First reviews of the Pilot 2 are out!

[Augustus]

First reviews of the Pilot 2 are coming out now, with some overall positive sentiments.

Definitely seems like an interesting concept, as to the best of my understanding most AEB on newer cars is based on radar - which is great for measuring distance. But thermal could be better for measuring heat signatures of animals and humans. So could prove useful.


Read here: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Vantr...ing-escapes-this-camera-s-gaze.1288171.0.html

 

[Vortex Radar]

What do you mean by AEB? Usually that acronym means auto exposure bracketing which doesn't have anything to do with distance measurements or radar.

Something I'm looking for in these reviews is how much alert time and distance you get while approaching a person or animal. Does it give you enough heads up if there's a deer spotted in the road ahead of you, for example, so you can brake and hopefully avoid the collision?

 

[jsmith]

First reviews of the Pilot 2 are coming out now, with some overall positive sentiments.

Definitely seems like an interesting concept, as to the best of my understanding most AEB on newer cars is based on radar - which is great for measuring distance. But thermal could be better for measuring heat signatures of animals and humans. So could prove useful.


Read here: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Vantr...ing-escapes-this-camera-s-gaze.1288171.0.html

Waiting to get one... Not sure why Vantrue has sent units out to some people and not to others. Looking forward to testing this camera! Looks cool.

 

[jsmith]

What do you mean by AEB? Usually that acronym means auto exposure bracketing which doesn't have anything to do with distance measurements or radar.

Something I'm looking for in these reviews is how much alert time and distance you get while approaching a person or animal. Does it give you enough heads up if there's a deer spotted in the road ahead of you, for example, so you can brake and hopefully avoid the collision?

Bit hard to just "test" ethically. I mean hard to plan for an animal of size to run in front of one's vehicle. I imagine once test units get out there, SOMEONE may be able to test out this feature in more depth.

 

[Augustus]

What do you mean by AEB? Usually that acronym means auto exposure bracketing which doesn't have anything to do with distance measurements or radar.

Something I'm looking for in these reviews is how much alert time and distance you get while approaching a person or animal. Does it give you enough heads up if there's a deer spotted in the road ahead of you, for example, so you can brake and hopefully avoid the collision?

Autonomous emergency braking.

 

[Vortex Radar]

Autonomous emergency braking.

Ohhhh okay yeah, that makes way more sense, lol 🙂

 

[Augustus]

Ohhhh okay yeah, that makes way more sense, lol 🙂

Haha,

Yeah I think this thermal business could be an interesting proposition, probably a better fit for older vehicles but newer ones not so much. But still interesting to see how well it performs but we won't know for a little while yet

 

[TonyM]

Bit hard to just "test" ethically. I mean hard to plan for an animal of size to run in front of one's vehicle.

I would think that a roadside pedestrian on a sidewalk is a good enough test substitute. The P2 should be able to alert you to an animal or person at the side of the road, not just directly ahead.

 

[Augustus]

I would think that a roadside pedestrian on a sidewalk is a good enough test substitute. The P2 should be able to alert you to an animal or person at the side of the road, not just directly ahead.

Helpful but a human can't slam on the brakes as fast as ADAS system such as AEB can. Hopefully they can integrate thermal into future systems and not just radar as it is like at the moment if I'm not mistaken

 

[TonyM]

Helpful but a human can't slam on the brakes as fast as ADAS system such as AEB can.

Agreed. That is one of my questions about the P2 or any similar dashcam with visible or audible alerts. Can a human interpret and react to a dashcam alert fast enough to avoid an incident?

 

[Augustus]

Agreed. That is one of my questions about the P2 or any similar dashcam with visible or audible alerts. Can a human interpret and react to a dashcam alert fast enough to avoid an incident?

The answer is probably an emphatic no, unless the vehicle is travelling at low speed. So while nice in those circumstances, it may be all but useless at higher (e.g. freeway/highway) speeds.

 

[lufa6977]

Agreed. That is one of my questions about the P2 or any similar dashcam with visible or audible alerts. Can a human interpret and react to a dashcam alert fast enough to avoid an incident?

I would say 'no', unless at slower speeds. The older drivers will be even slower, my reflex and reaction time are nowhere near what they were when I was in my 20s. 🙂

 

[lufa6977]

Helpful but a human can't slam on the brakes as fast as ADAS system such as AEB can. Hopefully they can integrate thermal into future systems and not just radar as it is like at the moment if I'm not mistaken

Exactly. I have driven several later-model cars with that ADAS anti-collision feature, which covered for my slower reflexes on two occasions. This thermal feature would be useful where I live, given the large number of animals in our fields that tend to cross the road directly in front of us. It would be nice to first see them in the field on a thermal image; this would give us time to slow down. As for the deer I have hit, they came from the brush onto the road just mere feet from me, and I don't even think ADAS would have helped.

 

[lufa6977]

Bit hard to just "test" ethically. I mean hard to plan for an animal of size to run in front of one's vehicle. I imagine once test units get out there, SOMEONE may be able to test out this feature in more depth.

Zoos are great for that kind of testing. /jk

I would think the use case for this is very specific to an individual. There would be visual overload in a heavy pedestrian area to the point that the alerts would be distracting. On the other hand, in a less congested and dimly lit area, a pedestrian crossing the road at night would be easily captured.

But not always. Last night, a pedestrian was killed on one of our streets. Dark clothes, walks in front of a car, and stops. Struck and killed. In a high-traffic area with a 45-mph speed limit, the driver had no chance to stop. I don't even know if ADAS could have prevented the death.

 

[jsmith]

Zoos are great for that kind of testing. /jk

I would think the use case for this is very specific to an individual. There would be visual overload in a heavy pedestrian area to the point that the alerts would be distracting. On the other hand, in a less congested and dimly lit area, a pedestrian crossing the road at night would be easily captured.

But not always. Last night, a pedestrian was killed on one of our streets. Dark clothes, walks in front of a car, and stops. Struck and killed. In a high-traffic area with a 45-mph speed limit, the driver had no chance to stop. I don't even know if ADAS could have prevented the death.

4-in-1 Design |Night Vision| 330ft Heat Detection | 2K HDR | 360° Coverage | CarPlay & Android Auto| 6.25”IPS | WIFI 6 | HUD & AR Mode

Based of their kickstarter, Vantrue advertises 330FT heat detection.

Wikipedia Provides this breakdown for stopping distance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braking_distance

Thus, I would say 330FT alert is adequate in most circumstances. The Grey Zone is if you're driving on a Highway and a large animal (Deer, Elk, etc) were to run onto the road. It's unlikely your reaction time would be sufficient to stop.

• 20 mph: 40 feet (12 metres)
• 30 mph: 75 feet (23 metres)
• 40 mph: 118 feet (36 metres)
• 50 mph: 175 feet (53 metres)
• 60 mph: 240 feet (73 metres)
• 70 mph: 315 feet (96 metres)

 

[lufa6977]

In a 'panic' situation, human reaction time is always the wild card, and we then factor in road conditions. Certainly, I would think the 330-foot distance for thermal imaging would be sufficient for most use.

Traveling on an inter-city highway system at night, the feature would be nearly useless due to headlights and traffic, or so I would think. If traffic were sparse, the usefulness of thermal would increase. I see great use for thermal features in rural and residential areas. I drive 10 mph under the limit in my neighborhood because of young kids playing in the road. I did the same when I was a kid. 🙂 Of course, a person can make a use case for thermal imaging in any situation, but realistically, there are places it will have limited use. As long as the user understands that, the user will not have false expectations.

 

[jsmith]

In a 'panic' situation, human reaction time is always the wild card, and we then factor in road conditions. Certainly, I would think the 330-foot distance for thermal imaging would be sufficient for most use.

Traveling on an inter-city highway system at night, the feature would be nearly useless due to headlights and traffic, or so I would think. If traffic were sparse, the usefulness of thermal would increase. I see great use for thermal features in rural and residential areas. I drive 10 mph under the limit in my neighborhood because of young kids playing in the road. I did the same when I was a kid. 🙂 Of course, a person can make a use case for thermal imaging in any situation, but realistically, there are places it will have limited use. As long as the user understands that, the user will not have false expectations.

Kids are worth extra points. Little ones are the quickest so there's a bonus. (JK).

I see the thermal camera being most useful outside of the city itself on rural roads and less populated areas where animals pose a significant risk. The use case will be in a city with significant illumination. I'm sure Vantrue has tested this out already, but the product being of limited release, I don't see any actual videos on the topic.

I'm waiting to hear back on when samples get sent out to test.

 

[TonyM]

Based of their kickstarter, Vantrue advertises 330FT heat detection.

Wikipedia Provides this breakdown for stopping distance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braking_distance

Those stopping distances are taken from the UK Highway Code and assume a 0.75 second reaction time 'thinking distance' + braking distance

0.75s is somewhat short when considering a typical driver's perception reaction time. Quoting that same Wikipedia article, "Experts historically used a reaction time of 0.75 seconds, but now incorporate perception resulting in an average perception-reaction time of: 1 second for population as an average; occasionally a two-second rule to simulate the elderly or neophyte; or even a 2.5 second reaction time—to specifically accommodate very elderly, debilitated, intoxicated, or distracted drivers."

My concern is how long does it take for the P2 to identify the hazard, sound an alert, and then for the driver to perceive and react to that audible alert? Which brings us back to the point made earlier that thermal detection might be better used as part of a car's autonomous emergency braking system, taking the human out of the equation.

 

[lufa6977]

Kids are worth extra points. Little ones are the quickest so there's a bonus. (JK).

I see the thermal camera being most useful outside of the city itself on rural roads and less populated areas where animals pose a significant risk. The use case will be in a city with significant illumination. I'm sure Vantrue has tested this out already, but the product being of limited release, I don't see any actual videos on the topic.

I'm waiting to hear back on when samples get sent out to test.

🙂 That reminds me of the movie from the 1970s, 'Death Race 2000' where points were earned for running over us old people, and others. 🙂