Samsung has introduced a concept to put video screens on the back of tractor trailers that display video from a camera on the front of the truck. This permits drivers behind the truck to see if there is oncoming traffic before attempting to overtake and pass the truck.
Great idea.…five, six, seven, eight… “We now pause for this commercial about how great this trucking line or the products it’s carrying or whatever someone paid us to host. Your view of the road will be right back, kids!”
Don’t even need to project that one 20 minutes into the future.
ETA: I also have trouble visualizing the real safety enhancement, all things considered. What’s in front of a truck is not you, Joe I. (for Impatient) Driver’s concern.
Bad idea. Drivers will see what’s in front of the truck, and not the truck itself.
It reminds me of an idea I had 20-25 years ago for a science fiction ‘cloaking device’. The space ship would be completely covered with a mosaic of small video panels and cameras. (Or maybe it was combined camera/display devices – it’s science fiction, right?) The system would be set up to integrate the images as seen from any angle. So when an observer looked at the ship, he sees what’s on the other side of the ship and the ship itself was ‘invisible’. (The system could also be used to camouflage the ship as a different ship or other thing.)
Maybe a great idea, but who’s paying for it? I don’t see the trucks doing it unless, as above, advertising. Then it’s a BAD idea.
It’s not the trucks problem about passing, it’s the car that has the issue.
What we need are car periscopes.
Most drivers don’t think 20 seconds into the future! If anything happens, the driver will soon discover that his car exceeds the max. headroom of the ‘Mansfield bar’.
I like it, although a 4:3 aspect for the display would be more effective than 16:9 in such an application, in my opinion.
Or you look at the screen, see a clear road ahead, and pass. And run into an oncoming car.
Turns out the truck was showing a rerun of the clear road it was driving on three months ago.
Who is going to look up from texting and see the picture?
A quick glance, brain registers an open road, not a truck, so head down and crunch.
There is no safety plan that trumps stupid.
Good way to encourage drafting, since you’d need to be pretty close to see what’s on the display in broad daylight. Note: This is not a good thing.
Also a good idea for people on motorcycles, so they can see if the truck is about to drive over, say, a 2x4 that’s sitting in the middle of the lane.
That’s unlikely. TV’s aren’t that good, and the screen’s aren’t that big.
It is a good idea. I have a personal theory that large vehicles blocking people’s view increases stress and road rage while driving, and this includes the fat-arsed SUVs with the tinted windows. It used to be that you could generally seentraffic several cars ahead, if only through the windows of the car in front of you, so you could see and react to changes in traffic flow. Now, because your line of sight is blocked, you have much less time to react AND, because you’re human, you tend to blame any slowdowns on the idiot directly in front of you, because that’s all you can see.
So I actually would be fine with requiring any car or vehicle that restricts line of sight beyond a certain amount to have this technology. Maybe manufacturers would stop designing vehicles that look “cool” at the cost of restricting visibility.
Superbly played. 
It doesn’t need to be that big; just big enough. I have over 100,000 miles riding a motorcycle in L.A. traffic. I have seen how much attention people pay to their driving. I could be right next to someone, and they wouldn’t see me. Heck, just yesterday on the way to Seattle a guy was overtaking me and apparently didn’t see me – in my car – when he tried to move into my lane when he was at my 8:30 position. People zone out. ‘Left-seat passengers’ or ‘Left-seat zombies’, I call them. If they’re watching the TV, they’re not going to ‘see’ the truck.
[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]
I like it, although a 4:3 aspect for the display would be more effective than 16:9 in such an application, in my opinion.
[/QUOTE]
Is anyone still making 4:3 displays?
I’m curious about the longevity of this. Seems like the vibration and banging around would break something sooner than later.
What worries me is that there will be people transfixed by the view of what’s ahead and they’ll miss all the other hazards around them. Unless the displays go red and show STOP when the truck driver hits the brakes, somebody’s going to have tunnel vision and not see the truck’s brake lights.
Yes, you can get all kinds of ratios from commercial suppliers. Best Buy doesn’t bother to sell them any more, but they’re still made, along with a half-dozen other “standard” formats.
Think about in-car DVD systems crossed with Jumbotrons and highway billboards. It’s do-able from a technology standpoint.
It’s just one more distraction with very little usefulness. Having a 6-foot screen repeatedly flash
STOP
at you would not be any asset to driving. Now imagine a whole highway of 'em. Better yet, don’t.
Another “From The Inventors” entry from the back pages of Popular Mechanics that sounds like a great idea… for about three minutes. IMVHO.
As the years go by, the number of people who get these references grows frewer and frewer.
Ouch. :smack:
But Theoratically true.
Top Gear
Mercedes and then Top Gear stole your idea.
BASTARDS! :mad:
So many question and problems.
I don’t know that I’ve ever passed a rig on a two lane road. Highways and interstates, of course, but it’s rare to even see a rig anywhere where this would come in handy, at least around here.
I wonder how many wrecks there are from people trying to look around a truck? Is this really needed?
Trucks and trailers aren’t usually married together, they get around and engage in random hookups. This would only really work for companies that could outfit their entire fleet.
Why would a trucking company spend money to open themselves up to liability? Let the car drivers keep 100% of the responsibility for passing safely.
Accept responsibility??? Shirley you jest !!! :dubious: