Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

EyeDriver Lets Drivers Steer Car With Their Eyes

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the would-be-dead-a-thousand-times dept.

Transportation 166

Hugh Pickens writes "NPR reports that German researchers have tested a new technology called eyeDriver that tracks a driver's eye movement and, in turn, steers the car in whatever direction they're looking at speeds up to 31 mph. 'The next step will be to get it to drive 60 miles per hour,' says Raul Rojas, an artificial intelligence researcher at Berlin's Free University. A Dodge Caravan fitted with eyeDriver has been tested on the tarmac at an abandoned airport at Tempelhof Airport. However, it remains unclear when — or if — the technology will be commercialized, as questions about safety and practicability abound: What about looking at a cute girl next to the road for a few seconds? Not to mention taking phone calls or typing a text while driving. But the researchers have an answer to distracted drivers: 'The Spirit of Berlin' is also an autonomous car equipped with GPS navigation, scores of cameras, lasers, and scanners that enable it to drive by itself. And should the technology-packed vehicle have a major bug, there's still an old fashioned way of stopping it. Two big external emergency buttons at the rear of the car allow people outside to shut down all systems."

cancel ×

166 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Boobies (5, Insightful)

gront (594175) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962208)

So we want cars to steer towards what we are looking at? Seriously? You want to have all the cute women in the world run over?

Re:Boobies (4, Insightful)

gerf (532474) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962258)

Of course abnormal distractions would be bad. But just think of the normal ones like "road signs" or "checking blind spots" or "looking out for unexpected traffic." Yeah, this is neat, but with the inherent risks involved in driving as it is, probably a bad idea.

Re:Boobies (1)

SpeedyDX (1014595) | more than 4 years ago | (#31963308)

No kidding.

Distractions are one thing, and a good, focused driver MAY be able to avoid many of them. But good, focused drivers also need to look around the road to check for drivers who aren't that good, or for pedestrians who are jay-walking, or for children who run out on the street. Good drivers will (and should) check all around themselves for any potential dangers and not just stare straight at where they want to go.

Whoever thought of this idea was probably a poor driver who never looked around his car. What a horrible and dangerous idea.

Re:Boobies (3, Informative)

tibit (1762298) | more than 4 years ago | (#31963542)

It's not even that "abnormal distractions would be bad" -- it would be completely, absolutely crazy to drive like that.

Landing a plane, on the other hand -- that I could potentially agree on. Some studies show pilots staring at the far end of the runway say from 200ft down to ground contact, so that could potenitally work. It's sort of a reflex thing they do in visual conditions.

Driving on a long stretch of straight road sometimes looks like that too, when you analyze the eye movements.

But in "normal" driving, not only the instantaneous eye position is uncorrelated with desired steering wheel input, but also long-term averages are generally uncorrelated.

Basically, to drive with eye position as the control input is to become blind, to a large extent. I have played a little bit with using eye movement in various control input scenarios, and the only conclusion I came to (in an informal study) was that you can obviously learn rather well to use eye position as the control input. Heck, with audio feedback you can learn even faster, but you become progressively more oblivious to what's going on around you. This may, perhaps, be thought to be "OK" at first sight, as you'd think it rather keeps you focused on a particular area of the surroundings -- just that on curves it usually ends up being anywhere but on the road. So you literally feel like driving in a tunnel. Forget looking at street signs, or navigating in unfamiliar environment. And you better never had to change lanes.

Remember that the raison d'être of our visual system is exploration of our environment. This also happens when we drive. Eye position will depend on what interesting stuff is out there, not on which way you are driving.

There's a lot of "eye movments to control this or that" type of studies. Unfortunately, the idea came from science fiction, and belongs on the same shelf with "cleaning up" SD interlaced surveillance video full of compression artifacts to "clearly" see a face that's six pixels across. Such studies certainly have a lot of appeal to the general public, and to anyone who doesn't quite think it through or understand the basic conflicts of purpose involved in using eye movments for something they just can't do while simultaneously maintaining visual awareness. This is the same fantasy as using eye movments for interacting with machine user interfaces: all fine and dandy, as long as you don't need to see/explore the damn interface. If you have the UI all memorized, and ideally are provided with audible cues to help you navigate, you can use eye movments. But the moment you want to look around, it becomes all screwed up.

Now, in situations where you don't give a damn about maintaining visual input -- you can use eye movements for whatever control inputs you please, and they are quite good for that. Heck, the input is at least 3-dimensional: you can choose not only the direction vector, but to some extent the amplitude of the initial saccade [wikipedia.org] .

So -- eye movements are great for controlling a car, as long as you're in the passenger seat, and the driver makes sure you won't run over the old lady, and won't drive off the end of a closed bridge -- IOW, as long as you don't need to actually see most of what's outside the window.

There are of course ways to devise some special patterns of eye movements that switch the modality of the controlled device/interface, so that you can work around the conflict between controlling and visual exploration. But those hardly feel natural. Those are very fine things to do if the alternative is even worse -- say, if you're paralyzed and all that's left is eye motion. But without training and adaptation the eye movement control has anything but "natural feel" to it.

Re:Boobies (3, Insightful)

shogun (657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962270)

Pretty much what I came here to say.

This will rapidly drive natural selection towards unattractiveness being a survival trait..

Re:Boobies (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31962278)

So we want cars to steer towards what we are looking at? Seriously? You want to have all the cute women in the world run over?

The infamous Homosexual Agenda(TM) reveals its master plan at last...

Re:Boobies (5, Funny)

Quantumplation (1692804) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962330)

Passenger: "I'd hit that!"
Driver: "Yea, so would I!"

Re:Boobies (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31962556)

More like:

Driver: "I'd hit that"
Passenger: "Dude, I think you already did."

Re:Boobies (1)

Starteck81 (917280) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962516)

I think it's time to invest in a clothing company that sells burkas.

Re:Boobies (1)

ciaohound (118419) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962652)

You want to have all the cute women in the world run over?

Well, this is slashdot, after all. Cute women, bullying jocks, idiotic high school teachers, Bill Gates. It could make for a long list.

Blinking Yellow Lights. (4, Interesting)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 4 years ago | (#31963574)

So we want cars to steer towards what we are looking at? Seriously? You want to have all the cute women in the world run over?

While the comment WAS funny there is a problem with something like that already.

It's been known for decades that drunk drivers tend to fixate on flashing yellow lights and then steer toward them. This makes using flashing yellow lights as a warning counter-productive.

Oregon, for instance, long ago switched away from blinky-yellow lights to the rear on police cars to use as warning lights when they have people pulled over - with a significant reduction in car-hits-cop-at-traffic-stop incidents.

California, of course, has standardized on big yellow blinky-lights for cop car pullover warnings. (I recall a few years back when San Jose was lamenting how many of their new fleet of cruisers had been smashed by drunk drivers that year...)

Excellent (1)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962210)

This is exactly what we need!

Dangerous (1, Insightful)

Manip (656104) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962216)

So what happens when a long legged angel in a summer dress walks past? Is she going to get run over?

Re:Dangerous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31962380)

That's certainly a problem all of us agree on.

But when I read that the automatic mode would stop at intersections and wait for the driver to look in the direction it wanted to go before starting, I thought, "Hey, how about looking for cars coming from the opposite direction?" A few problems remain.

Re:Dangerous (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31962704)

And when 90% of the Slashdot readers drive over all the preteen boys, how will we explain it?

Re:Dangerous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31963238)

Perhaps you have a few hundred thousand accounts?

Good Looking Women (-1, Redundant)

Asphalt (529464) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962220)

Are about to get run over en-masse.

Re:Good Looking Women (0, Redundant)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962366)

So are hookers.

Re:Good Looking Women (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31962504)

Score:1, Redundant = harsh

Re:Good Looking Women (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31962750)

No, it's to keep idiots like Asphalt from ruining Slashdot with uninsightful comments.

Asleep at the wheel (1)

JamesRing (1789222) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962234)

Make sure you don't go into REM sleep at the wheel!

In other news... (-1, Redundant)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962240)

In other news... incidences of attractive pedestrians getting run over has gone up 99999%

I Thought It First (2, Insightful)

Asphalt (529464) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962244)

just sayin

Re:I Thought It First (1)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962804)

No. Men have been thinking about hawt chicks for a while now.

What next? (4, Funny)

Some.Net(Guy) (1733146) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962252)

Once they figure out how to steer the car by thought, I'm going to be at Taco Bell a lot.

Re:What next? (4, Funny)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962788)

I was thinking Arby's

omg look (1)

uolamer (957159) | more than 4 years ago | (#31963334)

So when there is a car accident on the side of the road... everyone will just drive into it?..

Re:What next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31963386)

Ohh, a kitty! OMFG!! NOOOOO!!!

This has seriously got to be the best misunderstanding of sensor systems. Eye: Observe large portions of surroundings. Feed data to brain to make decisions based on all of the observed surroundings...more surroundings observed, the better. Physical Extremities: Use evolutionarily optimized neural control to execute decisions based on observations and predictions.

My driving teacher always told me to NOT fixate your eyes where you're going, but to look around and stay aware...

And Then (-1, Redundant)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962256)

There was this big boobed lady in a string bikini and my car just...........

groan (1)

thenextstevejobs (1586847) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962260)

why rehash a joke thats ALREADY IN TFS. 4/6 comments so far are redundant. you guys aren't even trying today.

granted, neither are the editors.

back on topic: WTF? this is a fucking terrible idea. i hate researchers.

Re:groan (2, Interesting)

cosm (1072588) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962312)

Possible use in fighter jets, video games, or controlled environments, perhaps say a UAV pilot locked in a room. An interesting idea, but a terrible initial application.

Re:groan (2, Funny)

linguizic (806996) | more than 4 years ago | (#31963314)

Dude, this is /. -- we don't READ the FTS, these jokes are all new to us ;)

Re:groan (1)

John Marter (3227) | more than 4 years ago | (#31963514)

I admit I made the same class of comment to my wife before I got that far into the summary.

Buttons on the rear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31962266)

"Two big external emergency buttons at the rear of the car allow people outside to shut down all systems" Lotta good those buttons will do for someone who's about to be run over head on.

So... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31962276)

"Two big external emergency buttons at the rear of the car allow people outside to shut down all systems"

It can only be stopped if it is stopped...
Or someone with a rock and extremely good aim!

Re:So... (2, Funny)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962522)

They need to be on the front of the car and be automatically triggered just by a pedestrian looking at them.

Also, they need to not shut down all systems, only acceleration systems -- braking needs to still work.

Re:So... (5, Funny)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962666)

Hmm, yes, I guess it's only fair that if a driver can aim their car at someone by staring at them, they should be able to thwart the reckless lecher by staring back.

They should also add a blink detection system. To determine who wins. ;)

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31963620)

If looks could kill :)

Most bizzare... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962280)

Why would they use Dodge Caravan (and call it...'The Spirit of Berlin' O_o ) when there's so many German minivans for the taking? (heck, VW popularised the concept)

Re:Most bizzare... (2, Informative)

Moofie (22272) | more than 4 years ago | (#31963222)

You know the new VW minivans are Dodge Caravans, right?

Re:Most bizzare... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31963378)

That's not even available outside of North America, which tells best how much of a VW that is.

But there's Touran and Sharan, if limiting ourselfes to VW.

Re:Most bizzare... (1)

Moofie (22272) | more than 4 years ago | (#31963432)

"which tells best how much of a VW that is."

I'm not sure I know what that means. VW says it's a VW, but it's made by Chrysler.

(I'm trying to figure out what either of those companies got out of the deal, but maybe I'm crazy...)

Re:Most bizzare... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31963544)

Yes, that's what I mean; it tells how much of a VW that (car) is = barely a VW at all.

Chrysler more cars sold, effectively and VW quick entry into a market with a bit local needs?

AntiReusedJoke (1)

cosm (1072588) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962286)

In other other new, bad looking women don't seem to notice the change.

Re:AntiReusedJoke (1)

Asphalt (529464) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962324)

In other other new, bad looking women don't seem to notice the change.

Leave your mother out of this.

What... (1)

sophomoric (1715780) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962310)

What could possibly go wrong?

360 Awareness (2, Informative)

jepaton (662235) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962314)

Driving in the direction you are looking is a terrible idea.

Here in the UK you don't pass a driving test without using your rear view mirror, your side mirrors; and looking when appropriate through the side or rear windows. Just because you are looking for potential dangers doesn't mean you want to steer into them (e.g. a car overtaking you). Applying makeup etc. or tuning the radio would be unusually lethal.

Jonathan Paton

Stop buttons OUTSIDE??? (1)

Psychotic_Wrath (693928) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962328)

Ok so you have emergency stop buttons on the back of the car outside? This brings roadrage to a whole new level, don't like the guy in front of you, give em a nudge and wave goodbye.

I would hate to have this on my car.

Re:Stop buttons OUTSIDE??? (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962814)

Not to mention that it would be a boon for carjackers. This whole thing is about the worst idea for technology that I've ever heard. How do people get paid to come up with this shit?

bad idea (0, Redundant)

treebeard77 (68658) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962332)

How many attractive women are going to be plowed down by idiots who can't take their off them?

Wow!!!!! (0, Redundant)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962354)

Look at that... CRASH!!!!... babe.

This will only work in muslim countries... (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962364)

This scheme can only work in muslim countries with strict requirements for women to cover themselves.
Anywhere else and all the pretty women will soon be run over and killed.

Cue the Toyota jokes in (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962374)

3... 2... 1...

...and where do our eyes wander to? (0, Redundant)

moxley (895517) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962402)

You know, the first thought I had when I read this was: as soon as this goes live there will be a rash of hot women mowed down on the street...

I'll wait for the iDriver (4, Funny)

LodCrappo (705968) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962412)

Kind of like the EyeDriver, but Steve Jobs drives your car with his own eyes. This ensures a consistent driving experience, so long as you only want to go where he sends you.

Re:I'll wait for the iDriver (1)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31963060)

LodCrappo? Like the frog? Are you Guyanese?

Re:I'll wait for the iDriver (3, Funny)

ipquickly (1562169) | more than 4 years ago | (#31963490)

Of course with the iDriver, your route will have to be approved by apple 3 weeks in advance.
It will not contain any nudity, or bikinis.
And if you wanna get there in a flash. Forget it!

Attention (1)

venicebeach (702856) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962434)

This is a terrible idea because it unnecessarily links control of the car together with attention. Even covert attention (moving your attention around without moving your eyes) is coupled to the eye movement system in the brain (covertly shifting attention to a different part of the visual field really involves planning eye movements towards that spot). You need to have control of your vehicle uncoupled from this process, since driving requires you to pay attention to many things at once. There's no reason to hijack this system for control when we have a very effective one already.

We should be trying to free up our effectors, not shift around responsibilities among them. What we really want to do is to hook into ventral premotor cortex directly with a wireless connection so we can control the car with thought and still have our hands free.

wasted objective (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31962440)

Taking a systems primary input mechanism (human sight) and limiting it to basic directional management in a vehicle is the stupidest idea I have heard in a long time. The car would need to have dynamic braille readers on the steering wheel just to convey the rest of the information usually conveyed through the visual cortex. Speed, revs, mirrors. Just plain dumb objective.

Don't Blink (1)

EdgeyEdgey (1172665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962466)

Blink and you're dead. Don't turn your back. Don't look away. And don't Blink. Good Luck.

Re:Don't Blink (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31962782)

If you blink, are you going to run over a weeping angel?

So. (1)

Runefox (905204) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962486)

One of the first things you learn in any driver's education class is to constantly scan the road ahead of you and pay attention to your surroundings while driving, which involves a lot of eye movement (generally in the direction of forward, but eye movement nonetheless). What happens to this system when your eyes are looking a few cars ahead? What happens to the system when you're trying to make a lane change? What happens when reversing?

It's an interesting concept, but... Well, tracking eye movement for vehicular control is probably one of the worst applications I can think of. Unless they know something I don't?

But thankfully, should anything go awry at 31~60MPH, you can always run up and hit the big emergency shut-off buttons on the rear exterior of the vehicle.

Re:So. (1)

NEDHead (1651195) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962558)

Actually, when you think about it, if paying attention to the entire environment is dangerous with this system, women drivers may end up with fewer accidents...not to speak of the shrunken 90 year olds peering over the steering wheel.

Re:So. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31963606)

It scares me how far down the page I had to scroll to find this comment. Mod parent up.

As my old driving teacher used to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31962488)

aim for the space ahead, never look at what you're trying to avoid (because you'll veer towards it). I believe another word for this phenomenon is target fixation.

Why??? (4, Insightful)

Curate (783077) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962524)

What problem is this actually trying to solve? Are people really finding it too difficult use their arms to drive? Or is this aimed at people who can't drive right now, because they have no arms?

Re:Why??? (1)

AthleteMusicianNerd (1633805) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962580)

There ARE people with no arms.

Re:Why??? (4, Funny)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962644)

What problem is this actually trying to solve? Are people really finding it too difficult use their arms to drive? Or is this aimed at people who can't drive right now, because they have no arms?

Well, one arm to hold a cell phone, another to hold your: sandwich, doughnut, coffee, burger, fries, or coke.

So yes, most people don't have arms to spare.

Re:Why??? (1)

PRMan (959735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962918)

Well, one arm to hold a cell phone, another to hold your: sandwich, doughnut, coffee, burger, fries, or coke.

That's what knees are for!

Re:Why??? (1)

Minupla (62455) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962998)

I suspect this was in jest, but I knew a quadriplegic (depending on the vertebra where the cord is damaged, you may get some use of hands. In his case, he had gross muscle control of his left hand, but fine muscle control was nonexistent) once, who had to use an incredibly complex hand control to operate a vehicle.

This sounds like it would be a huge win in simplicating the life for someone like him. You reduce the number of controls he needs from "left, right, acel, brake" to "acel, break, go where I'm looking, don't follow my eyes".

Min
 

Re:Why??? (1)

tibit (1762298) | more than 4 years ago | (#31963560)

Ahh, you're in the "let's kill all quadriplegics to shorten their suffering" camp.

Get in the car, get an eye tracker, and have your eye movements recorded and superimposed over the head camera. Then come back.

Re:Why??? (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31963296)

>>What problem is this actually trying to solve?

I don't know what the problem was, but the "solution" will be people driving into women with large breasts.

Re:Why??? (1)

dr.g (158917) | more than 4 years ago | (#31963512)

Amen.

That was the third thing I thought of. (first, the "running over hot women" thing, then the "That comment will be -1, redundant in about 5 minutes".)

What the fuck is the market for this?? I mean, I have as much empathy for paraplegics as anyone but I wouldn't think the potential sales would justify the development cost.

I had a '59, '58 Ford 3/4 ton once long ago (yes, it was already old), no power nothin'. Manual steering, brakes and a long stick floor shifter. That thing was a job to drive, like actual work (still easier than walking, especially with a dozen bags of sand). So I can understand the move to Hydraguide (look it up) and automatic transmissions and power brakes...it was to make driving more practical for bluehairs, girls, stick-armed wimps and lazy people. Now THAT'S a market share.

But apparently the momentum of "making things easier" has swept automotive engineers past the point of rational analysis of what they are actually trying to accomplish.

Unless I'm missing something...

Keep your eyes on the road. (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962540)

An old saying that suddenly starts to seem a lot more important.

Unforunately now, you can't look both ways at a 4-way stop anymore, because you'll wind up turning.

Scanning, Defensive driving and CEVO (3, Insightful)

aukset (889860) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962574)

Advanced driving courses always teach scanning techniques for driving that include looking not only where you are going, but constantly scanning for pedestrians on either side of the road, cars that may or may not see you about to turn in front of you, cars in your left and right side mirrors, and cars in your rear view mirror. They also teach to always have an escape route: if the unexpected happens, always have a place you can steer to to avoid a hazard without crashing into another car or a pedestrian. You can't do these things if you always have to look only where you want the car to go. Peripheral vision is not acute enough to pick up, for example, the shadow of a person's feet beneath a huge SUV parked on the side of a road, where that person may suddenly step out in front of you without looking since the SUV is blocking both your and their line of sight. Unless entirely autonomous, the vehicle's control surfaces HAVE to be independent of eye movement, because situational awareness depends on it (even in some cases the ability to turn your head to check a blind spot, or to see if your kid in the back seat isn't choking on his or her toys).

People do this already (2, Interesting)

elchulopadre (466393) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962584)

People do this already. To learn to drive a car, ride a bike, ski, or control any other type of vehicle, you go through a learning process where you commit the control procedures to muscle memory. Once you have that covered, you pretty much go where you want to go, without necessarily thinking 'ok, now I need to turn the steering wheel'.

By and large, barring any significant equipment failure, you pretty much go towards whatever has your attention - for better or worse. Target fixation is alive and well in pretty much all of us. If you're on your bike and you keep staring at it, you'll most likely hit it. If you look at the path around it, most likely you won't. It has nothing to do with your ability to control the bike, and everything with the ability to control your attention.

This may help clear up traffic on the 5 and 405 (2, Funny)

AthleteMusicianNerd (1633805) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962604)

I feel really bad for the poor guy changing the flat tire, or getting the traffic ticket...but as a Darwinist it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

You're not doing it right (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962614)

If your car's design requires a pair of "big external emergency buttons at the rear", there's definitely something wrong with your design.

Blink (1)

condition-label-red (657497) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962632)

What happens when you blink? Or sneeze?

Re:Blink (3, Funny)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962812)

death!

April Fools! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31962658)

April Fools! Oh wha!?! Really? That day, it already passed?

c0m (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31962672)

Stupid idea ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31962702)

I'm sure the large emergency buttons in the back of the vehicle will come in very handy when speeding uncontrollably down the freeway.

Don't look now... (2, Insightful)

Neanderthal Ninny (1153369) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962732)

With most people that drive while texting or looking cellphone, the car should see that idiot is not looking at road and pull over to the side of the road safely so that the idiot knows that person is no looking at the road.

"Now driving to...woman on sidewalk." (3, Funny)

DamnStupidElf (649844) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962902)

"You have chosen to look at an accident. Would you like to join the accident?"

This'll be great. (2, Informative)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 4 years ago | (#31962976)

Especially given how many people find it necessary to constantly make eye contact with their passengers when talking. Ah, well. At least it would cull the herd. It's too bad it'll take out so many innocents in the process though; surely there's a more efficient way.

Alright, that aside... it looks like it won't be that sensitive after RTFA:

"The car stops at intersections and asks the driver for guidance on which road to take," the researchers say. A few seconds of attention with the driver looking in his desired direction get the car flowing again.

Heh. That'll be even better. Could you imagine stopping at every intersection... "Please indicate direction..." ... roll forward a block ... "please indicate direction..." ... roll forward...

OH LOOK! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31962996)

Oh look, she has some very big br-OOH SHHHHH- *CRASH*

HAHAHA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31963076)

LOOK! AN EAGLE!

bad driver=bad design (1)

Todd Palin (1402501) | more than 4 years ago | (#31963110)

Why would anyone take the time to design a device like this without having any understanding of what a normal driver does with their eyes in the course of operating a motor vehicle? Could the designer possibly be such a bad driver that they only look ahead where they are going? Why would anyone fund a design program run by someone that doesn't even know how to drive? That would be like hiring Sarah Palin to be president.

Never understood eye control (1)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 4 years ago | (#31963146)

I've never understood this desire for eye controlled devices. With the exception of targeting a personal firearm, my eyes bounce around to so many objects so fast that I can barely type a sentence without getting completely distracted. If the cursor was controlled by my eyes while I was typing this paragraph would be nothing but a jumble of text, and half the letters would be strewn about my office.

hmmm...an eye controlled firearm. (1)

Todd Palin (1402501) | more than 4 years ago | (#31963446)

An eye controlled firearm might make more sense. It sights where you look. And it could fire every time you blink. Now we are talking. If you blinked every time a weapon fired it would be fully automatic fire. It would make a great hunting weapon.

Bad idea (0, Redundant)

dandart (1274360) | more than 4 years ago | (#31963170)

Heheheh. Look at that-AAAARGH!

What if you're trying not to hit a pedestrian but in concentrating do so? Not good.

Alcohol? (1)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | more than 4 years ago | (#31963212)

There's a lot of problems, but no one has mentioned drunk drivers yet. The problem with drunk drivers is that they'll fixate on something in front of them and follow it. That's why you have to pay attention at night if you are parked on the side of the road with your lights on. Drunk drivers will hone in on your lights and hit you. Seems like this eye-drive would only make that easier. Then again I guess a drunk driver is pretty deadly even without this.

(Bonus points if you can tell me whether I'll get sued by apple or BMW first for the iDrive pun)

Driving (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31963216)

Have the developers of this product never driven before?
and never even bothered to read a book about recommended/required driving practices?

It is impossible to drive while just looking at were you have to drive.
you have to check gauges, mirrors, keep an eye all other traffic, etc.

I suppose you could drive down the street with this and you might not get into an accident, but you would never be allowed to pass a drivers test.

As far as I can tell this idea is fundamentally flawed and cannot ever possibly work.

OMG! (0, Redundant)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#31963312)

Look at the tits on that ....Aieee! [Screech! Crash!]

Spirit of Berlin (1)

PSandusky (740962) | more than 4 years ago | (#31963364)

'The Spirit of Berlin' is also an autonomous car equipped with GPS navigation, scores of cameras, lasers and scanners that enable it to drive by itself. And should the technology-packed vehicle have a major bug, there's still an old fashioned way of stopping it. Two big external emergency buttons at the rear of the car allow people outside to shut down all systems.

Else the Spirit of Berlin might start looking like the Spirit of Dresden fairly quickly... but if the thing ends up out of control, what the hell good will buttons outside the thing do? Are they expecting someone to chase it?

Dont Look (1)

Bat Dude (1449125) | more than 4 years ago | (#31963474)

Just don't look at the oncoming Traffic. This is a late April fools joke, me thinks !

blind spot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31963478)

If you turned around to check your blind spot would it reverse?

in soviet russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31963508)

the car steers you!!!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?