GM Researching Windshields For Old Drivers 362
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."
Alerts when speeding? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if its designed for old people, the ratio of old people who speed is pretty low...
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, well depending on how much driving you do, this would take a bit longer, but it would probably (should) require a course on it anyways, at least I hope so, otherwise lots of money into new cars that end up in the jun
Re:Alerts when speeding? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Alerts when speeding? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Alerts when speeding? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just remember you too, like I, will be old one day -- prepare yourself to take the bus, hail taxis and watch the world pass you by as you peer out the window. What comes around goes around, be REAL to yourselves too, and that could be your grandma holding up the traffic.
I have started saving for retirement for THERE WILL BE NO social security when I retire.
I will be prepared. And hopefully I'll retain enough conscious thought to know when I should stop driving because it is obvious the AARP won't be letting any of the obviously necessary laws be passed to keep me and you in check when we are too old to check ourselves.
Re:Alerts when speeding? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Alerts when speeding? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a neat idea, but only if it's absolutely perfect. And is -anything- perfect?
And the article said this was GENERAL MOTORS so I think we know the answer to your question...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Alerts when speeding? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's only one country?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Just older drivers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just older drivers? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Cars Are More Common Than Deer (Score:2)
The chances of a deer being in front of you are miniscule compared with the chances of a car being front of you.
Your logic would have us avoid dealing with the commonplace to prepare for the rare.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It never rains in southern California (Score:4, Insightful)
.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Congratulations on surviving that exceedingly dangerous maneuver. A local woman was killed when she swerved on the freeway to avoid a duck crossing -- the truck she swerved beneath did not.
Sure, baby ducks are cute. But ducks crossing a four lane road are really not exhibiting survival skills anyway -- the rule is "your safety, and the safety of other drivers, comes before theirs." And unless you're authorized to control traffic, flagging cars to a stop without an emergency situation is likely a traffic
Drive to conditions (Score:2, Insightful)
Showing the edge of the road is pointless if the driver is not told about other hazards.
If you can't see far enough into the fog to brake, then slow down until you can.
Re:Drive to conditions (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:Drive to conditions (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I thought the reason that Thunderbirds didn't have that problem was because they were marionettes?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057790/ [imdb.com]
Apples and oranges (Score:2)
Now suppose this windshield fails. Maybe the power dies, or the sensor is dirty, or the shape recogniton software misses something, or it misjudges the velocity or trajectory o
Re: (Score:2)
People drive to a perceived level of risk. Hiding the risks make people drive faster and less safely.
The same argument can be made for car insurance, and to some extent, it's probably true. The alternative, however, is much worse.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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...
Re:Just older drivers? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
For An Extra $150 ... (Score:2, Funny)
There are even more features (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I still remember when Fox did that for the All-Star game [wikipedia.org].
Back then, me and my lo-def TV welcomed it. These days, hi-def (over-the-air FTW) seals its redundancy forever. :)
Why are they allowed to drive in the first place? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why are they allowed to drive in the first plac (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why are they allowed to drive in the first plac (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.
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)
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.
Re:Why are they allowed to drive in the first plac (Score:4, Interesting)
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:2)
Although your "telling that to the judge" is insightful, your comment about "should be a limit on how old you can be" is absolutely, 100% wrong.
Your age, be it 50, 60, 70, 80, or 90, is totally irrelevant as a determination for your ability to drive. Your *PERFORMANCE* is a reasonable indicator. So I would very much support comprehensive TESTING of [all] drivers to make sure they can still see, compute, and react in a reasonable manner. Defining what is "reasonable" could be complicated, but it is certai
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the minimum age to drive should be raised to around 44. That is the first time that the percentage of drivers that age equals the percentage of accidents they are in. For example, 16 - 19 years old is 4.7% of the driving population, but have 13.5% of the accidents.
20 -24 are 8.4% but have 14.3% of accidents.
Re: (Score:2)
But knowing and respecting your limitations is basic competency. Including knowing if you shouldn't be driving at night or in the fog. Bad night vision might not be a reason to take away someone's license, but driving at night with bad night vision is a reason to take away that license.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.)
Re: (Score:3)
>(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.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet most 16 year olds can't vote and can get a license.
Over the last decade or so, that ability has been continuously chipped away at and crippled, at least in some parts of the US. E.g. if you are 16 or 17, you can get a "license", but you can't have passengers in your car unless one of them is over 25, that kind of thing.
So I would say that the GP is correct - politicians *would* dare to restrict the driving abilities of those who can't vote.
Re: (Score:2)
So I would say that the GP is correct - politicians *would* dare to restrict the driving abilities of those who can't vote.
Or won't vote.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet most 16 year olds can't vote and can get a license.
Increasingly fewer 16 yr olds are getting licenses. In some cases, the minimum age has been increased, in other cases, the restrictions on the licenses no longer allow the 16 (or 17) year old to chaulfer her/his younger sibs so the parents do not have to (so the parents no longer see a reason to pay for driving lessons or higher insurance premiums).
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever happened to the "your rights end where mine start" thing? If someone can't drive w/o enhancements, that's a public safety risk. Second, technology fails, especially when it's developed by corporations motivated by profit margins.
It's situations like this I think of the line in Armageddon, about the rocket full of fuel containing a nuclear warhead and thousands of moving parts being built by the lowest bidder.
Re: (Score:2)
.
Vision and reflexes are fine. Experience, judgment and self-control can count for more. Each spring we bury a few more kids who didn't make it past their high school graduation.
Re:Why are they allowed to drive in the first plac (Score:4, 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.)
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
The minimum driving age (Score:2)
.
With apologies to the A.C. who first posted this link:
State-by-state Driving Rules for Teenage Drivers [golocalnet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By god, you've figured it out!
No traffic jams, no traffic - cut's down on road wear and maintenance, cuts down on taxes.
Less fuel costs - less pressure on oil prices, less dependence on weird foreigners.
Fewer accidents - lowers you insurance costs, keeps medical bills down.
Less car upkeep - money right in your pocket.
Let's go for it!
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. If they can't handle driving without the assistance of gadgets on their car, what will happen when the gadgets break?
Also, this doesn't solve more dangerous problems. Just today in my area, an elderly woman "got confused" and hit the accelerator and not the brake, slamming head-on into a house at a high speed. All the "vision enhancement" gadgets in the world wouldn't have prevented that.
Re: (Score:2)
"Why are people that require 'driving enhancements' allowed to drive in the first place?"
Enhancements like eyeglasses? Or automatic gearboxes? Or hand-actuated accellerator? Seems we allow devices to correct for impairments already.
Re: (Score:2)
.
I suggest a taste of what passes for rural metro bus service in your area.
In the western third of our county there is one morning run and one afternoon run.
Your daily commute is at 2 1/2 hours out and 2 1/2 hours back.
Its primary purpose is transportation for the physically fit but mentally retarded adult - linking group homes, clinics, hospitals, sheltered work programs and so on.
It is to be blunt a drearily instit
Re: (Score:2)
All of those are just a few of the examples of the methods used to empower people who are unable to drive to do so more safely. Many of those are things you rely on daily unless you're driving a Flintstone vehicle or a tractor. Why? Really, I think too many people drive who can not but I suspect it is because people believe that they have a rig
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're caught operating a car without corrective lenses, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, your glasses can compensate for the vision degradation. Do we have something that can compensate for the degradation in people's reflexes?
Testing should be mandatory every few years, not just for the elderly. What if your vision starts to go at a much earlier age? Stupid you, you think you see just fine and then you run over some equally stupid kid.
That is nice.. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Transportation isn't going away. It'll get more expensive, and at some point will no longer use fossil fuels, but it won't go away.
Just because people are acting all freaked out about expensive gas doesn't mean research in other areas has to stop. It wouldn't put us any closer to the mythical "100 mpg engine", and would hurt us in other ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Rich people are going to care. The same people who can afford $10/gallon gas can also afford $100,000 cars with laser collision avoidance or whatever. And those same people care a lot about personal safety, because their hairy carcasses are a great deal more valuable than yours and mine.
If the day of the SUV is over, the question is what comes next - and nobody really knows the answer to that. The car companies would be smart to bet both ways. Make 100mpg sub-sub-compacts for the poor people, and make Batmo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you offered me a free car that gets 50 miles per gallon or a $50,000 car that would save my wife and daughter from being killed--I don't even have to think about that choice. I'll gladly go into debt to protect my loved ones and myself from harm. Gasoline is just a frucking liquid in the ground. My family is priceless.
For $500,000,000 or something, your city could build a light railway (or subway, tramway, or rapid-bus system, depending on the size of the city). Fatalities are incredibly rare, you get more than 50 mpg, you don't need fossil fuels to run it (but can make the switch gradually, as required), and sidewalks and bicycles are a natural supplement.
For instance, on the London Underground (admittedly a heavy-rail subway, but it's old and big) "Only five accidents causing passenger deaths have occurred due to train
Uhm yeah... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Uhm yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does it have to be applied to the windshield?
Why can't the same be applied to a pair of driving glasses?
Here's an idea. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's a better idea: Soylent Green (Score:2)
And in Soviet Russia when you are 65, grocery store needs to go get YOU!
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?
Oh Mr. Magoo ... (Score:2)
side and rear view mirrors (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
How to eliminate your blind spot. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Robot cars (Score:2, Insightful)
When will we get cars that don't need fallible, lazy, often incompetent humans to drive them? Or maybe an efficient mass transit system? You know, like some (backward) parts of the world have had for a century or so.
If this tech is good enough to be more than just another distraction then maybe we should think seriously about letting people do something useful with all that otherwise wasted time. Give us robot cars already.
Driving used to be fun. These days it's just a boring, dangerous, annoying, and expen
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, but it's not that simple, robot cars really are limited by their being to many rude and bad human drivers.
What we need is communicating cars. We could get rid of road signs, signs should appear on the car's HUD. Cars should identify their location to nearby cars, turn signals should inform nearby cars in the HUD and warn you if the lane is not clear (or if a car is approaching to quickly). The speed limit should be printed on the HUD, and automatically adjust to road conditions.
Once more cars are
Prototype display (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Really could be helpful for all ages... (Score:2, Interesting)
There have been times where I was driving on the interstate just before dawn, on my way home from working all night, and very tired. A mild curve was coming up ahead of me, with simple reflectors on poles to make the curve easier to see. Unfortunately, my depth perception apparently wasn't working (due to fatigue), and I saw the reflectors as a straight line.
This caused me to slam on my brake
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
Uhm ... for old drivers why exactly? (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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)
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...
Progress towards automated driving (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Hear hear. My little sister (sixteen) doesn't understand why my parents and I HATE taking her places. Ignoring the fact that she makes plans without consulting us and expecting us to drop everything WE are doing to do her bidding, driving is a chore. Whoever said 'getting there is half the fun! :D' has never been the driver in bumper-to-bumper rush-hour traffic, where everyone assumes that THEIR destination is more important than the rules of the road or common courtesy or even basic safety.
Whoopdie-doo, th
Tests for cars... and drivers. (Score:2, Insightful)
That's very nice, but on the other hand, the approach for drivers is totally different. You pass your permit once and then you have it for life. Looking at the way people drive here, a periodic reevaluation of law and safety knowledge, d
Awesome (Score:3, Funny)
For older drivers, this is the wrong solution. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:For older drivers, this is the wrong solution. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
I've found it's almost the opposite. People are absolutely obsessed with speed as if the posted speed limit is a mandatory minimum. People get so pissed if someone is doing 80kph in a 100kph zone. It's as if they feel that their rights are being violated by being 'forced' to drive 20kph below the limit. Driving at 80kph instead of 100kph for 20km until you have a safe spot to pass isn't going to kill you, in fact it's almost cer
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It has a heads up display that flashes (Score:2)
"Turn off your turn signal asshole!"
Artificial Intelligence (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Farmers Markets (Score:2)
Gee. What I'd like to see is... (Score:2)
Less of a blindspot due to roof supports on Chevy's (I drive an Impala LT), less haze caused by scratches in the windshield, about 10 MPG better milage, and directional spotlights tied in to the blinkers so I can see where I WANT to go. It's nice to hit the remote start system, but it would be better to be able to choose between remote start and "roll down all the windows". I live where it's VERY hot. Rolling down the windows would work much better than to run the A/C for a few minutes before I enter the ca
Already done in Texas (Score:2)
GM should do what they already do for old rich oilmen in Texas. Grind the windshields to prescription so they don't have to wear their eyeglasses.
This article misses a much bigger trend ... (Score:3, Interesting)
...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.
Re: (Score:2)
You're comparing apples to oranges. An autopiloted car is not like a bus or subway (crowded, inconvenient, and operating on its own schedule, not yours), but instead like a personal chauffeur (always on call, takes you wherever you want, whenever you want). I
Damn it GM! I'm a driver, not a weapons expert! (Score:2)
LASERS do not belong in cars.
They belong on sharks - get with the program.
Warning sticker: Do not look at windsheild with remaining good eye...
Fun! (Score:4, Funny)
I've been waiting for something like that for 20 years.
Subject (Score:4, Funny)
A better use of GM's time would be to detect when a driver is old, then disable the engine and lock the brakes.
Re: (Score:2)
If they can polish the two and combine that with a useful GPS minimap that's not too distracting, why not have it as an option for ALL models across ALL brands?
Hmmm... I've used GPS from time to time, and under ideal conditions it's great. Less than ideal well, they have me crossing over open water. I wouldn't want to depend on GPS to keep me on the road. Call me silly but you rather need some more local feedback on that subject, like reflectors that get computed and displayed on a HUD.