26 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonhouseEquipments that follow your eyes isn't a new technology.
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-opelvauxhall-headlamps-driver-eyes.html
Sounds doable.
Couldn't be hard to make the headlights follow them.
But it is somewhat embarrassing when you meet a pretty woman on the road and her butt will be lit up by my lights. 😞
26 Mar 15
Originally posted by FabianFnasAnd what happens if you have an unruly kid in the back seat, you turn to discipline the brat......
Equipments that follow your eyes isn't a new technology.
Couldn't be hard to make the headlights follow them.
But it is somewhat embarrassing when you meet a pretty woman on the road and her butt will be lit up by my lights. 😞
26 Mar 15
Nice idea, but there's a problem. If the beam is pointed directly at what one looks at then drivers will be dazzling each other as they look straight at the front windscreen of the oncoming cars. The system has somehow to be able to distinguish between the driver looking ahead into the distance, with no oncoming traffic - good time for main beam - from the driver looking at an oncoming vehicle - bad time for main beam.
28 Mar 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI think they worked that into the algorithm for following eyes. They don't want to blind oncoming drivers. It's a pretty smart system.
Nice idea, but there's a problem. If the beam is pointed directly at what one looks at then drivers will be dazzling each other as they look straight at the front windscreen of the oncoming cars. The system has somehow to be able to distinguish between the driver looking ahead into the distance, with no oncoming traffic - good time for main beam - from the driver looking at an oncoming vehicle - bad time for main beam.
29 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonhouseIts doable, but I see no benefits and a number of downsides.
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-opelvauxhall-headlamps-driver-eyes.html
Sounds doable.
1. It would be distracting to other drivers if your headlights are waving around.
2. You can't look up where you would blind oncoming traffic or the car in front.
3. It would be dark where you are not looking, which is exactly where the danger is most likely to be.
4. Cars are not desperately short of power. A good well spread beam using LED lighting should be able to illuminate anywhere reasonable that you are likely to look anyway.
A better system would be one that identifies object in front of the car and illuminates them - such as that cyclist in dark clothing that you didn't spot.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
01 Apr 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadGood idea, but it wouldn't work: the SMIDSY field is strong enough to overpower any car light.
A better system would be one that identifies object in front of the car and illuminates them - such as that cyclist in dark clothing that you didn't spot.
02 Apr 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd that could be done with infrared cameras, even ultraviolet cameras.
A better system would be one that identifies object in front of the car and illuminates them - such as that cyclist in dark clothing that you didn't spot.
In Sweden, Finland, and Norway, where there are many collisions with mooses (Many people have died in these collisions (and the animals themselves), a quite big problem in lesser populated areas.). Reindeers (up in the north) experiments has been done with UV-light, with promising results. No cameras, just plain UV-ligth.