Samsung "Safety" truck stupid idea or not? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: MFX
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 23, 2015, 10:02:42 pm
content: This is all over social media with people saying how great it is so is it just me that thinks this is a stupid idea? In the UK for example around 6% of all road fatalities in 2007 i.e. 175 people were killed in overtaking accidents against 2,946 overall road deaths. Fatalities have dropped significantly since then, 1,713 in 2013 so overtaking deaths will probably have reduced as well.A rough power consumption for that sort of LED screen would be around 1kW per square metre. now multiply that by screen size and every truck on the road (or even just half of them). That increased drain will hugely increase fuel consumption and exhaust emissions.Deaths by air pollution/exhaust fumes can only be estimated but most estimates appear to be significantly higher than 175 people/year.Yes it's a cold way of looking at it, but life is risky, some people will die but it's likely that pushing deaths down in one case will push them up somewhere else.Of course my figures could be wildly off?

author: kizzap
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 23, 2015, 10:27:39 pm
content: Is anyone even thinking about the levels of distraction it poses to motorists following behind the truck?Unless they make it so the Driver of teh truck can turn it on and off at will

author: MFX
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 23, 2015, 10:39:29 pm
content: You couldn't leave it to the truck driver, he'll be too busy on his phone and how would he know when to turn it on and off?Martin.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 23, 2015, 10:46:52 pm
content: Let's hack that system :-)

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 02:46:34 am
content: Quote from: Galenbo on June 23, 2015, 10:46:52 pmLike the Zombies ahead road signs but with actual zombies shown on the screen being run over by the truck

author: Falcon69
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 03:16:57 am
content: They had this on the news here last night.As a former truck driver, I can honestly say that this is a great idea. I've seen alot of accidents from cars trying to pass me or other trucks and not realizing that they don't have enough room to pass once they are in that other line. SMACK! head-on accident.As far as truckers talking on the phone, yes, it's a big problem. The trucking companies have policies against it, but many times I was having to talk to my driver manager who insisted i pick up while I drive to talk to him. The Department of Transportation here in the states fines a truck driver $2750 for being caught talking or texting on the phone or on his Qualcomm while driving. (it may have gone up, been 6 years since I've driven). Does that fine help? Not really, in fact, it makes it worse. I was more distracted trying to watch out for the cops who would be watching for me talking on the phone, than i was just driving and talking on the phone.

author: German_EE
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 06:37:51 am
content: It looks like a good idea but I have a cheaper proposal. Trucks have rear view mirrors so if they see a queue of cars behind them why not pull over for a few seconds so the faster traffic can overtake?

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 07:08:15 am
content: Quote from: Falcon69 on June 24, 2015, 03:16:57 amUpdate the law so that if the employer insists on employees using the phone while driving, the employer would be responsible for paying the tickets. Also amusing about satellite phones being named after the chip maker - I have never seen a Qualcomm branded phone of any type "in the wild".

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 08:07:42 am
content: Erm, the video says that 80% of fatal traffic accidents happen on roads, so where do the other 20% happen? In kitchens?

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 08:12:20 am
content: Quote from: Delta on June 24, 2015, 08:07:42 amClosely adjacent to trees near roads?Or are they counting 'died in hospital of traffic injuries' as not on the road? Like with battlefield injuries.

author: electr_peter
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 08:29:09 am
content: In my opinion this is an excellent idea, the question is how well screen looks to the drivers under various conditions in real life.Driving behind a truck/van/big SUV leaves car drivereffectively blind* to the road in front of him/her, this eventually results in multiple accidents (accidents related not only to overtaking and colliding with opposing "invisible" traffic, but multiple of others as well. Such as obstacles, slow vehicles in front, vehicles stopped for left turn/turn around, people/animals on the roads, etc.). As a response to this "blindness", driver responds simply byexpectingthat there is no or little opposing traffic in front of the truck irrespectively of actual situation. Expectation does not much reality, this is the root of almost all accidents.If such system with video screens can give much better awareness of surroundings and greater visibility, I am 100% for it.*My view is that driver is partially blind to the surroundings anyway by default (impossible angles from vehicle, reflections, need to check multiple mirrors at the same time, limited reaction, etc.). Take a good look why the accidents happen in the first place - if drivers saw all the situation around them with 100% certainty, there would be almost no accidents at all (excluding freak accidents, mechanical failures and similar).

author: Ian.M
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 08:42:57 am
content: There is little a truck driver can do if there is an impatient car driver tailgating and trying to pass. Many roads don't have anywhere suitable to pull over for significant distances.This system simply provides the driver behind the truck with more information to make a decision on, without increasing the burden on the truck driver.I suspect the running and installation costs will to a large extent be offset by the publicity for Samsung, the reduced paperwork and truck time off road due to accidents involving an overtaking vehicle, and as dangerous overtaking resulting an accident usually involves an oncoming vehicle, with a high probability of fatalities, reduced truck driver councelling and medical expenses.Do I give a **** if the truck in front has the system? No, as I am not going to overtake when I don't have actual line of sight on enough clear road. However I am very happy if the truck going the other way has the system as it reduces the probability of a tailgating idiot popping out from behind it and killing me.The power consumption issues can be mitigated with a simple rear distance sensor which puts the system in standby until a vehicle is closing into a position to overtake. A sensor would also allow it to display a warning message if a vehicle was too close.Add a link to the satnav and it could also warn cyclists about the truck's route when approaching a junction - many urban cyclists are firmly convinced of their own immortality and anything that helps reduce the risk of another one becoming a Darwin award candidate can only help.

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 08:47:14 am
content: The biggest problem is the amount of utter knobheads on the road, desperate to shave 3 seconds off their journey by making ridiculous overtaking manoeuvres.

author: McBryce
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 08:55:13 am
content: In Argentina (and other countries) there are a huge amount of long distance two lane roads full of trucks. In countries like that I can see it's use. In a country like the UK and most European countries the long distance roads will be mostly motorway so it's of no advantage.Not sure how you worked out the power consumption though. 1kW per square metre?? It's most likely backlit LCD and needs a 10th of what you've suggested.McBryce.

author: rolycat
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 08:56:29 am
content: Quote from: Delta on June 24, 2015, 08:07:42 amFarms, industrial worksites, private driveways, car parks...There are not infrequent reports of lorries crashing into and partly demolishing private houses, so I guess some do happen in kitchens.

author: bookaboo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 08:57:43 am
content: Ridiculous idea, power hungry and impractical. It would probably increase the number of accidents as too many drivers simply think "I cant see a car therefore its safe" rather than "I can see a clear road for safe overtaking".If you really want to cut fatalities use speed monitoring devices that automatically report to insurance companies (ideally enforce fines and bans as well). In particular this would work with male under 25s.

author: Scrts
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 09:03:39 am
content: Since I am working on automotive camera/display systems, I can tell that this is a social campaign only. And it worked perfectly!Now imagine if there's image delay of, let's say, 2 seconds, introduced to that...

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 09:09:57 am
content: I have a heavy articulated licence also and agree that it is a good concept but may be difficult to implement and maintain, I'm sure that when stopped at the lights or stationary these things would probably be used for advertising to offset the installation and running costs.On the lighter side, what happens when there is a convoy of Samsung trucks...Or the children in the school bus behind get to witness a roo getting whacked in widescreen...Muttley

author: McBryce
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 09:15:00 am
content: Quote from: Scrts on June 24, 2015, 09:03:39 amIf you're designing automotive cameras with a 2 second delay then you seriously need to review your design. Even with post-processing you should be able to display an image within nano-seconds.Another issue this system will have is keeping the display clean.McBryce.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 09:25:55 am
content: Quote from: McBryce on June 24, 2015, 09:15:00 amI guess you missed the figure by million times (milliseconds).

author: McBryce
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 09:32:36 am
content: OkMilliseconds, but definitely not 2 seconds!McBryce.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 09:35:16 am
content: Quote from: McBryce on June 24, 2015, 08:55:13 amThat's probably a reasonable figure for a screen which needs to be visible in direct sunlight, over a reasonable viewing angle.The brightness would need to be automatically adjusted to compensate for ambient lighting conditions.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 09:51:59 am
content: Quote from: McBryce on June 24, 2015, 09:32:36 amBTW I think he meant to do this intentional (to make killer machine). Not because of some technical reason.

author: McBryce
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 09:58:00 am
content: Ah ok.Regarding the consumption. Samsungs own 46in CCFL Outdoor display (460DR-2) claims a typical consumption of 345W and an absolute max of 420W. Obviously a lot higher than your standard living room set, but would still put the entire 4 screen system at less than 1.7kW max which shouldn't be too much of a problem for a truck.McBryce.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 10:47:05 am
content: Quote from: McBryce on June 24, 2015, 09:58:00 amTruck engines are usually north of 500hp - even 5kW would only be in the region of 1% of their output - maybe slightly more on fuel consumption as you're not typically running the engine full belt at a steady cruise.The idea of a sensor to only power the screen up if there's actually somehting behind the truck seems sensible.As to whether it's a good idea - I don't know, however I think it has utility beyond the overtaking use case - knowing whether the truck is about to slow because there's a queue in front of it might itself reduce accidents.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 10:47:33 am
content: I cant but help think that Samsung just slapped a few consumer LCD TVs on the back of a truck as a marketing stunt.If so, they wont last a week before the vibration/harsh environment kills them.However, if im wrong and they are engineered to handle being bolted to the rear door of a truck for years without failure, then i take it back.

author: Scrts
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 03:37:24 pm
content: Quote from: McBryce on June 24, 2015, 09:32:36 amThat's true. However, you always have to take memory overruns into consideration... It might not happen ever, but the software have to be aware of everything. Let's take other faulty state: a frozen frame. Imagine truck going on a straight highway in Nevada, where you can only see desert around. If you don't focus, you might not understand that the image on the truck is frozen, especially this might happen at night. Also think of frame buffer loop if the image is read, but not written.Anyway, that's why there's ISO26262 and other regulations.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 03:37:52 pm
content: Quote from: grumpydoc on June 24, 2015, 10:47:05 amIt's wrong to use the maximum amount of power an engine can produce.It's wrong to compare it to the actual consumption.It's simply a certain absolute power consumption, a certain amount of hours/year.Express it in kWh per day or year

author: MFX
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 04:29:07 pm
content: Quote from: McBryce on June 24, 2015, 08:55:13 amIt's more likely these are LED screens though, unlikely backlit LCD would be bright/robust enough for this sort of use.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 05:21:21 pm
content: For power consumption, CMY electrowetting displays aregetting close...Quote from: Falcon69 on June 24, 2015, 03:16:57 amGet a DA-350 microphone array or use a throat mic ...

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 06:28:44 pm
content: it's just a stupid way how that corporation wants to sell the otherwise useless low-res panels. who the hell would buy a HD ready TV nowadays ? but they still got the technology and manufacturing lines in places... so why not put those on trucks ? 4 panels per truck times millions of trucks .... profit !

author: McBryce
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 08:02:24 pm
content: Quote from: MFX on June 24, 2015, 04:29:07 pmMost likely is that Samsung slapped on any old screen they could find that was bright enough onto the back of a truck, just so that they could get a working concept up and running to test the market. If it actually attracted real interest they'd start working on a sensible solution for their product.McBryce.

author: ivan747
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 08:23:24 pm
content: Quote from: Ian.M on June 24, 2015, 08:42:57 amIt all comes down to this. If you can't see, then don't fucking go where you can't see. If you don't know or don't have a safe opportunity to pass the truck, then don't pass the truck. This should be redundant as a safety measure. It isn't because of shitty drivers.QuoteI've got an idea! Why don't we put like LEDs on the side of the truck that light up when the truck is going to steer in one direction, that way people know where it's going. THe truck driver could control these LEDs with a button or a stick close to him on his cabin. The lights would automatically blink to draw attention to themselves.

author: ivan747
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 08:27:25 pm
content: Quote from: grumpydoc on June 24, 2015, 10:47:05 amIf you can't see whats ahead of you due to a truck, you simply leave a gap between you and the truck, big enough that you can brake when needed.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2015, 09:10:20 pm
content: Quote from: Galenbo on June 24, 2015, 03:37:52 pmYes, I said that the engine won't be running at maximum power all the time so as a percentage of fuel consumption it will be higher.Let's see if we can come up with a better estimate. Theaverage fuel consumptionof HGVs over 25t is in the region of 6.5 miles per gallon, or approx 0.7l/mileAt anenergy density of 35.8MJ/lfor diesel and guessing about 30% efficiency for a truck engine that is 7.5MJ to move one mile.If we assume that theaverage speed is about 48mphthen we get 360MJ/hr or just a shade over 100kW as the average power output of a 25t truck on British roads.So 5kW is going to be 5%.5% I admit might make hauliers sit up and complain about increased spending on fuel. 2kW is probably in the noise and could be made up elsewhere.QuoteNo, I think it's pretty reasonable to look at the effect on fuel consumption, since that's where the power to run the thing is coming from.

author: george graves
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 25, 2015, 10:39:28 am
content: There is no substitute for the human eye. This is a bad idea IMHO. Yes, you can see if a car is 100 feet away, but passing at 60MPH, you need to see like 1/2 mile away, and use your fine sense of moving objects to "calculate" how fast/far away something is.This will never happen. It's link bate.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2015, 07:24:54 pm
content: Quote from: grumpydoc on June 24, 2015, 09:10:20 pmYou fail to understand why it is wrong.There is no relation between both, even if they share the same fuel, used as power source.TV consumption is expressed inliters/hrEngine consumption is expressed inliters/100km(or SI or other unity, country dependent)There is no need to make a mess of it, like engine consumption in liters/hr or TV consumption in liters/100km.Even if someone somehow arrives to do it and comes up with some easy %number, too much false or overgeneralised assumptions are made.So it stays wrong to show a %number alone, it has to be accompanied with the full page of assumptions that specific person has made.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 29, 2015, 07:32:42 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on June 25, 2015, 10:29:56 amLidar would still work unless you had a 'spread' of IR lasers. But then you're starting to tread into the 'illegal' territory just like radar jammers and detectors. (Not to mention in Australia, speed is 'estimated' first then 'confirmed' with either Lidar or Radar, so you can still be done on a "Check speed" even if the instruments aren't operating or unavailable.)I just don't understand why people don't drive defensively and just switch their brains on a little. It would be far easier.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2015, 08:02:18 pm
content: Quote from: Galenbo on June 29, 2015, 07:24:54 pmOK, but if I were a haulier my first question would be" how much is this going to cost me to run"

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2015, 02:35:54 pm
content: Quote from: grumpydoc on June 29, 2015, 08:02:18 pmYou are absolutely right about that.And marketeers and salesguys will show the whatever numbers again to their customer.But an easy way of doing it, with numbers that mean something, is looking how much hrs the driver works a day/week/month/year,and simply multiply this with the W/h factor.The W/h factor isn't simply the consumption of the screen. When the truck brakes on the engine there is "free energy", so it has to be corrected for that.(free energy has to be read with a smiley, we all know it's the potential-kinetic conversion, or something like that)

author: Falcon69
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2015, 02:52:19 am
content: You guys are talking about power consumption.If the trailer is a refrigerated unit, the TV's would tap in the the Refer Diesel Engine to power them. Those things put out plenty of power for the refrigeration unit, and to power those TV's without a problem.I think this is a good idea, but, I could see some major things go wrong, and some very serious lawsuits that could happen. What if the Image freezes and all possible safety measures/backups failed as well (unlikely, but could happen)? Then what the driver behind the truck sees, is false, they merge to pass, and is hit head-on with another vehicle.The Zombie thing would be funny that someone mentioned. You see the truck plowing the roadway and Zombie bodies flying everywhere.

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2015, 03:10:32 am
content: I have worked with a demo of a similar system in the past, its not worth it, the amount of dust that most long haul trucks flick up even on city roads coats the dislay over in all of 3-4 days, while a large number of companies do indeed wash down there trucks daily, they also use very high pressure cleaners, the displays will be exposed to full sunlight, newer drivers over estimate and tap the back of the truck crushing the display, etc,

author: Falcon69
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2015, 03:22:23 am
content: I never washed mine daily when I drove. It cost $85 everytime I had the truck and trailer washed. We only did it when entering California (the state Patrol targets and pulls over dirty trucks, no joke) or if the customer demands a clean truck before pick-up. Most of the time, the customer only required the inside of the trailer to be washed.But, yes, you are correct. I'd wash the truck, and after a day of driving, it would be dirty again. You can actually write your name with your finger on the back of those trailer doors after a day of driving.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2015, 03:29:09 am
content: Quote from: Muttley Snickers on June 24, 2015, 09:09:57 amActually, once installed on enough trucks, I'm certain they would all become used for advertising, all the time. Split screen, scrolling text, overlays, animations... with all the usual attention-grabbing tricks.Result: far more accidents.I'm ignoring practical details that kill the idea, like failure rates, dust, energy consumption, needing to work in bright sunlight, adding another umbilical connection between the mover and the trailer, how do you mount them on the rear doors (or roller shutter), etc.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2015, 03:45:45 pm
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on July 03, 2015, 03:29:09 amTheft, vandalism, imposed installation that makes transport more expensive again, accidents and pollution, insurance, and the best of all: all the levels of our goverments (we have 7) that make their own contradictory laws.