Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Technology

Jaguar and Land Rover Just Created Transparent Pillars For Cars 191

Posted by samzenpus 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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jaguar and Land Rover Just Created Transparent Pillars For Cars More

Jaguar and Land Rover Just Created Transparent Pillars For Cars

Comments Filter:

  • Volvo (Score:4, Informative)

    by Monkk ( 551177 ) on Monday December 15, 2014 @07:06PM (#48605311) Homepage
    Didn't Volvo prototype something like this a while back with some transparent triangles embedded in the frame?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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

  • Not transparent... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Arkh89 ( 2870391 ) on Monday December 15, 2014 @07:10PM (#48605337)

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

  • You mean Tata (Score:5, Informative)

    by Virtucon ( 127420 ) on Monday December 15, 2014 @07:15PM (#48605383)

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

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by lgw ( 121541 )

      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.

      • 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.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by lgw ( 121541 )

          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.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Lehk228 ( 705449 )
          Korean crash test safety is a joke, they only hold up in the specific crash orientations tested.

      • Re:You mean Tata (Score:4, Informative)

        by Balthisar ( 649688 ) on Monday December 15, 2014 @09:24PM (#48606193) Homepage

        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.

        • 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

  • overwhat? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheCarp ( 96830 ) <sjc@NospAM.carpanet.net> on Monday December 15, 2014 @07:16PM (#48605391) Homepage

    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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by pz ( 113803 )

      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.

    • Re:overwhat? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sarlok ( 144969 ) on Monday December 15, 2014 @10:58PM (#48606659)
      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.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) *

        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.

    • "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 pe

  • How far will it go? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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.

    • Re:How far will it go? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Noah Haders ( 3621429 ) on Monday December 15, 2014 @07:52PM (#48605645)

      +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".

      • 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.

      • +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.

      • 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?

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

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

  • 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.

    • 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.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by _merlin ( 160982 )

        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.

      • 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.
      • 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 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...

  • 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.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by novium ( 1680776 )

      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 ba

      • 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.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by TWX ( 665546 )
          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.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AK Marc ( 707885 )
          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).

        • "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.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by TWX ( 665546 )
        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.

        • 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.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by AK Marc ( 707885 )

            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

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AK Marc ( 707885 )
        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.

    • 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".

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AK Marc ( 707885 )
      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.
    • 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.....

  • Created? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dan East ( 318230 ) on Monday December 15, 2014 @07:24PM (#48605453) Journal

    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?

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

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

      • 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.

    • 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?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AK Marc ( 707885 )
      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 tha

      • 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 e

  • ... That's the ticket, laddie.

  • holy crap (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by Trailer Trash ( 60756 )

    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.

    • 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

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

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dbIII ( 701233 )
        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.

  • Or just make the A-pillar narrower. (Score:4, Informative)

    by MasterOfGoingFaster ( 922862 ) on Monday December 15, 2014 @07:41PM (#48605577) Homepage

    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.

    • 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!

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

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

    • 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.

  • How do they compute the perspective? (Score:3)

    by jeffb (2.718) ( 1189693 ) on Monday December 15, 2014 @07:53PM (#48605649)

    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.

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

  • Vertical lane changes? (Score:3)

    by uvajed_ekil ( 914487 ) on Monday December 15, 2014 @08:08PM (#48605763)
    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.
  • 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!

  • Cool (Score:2)

    by Alomex ( 148003 )

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

  • Parallax and perspective (Score:3)

    by Attila the Bun ( 952109 ) on Monday December 15, 2014 @08:59PM (#48606055)
    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.

  • 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.

  • 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 bel

  • 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.

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

    • 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.

  • 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.

  • Solved in 1964 (Score:3)

    by havana9 ( 101033 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2014 @04:48AM (#48607565)
    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 [sportscardigest.com]
    With style, I must add.
  • 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.

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

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

    'nuff said.

  • 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.

  • What about the transparent aluminium?

Slashdot Top Deals

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Close