Monthly Archives: June 2023

Tactical move widens Seeing Machines’ moat

Posted on by
Reply

I think the Devant collaboration announced on the 20th June is a tactical move to widen Seeing Machines’ (AIM: SEE) moat. The data derived from real-life driver experience, known as its ‘river of gold’ has hitherto protected its AI-fuelled technological lead. Now it will be augmented by a sea of computer-generated edge cases from Devant, a specialist in synthetic data generation who is focused on the niche area of in-cabin monitoring. 

This should help Seeing Machines speed up the development of DMS and future in-cabin monitoring applications that are being demanded by the industry and regulators, putting Seeing Machines even further ahead of its competitors.

Far from an admission of weakness, this move demonstrates that Seeing Machines is doing all it can to maintain its leadership position ā€” without breaking the bank. I don’t envisage any competitor overtaking SEE within the next 3 years. Indeed, part of me wonders if we might not end up acquiring Smart Eye or Cipia eventually. However, I’m betting Seeing Machines gets acquired within 2 years.

Auto RFQ delays 

I appreciate the lack of auto OEM contract wins being announced has rattled many of us. I think it is entirely down to OEMs waiting until the last possible moment to decide how sophisticated a DMS/OMS to use, in the light of tighter EuroNCAP regulations that are coming into force in 2026 but which still haven’t been totally tied down.

This has been confirmed to me following conversations with people at EuroNCAP ā€” sadly, I find myself curiously unable to obtain basic information from official SEE channels following scoops that have upset some people. (But, like a would-be lover suffering from unrequited love, I am still fully invested in this brilliant company).

Q&A Euro NCAP

Hereā€™s a brief Q&A with Euro NCAP:

I understand that the EuroNCAP 2025 protocols aren’t yet out. Can you tell me:

Q. When do you expect them to be published? 

A.  2026.

Q. What exactly is the process for their iteration and publication? Is a draft put around to the industry players for comment? If so, at what stage are they currently?

A. Currently under development, discussing the new requirements and test provisions alongside industry. 

Q. Have they been delayed, if so why?

A. Initially considered for 2025, we finally decided to switch to a 3-year cycle, so starting their implementation from 2026. This was to allow sufficient development timing for protocol development and giving industry sufficient headroom for technology adoption.

Q. What provisions regarding driver monitoring are they likely to include and how advanced are they likely to be? (I know there is a roadmap but I’m not sure about the precise details of it and how it applies to driver monitoring).

A.

  • Driving under influence (2026)
  • Optimised passive restraint systems based on occupant posture and/or size (2026)
  • Increased requirements for the precision of determination on non-reversible driver states e.g., drowsiness, unresponsive driver / sudden sickness (2026)
  • Specific provisions for Assisted and automated driving (2026)
  • Link of driver state to the way ADAS functions are tested and assessed e.g., FCW/LDW sensitivity (2026)
  • Cognitive distraction / mind wandering (2029/2032)

The writer holds stock in SEE.

Forever chemicals in UK drinking water

Posted on by
Reply

Despite a reluctance on the part of water companies and the government to admit the risks posed to the population, irrefutable proof now exists that our tap water contains unacceptably high levels of toxic ā€˜forever chemicalsā€™.

I researched and wrote this article, Revealed: Toxic ā€˜forever chemicals found in tap water near airports, which Open Democracy was prepared to publish. I hope the instances investigated in this article will spark public debate.

They are only a fraction of the many examples that will eventually come to light as more journalists are able to spend the time to investigate further. 

We need far more disclosure from water companies and the government to take immediate action to clean up our drinking water, which is going to cost many billions of pounds.Ā Personally, I believe the water companies and polluters, not the general public, should pay for the costs of this.

We need far tighter regulation of PFAS chemicals and industrial pollution in general, which have contributed to a hidden public health emergency.Ā 

Sadly, PFAS chemicals have the greatest impact on children. Thus, for the very future of this country, we can no longer ignore this problem.

The scientists quoted in the article really deserve great admiration and support for their tireless work in bringing these issues out into the open.

I hope you also appreciate and support public interest journalism.

Play your part

If you want to find out the extent to which toxic PFAS chemicals are in your tap water, and what your water company is doing about it, I suggest you make a formal Environmental Information Request to your local water company.Ā 

You could then contact your local paper and environmental groups to help disseminate this knowledge. Working together we can make a difference and contribute to the change we want to happen.