Homepage Journal

    But if no one can afford the gas here soon who is going to care?

    Sure, safety IS important, but id rather see the billions poured into increasing fuel efficiency ( or ditching fossil fuels totally ) first.

  • Uhm yeah... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Izabael_DaJinn (1231856) * <slashdotNO@SPAMizabael.com> on Saturday July 19 2008, @05:49PM (#24257057) Homepage
    But will it make them automatically accelerate when they are driving 20 miles under the speed limit?

    Also, windshields are expensive to replace already. I can only imagine how much this super-zowie windshield would cost to replace after a few stray pebbles dings it up on the freeway.

    Also older people aren't really down with new technology--they would be the last people to adopt this.

    However, most likely you could sell it to teenagers who want to watch youtube while they drive.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 19 2008, @05:55PM (#24257105)

    Maybe automakers can work on expanding the field of vision. I still look back over my shoulder before I make a lane change on the highway to see if there's a car in my "blind spot", and every so often I catch one that I didn't see in the mirror. But the ability or willingness to turn around and look may diminish with age.

  • You can find a prototype of the display at this link [sciflicks.com]. It's also handy for identifying makes of motorcycles and correct sizes of biker clothing.
     

  • by Hektor_Troy (262592) on Saturday July 19 2008, @05:59PM (#24257133)

    Seriously - night driving or fog and it points out where the stuff you can't see is is supposed to be for old people, but speeding bringing up a pink sign is for everyone? Wtf?

    I would love for a kind of thermal imaging sensor that does head up warnings of where almost invisible things are when I'm driving.

    And as for the person above asking why people should be allowed to drive if they NEED this, it's not about needing it (you can always just slow down a lot), it's about it being a good fucking idea! I remember the night driving aid being shown off in "Beyond 2000" back when it was on and thinking "great idea" not "meh, only for old people - they're the only ones in need of knowing what more than 20 yards in front of the car when driving in dense fog at night."

  • pink box (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mr. Flibble (12943) on Saturday July 19 2008, @06:00PM (#24257145) Homepage

    I don't know about the rest of you, but a "pink box" by the side of the road would cause me to not just slow down, but stop and offer it a ride.

  • Speeding Traps (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Klaus_1250 (987230) on Saturday July 19 2008, @06:04PM (#24257175)

    If a driver is speeding, a pink box frames an approaching speed limit sign to draw the driver's attention

    I'd be much more interested if it could point out speed traps to me...

  • This is an important first step in making self-driving cars. An automated car needs to recognize hazards and road signs, and it can't afford to have bugs or make mistakes. A driver-assisting windshield does the same thing, but with less severe consequences when it screws up. Once all the bugs are fixed and the limitations are known, it can be used as part of a self-driving car.

    We really, really need computers to handle our driving. A computer would be a safer driver than most of the idiots on the road. It would put a stop to all the drunk driving. But most of all, staring at the road for hours on end is a waste of time. I'd rather spend my commute talking, working or watching a movie, rather than worrying about what my car is doing.

  • Awesome (Score:3, Funny)

    by drmofe (523606) on Saturday July 19 2008, @06:38PM (#24257389)
    So how long will it take for someone to invent an extension to this that identified b00bies, highlights them, measures them, photographs them, rates them and uploads them to the Internet?
  • My father was an excellent driver, even though he was blind in one eye and thus had no depth perception. He'd learned over the years how to compensate and judge distances without it. He was still driving, safely, until his health failed in his mid-80s. However, this was in part because of a class he'd been to: Alive at 55. The idea behind the class was that elderly drivers, with slower reflexes and dimming vision should limit themselves to 55 mph on the freeway and stay in the right-hand lane whenever possible. He didn't need any fancy, expensive technology to keep him safe, he just drove at a speed that was safer for him. I've always kept that in mind, and when I get old enough to worry about such things, I'll be doing exactly the same thing.
    • by markdavis (642305) on Saturday July 19 2008, @07:45PM (#24257889)

      If the speed limit is 60, 65, or 70, and that person can't drive (at least) the speed limit, then they really shouldn't be on the road, regardless of the lane.

      People are absolutely obsessed with speed as if it is the ultimate safety no-no. The amount of speed is rarely the cause of an accident (it can make an accident worse, though). It is the DIFFERENCE in speed that is much more important. If the regular flow of traffic is 75 and there is someone insisting on driving 55, then it is a great safety hazard. Now everyone has to pass, if they can. If they can't, then they get annoyed and start doing stupid things, like not leaving proper following distance, swerving, passing on the shoulder, aggressive acceleration when passing, etc.

      "Alive at 55" is a good idea, but only if it is about SAFER driving- being more alert, using signals, stopping distractions, proper following distances, planning in advance, checking blind spots, understanding the capabilities/limitations of your vehicle, etc. And these are things that apply to everyone, no matter what their age is.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        It is the DIFFERENCE in speed that is much more important. If the regular flow of traffic is 75 and there is someone insisting on driving 55, then it is a great safety hazard.

        And that's why Alive at 55 specifies keeping over to the right, with the rest of the slow traffic. You drive at a speed that's safer for you and keep out of the way of the younger, faster drivers so as not to cause a hazard or obstruct traffic.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      My father was an excellent driver, even though he was blind in one eye and thus had no depth perception. He'd learned over the years how to compensate and judge distances without it. He was still driving, safely, until his health failed in his mid-80s. However, this was in part because of a class he'd been to: Alive at 55. The idea behind the class was that elderly drivers, with slower reflexes and dimming vision should limit themselves to 55 mph on the freeway and stay in the right-hand lane whenever possi

  • by kylegordon (159137) on Saturday July 19 2008, @06:49PM (#24257443) Homepage

    Will it come with AI too? It'll need it in the UK.

    a pink box frames an approaching speed limit sign to draw the driver's attention - presumably it has inbuilt magic to detect signs that are important or not.

    Over here, it'll need to figure out the difference between speed limit signs, weather warning signs, stop signs, signs telling us there's speed bumps 250 yards up on the side street to the left, signs to warn us of pedestrians at, uuurm pedestrian crossings, and last but not least, signs to warn us of traffic lights coming up.

    My grandpa used to complain of information overload on the roads - 10 years ago. I'm 28 now, and am complaining about it. I just hope these 'smart systems' can filter out the crap from the useful stuff and make lives easier.

  • by timholman (71886) on Saturday July 19 2008, @07:12PM (#24257593)

    ...i.e. that in 20 years, automobiles will be driving themselves. I give a lecture on the consequences of Moore's Law to a freshmen class every year. Some of the things I tell students: "You are the last generation that will need to learn to drive. To your children it will be an option. To your grandchildren it will be as quaint a concept as learning to saddle and ride a horse. Best of all, you will never have to face the decision that your parents must face with your grandparents - when to take away the car keys. You and your parents will always have the independence of personal transportation, because you'll simply climb into a car and tell it where you want to go."

    Vision enhancement for older drivers will be moot when they don't have to drive in the first place.

  • Fun! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Webs 101 (798265) on Saturday July 19 2008, @07:39PM (#24257839) Homepage
    How long until somebody hacks it to draw targeting reticles on pedestrians and other vehicles?

    I've been waiting for something like that for 20 years.

  • Subject (Score:4, Funny)

    by Legion303 (97901) on Saturday July 19 2008, @07:41PM (#24257861) Homepage

    A better use of GM's time would be to detect when a driver is old, then disable the engine and lock the brakes.

    • Exactly. I mean, if someone needs technology like "headlights" to help them seeing at night, I don't want to drive anywhere NEAR them. Give me a dark, manly road any day.
    • Because you can be a less than perfect driver and still be good enough that it's not justified to take away your license.

      It's not a substitute for basic competency, it's a way to improve on factors that are already deemed adequate, but could still be better.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Because you can be a less than perfect driver and still be good enough that it's not justified to take away your license.

        Try telling that to the judge next time you're caught driving drunk.

        I know, drinking is optional, growing old is not. But if there's a danger to people on the street, there should be a limit on how old you can be and drive, just as there's a limit on how drunk you can be and drive.

        • I know, drinking is optional, growing old is not. But if there's a danger to people on the street, there should be a limit on how old you can be and drive, just as there's a limit on how drunk you can be and drive.

          Where do you put the limit?

          I have one friend in his 30's who lost his license due to too many moving violations. Another in his 90's with a nearfect record. (Though the law where he lives requires him to get a driving exam every two years - actual driving, not just the written exam. He has always scored very high.)

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Because you can be a less than perfect driver and still be good enough that it's not justified to take away your license.

        The US should make its requirements more stringent and have a more gradual driver license.

        So if you start losing some of your faculties, you're no longer allowed to drive your old Plymouth tank -- but still can drive a compact car. And if you lose more of your faculties, then you're no longer allowed to drive your compact car, and only allowed to drive an electrical golf cart car. You cou

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Indeed. The average 15 year old has sharper vision and quicker reflexes than anyone who'll need this technology... yet which one of them is allowed to get a driver's license?

      (Hint 1: it's not the one who's statistically likely to cause fewer accidents per mile traveled.)

      (Hint 2: it's the one who's allowed to vote, because politicians wouldn't dare take his driving rights away.)

      • >(Hint 2: it's the one who's allowed to vote, because politicians wouldn't dare take his driving rights away.)

        And yet most 16 year olds can't vote and can get a license.

      • Indeed. The average 15 year old has sharper vision and quicker reflexes than anyone who'll need this technology... yet which one of them is allowed to get a driver's license?

        (Hint 1: it's not the one who's statistically likely to cause fewer accidents per mile traveled.)

        What color is the sky in the world where you live?

        On my planet, which we call Earth, young drivers are involved in a disproportionately high number of traffic accidents. It's why their insurance rates are higher than the rates assigned to older people - they tend to be crappier drivers due to inexperience and a tendency to make stupid mistakes like driving way too fast, driving while drunk, driving while staring at their girlfriend's breasts, etc.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          On my planet, which we call Earth, young drivers are involved in a disproportionately high number of traffic accidents.

          Note: I said "accidents per mile traveled".

          Elderly drivers are also involved in a disproportionately high number of traffic accidents, relative to the amount of driving they do. They just don't spend as much time on the road as younger drivers. (Similarly, people who live farther from work pay more for insurance, because more time on the road means more opportunities for a wreck.)

          they tend to be crappier drivers due to inexperience and a tendency to make stupid mistakes like driving way too fast, driving while drunk, driving while staring at their girlfriend's breasts, etc.

          Well, inexperience is the big one, but of course inexperience can be remedied with more driving. Elderly drivers tend to be crapp

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      I am going to point and laugh at you and say "I told you so!" when you are 65 years old, living alone on a fixed income, and you have vision problems, and need to go to the grocery store.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        I am going to point and laugh at you and say "I told you so!" when you are 65 years old, living alone on a fixed income, and you have vision problems, and need to go to the grocery store.

        How does that make it ok?

        What if I need money... Can I endanger your life to get money from your wallet? Can I put people at serious risk of injury or death to make the money?

        Tell me... When I've just heard about an old man who accidentally drove through the wall of a preschool and killed like a dozen of the kids... how it is justified.

        Instead, you laugh. So should I laugh when you get robbed by a desperate person? Is it a bad thing for me to be laughing instead of caring about the crime?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      I have had experiences like that, yes. However, a system that allows you to avoid them would actually be very dangerous. When you are that sleepy, you aren't far from simply falling asleep at the wheel.

      A friend of mine recently fell asleep while driving and drove off into the desert at 80mph, flipping the car and requiring subsequent hospitalization, although thankfully not a funeral.

      Consider pulling over (someplace safe, of course!) and taking a nap rather than continuing to drive in circumstances like