Life saving sensors

[fredreload]

So you guys know that there are cars which detect when it is about to bump into something like the Google car. Can we apply the same thing to humans? We know humans bump into humans at low speed is not dangerous, but if you are about to hit a driving car you'll wish that Google car mechanics is applied on you lol. Anyway, personally I think the output would be like a noise, since you can't really control a person to stop. Or a glasses that display message, or some mechanical force that would swing you side way, or make the car stop with RFID. I think this would be pretty cool

This is the current Google self driving car overview. I'd say either implement the collision detect mechanics on all the cars, or on a glasses.

Edited November 15, 2016 by fredreload

[Klaynos]

RFID isn't a great tech for this. Doesn't really have the range.

 

I've considered a "cyclist approaching" warning system. Rucksack with rear facing acoustic distance sensors. If the sensors detect a rapidly reducing distance (cyclist approaching you add you're wedding along) then alert the user using a vibration motor. You might be able to do side detection with angled sensors.

 

I've never thought about it long enough to work out whether it's actually feasible. For cars they're probably moving too fast relative to the pedestrian for it to work well.

 

Pedestrians can change their motion very rapidly which makes collision avoidance much harder than say ships or planes where trajectory prediction is relatively easy. Car/pedestrian interactive can go from safe to fatal accident with little to no warning. Certainly not enough for a human to react.

Collision avoidance on all cars would be best in my view. But then it'd need to be good. Drivers drive more safely with spikes in front of them rather then airbags. Really it's best to remove the human controller.

[fredreload]

Distance reducing sensor, I wonder what that would sound like. The way Google car works is it uses a laser scanner lol. But right, last time I've heard there is zero casualty with the Google car and those should totally be implemented on every single cars. Thing is for Google car to work here in Taiwan it might still requires a bit more work I think, it is on the centimeter scale here, dead ends, all sorts of chaos and traffic.

[Klaynos]

It's the same principle as laser distance sensors but cheaper. You send out a pulse of photons or sound (normally ultrasonic) it bounces off something and the time of flight gives you distance. If you do it twice in rapid succession you can work out if the object reflecting off of is approaching or moving away.

[Phi for All]

RFID isn't a great tech for this. Doesn't really have the range.

 

I've considered a "cyclist approaching" warning system. Rucksack with rear facing acoustic distance sensors. If the sensors detect a rapidly reducing distance (cyclist approaching you add you're wedding along) then alert the user using a vibration motor. You might be able to do side detection with angled sensors.

 

I've never thought about it long enough to work out whether it's actually feasible. For cars they're probably moving too fast relative to the pedestrian for it to work well.

 

Pedestrians can change their motion very rapidly which makes collision avoidance much harder than say ships or planes where trajectory prediction is relatively easy. Car/pedestrian interactive can go from safe to fatal accident with little to no warning. Certainly not enough for a human to react.

Collision avoidance on all cars would be best in my view. But then it'd need to be good. Drivers drive more safely with spikes in front of them rather then airbags. Really it's best to remove the human controller.

 

There's a big problem with this, as I'm sure imatfaal will agree with as a bicyclist. The cyclist is looking for consistent movements from pedestrians they're riding behind. If the walker gets a buzz that there's a cyclist coming up, which way do they move? Are they moving away from or towards the cyclist? I think the cyclist would rather they just keep walking the way they are with no sudden moves.

 

I know I prefer consistent drivers on the highway. I hate seeing drivers making sharp lane changes with no signals.

[fredreload]

 

There's a big problem with this, as I'm sure imatfaal will agree with as a bicyclist. The cyclist is looking for consistent movements from pedestrians they're riding behind. If the walker gets a buzz that there's a cyclist coming up, which way do they move? Are they moving away from or towards the cyclist? I think the cyclist would rather they just keep walking the way they are with no sudden moves.

 

I know I prefer consistent drivers on the highway. I hate seeing drivers making sharp lane changes with no signals.

My first driving lesson when I got on the highway is turn your head when you make a turn. The instructor told me that there was this case where the driver turns the wheel to the left when he looks to the left for traffic, which almost got them into an accident. Then when you make the turn you need to focus not to speed up and hit the car in front, nor slow down and get hit by the car on the back, and have to check if there is car coming up or slowing down on the right, this puts the driver in a rather awkward position. But long story short, when I make a turn I turn on the signal, make sure there is no car on the side, and try to be fast and swift. Swift, but not sharp, and I really do like to have a Google car and just sleep in the car since I don't drive now lol

[Klaynos]

 

There's a big problem with this, as I'm sure imatfaal will agree with as a bicyclist. The cyclist is looking for consistent movements from pedestrians they're riding behind. If the walker gets a buzz that there's a cyclist coming up, which way do they move? Are they moving away from or towards the cyclist? I think the cyclist would rather they just keep walking the way they are with no sudden moves.

 

I know I prefer consistent drivers on the highway. I hate seeing drivers making sharp lane changes with no signals.

I'm both a cyclist and pedestrian (and driver) depending on the weather. As a pedestrian if I know there's a cyclist approaching my response is to be more consistent unless I'm blocking the path then it's too look at the cyclist and clearly step out of their way. My use case would be to ensure consistency near cyclists and they sometimes go past rather quickly and pretty close which can make my jump with my headphones in...

 

Like anything in this area it cannot replace considerate shared space users.

[Phi for All]

I'm both a cyclist and pedestrian (and driver) depending on the weather. As a pedestrian if I know there's a cyclist approaching my response is to be more consistent unless I'm blocking the path then it's too look at the cyclist and clearly step out of their way. My use case would be to ensure consistency near cyclists and they sometimes go past rather quickly and pretty close which can make my jump with my headphones in...

 

Like anything in this area it cannot replace considerate shared space users.

 

Since the problem really seems to be the fastest cyclists, because they represent both the shortest reaction time and the most damage in a collision, it sounds like your double pulse sensors could be configured to only alert you when someone's coming up really fast.

[Klaynos]

 

Since the problem really seems to be the fastest cyclists, because they represent both the shortest reaction time and the most damage in a collision, it sounds like your double pulse sensors could be configured to only alert you when someone's coming up really fast.

Yes, and potential to respond to give an idea of their approach speed. A few things have stopped me building a prototype. Waterproofing, it looking odd, not being convinced it'd actual capture the approaching cyclist, securing it in a semi stable way. Laser rangefinding might be better practically but i have the acoustic sensors and know how to use them...

[Phi for All]

I'm having a hard time with a standard reaction. When you hear the warning for a really fast-approaching object, is it best to stop and turn your head to see it? Or is it best to assume it's NOT going to run into you? Should you move at all besides turning to see?

 

It's a bit of a toss up when it would be useful. It's good to be informed, but you can overdo it. But ultimately, I guess it would be worth quite a few false alarms and spilt coffees if you turned to see something headed right at you and a warning gave you time to evade.

[Klaynos]

Situational awareness is always good as long as you know how to handle the situation which is checking. My use case us a shared path with occasional bikes going in both directions with some pedestrians. I really don't know whether it'd any use.

[Phi for All]

Situational awareness is always good as long as you know how to handle the situation which is checking. My use case us a shared path with occasional bikes going in both directions with some pedestrians. I really don't know whether it'd any use.

 

I'm reminded of a time I watched a guy get hit with a snowball. He was turned around, and his mate yelled "Look out!" instead of "Duck!" He turned back to look and got it right in the face.

[fredreload]

I'm having a hard time with a standard reaction. When you hear the warning for a really fast-approaching object, is it best to stop and turn your head to see it? Or is it best to assume it's NOT going to run into you? Should you move at all besides turning to see?

 

It's a bit of a toss up when it would be useful. It's good to be informed, but you can overdo it. But ultimately, I guess it would be worth quite a few false alarms and spilt coffees if you turned to see something headed right at you and a warning gave you time to evade.

Lol, I'd say we can add in some game mechanic for collision detection and evasion. For instance, avoid crashing when all the cars are trying to hit you or when police are chasing you. Or the battle ship style, mine sweeper

 

 

 

P.S. Trick like this probably need prediction algorithm implemented

Edited November 16, 2016 by fredreload

[fredreload]

I think I forgot to post this

 

[Strange]

On the other hand:

 

(I gather that this was because the automatic braking system was only activated if there was someone in the vehicle.)