William E. Thomas
General Motors
4 Papers
69 Citations
William E. Thomas is an academic researcher from General Motors. The author has contributed to research in topics: Signal & Usability. The author has an hindex of 3, co-authored 4 publications.
Chat about Author
Papers
The general motors driving simulator
Bertollini Gary P,Charles M. Johnston,James W. Kuiper,James C. Kukula,Malgorzata A. Kulczycka,William E. Thomas +5 more
TL;DR: A driving simulator has programmable vehicle model parameters that allow for a dynamic response to driver commands and features a fast response time and a low incidence rate of "simulator induced syndrome".
49
Patent
Extendable and retractable knee bolster system
Alan L. Browne,Gary L. Jones,Joseph D. McCleary,William E. Thomas,Jenne-Tai Wang,Scott R. Webb,Francis D. Wood,Chandra S. Namuduri +7 more
- 25 May 2001
TL;DR: A knee bolster system is capable of automatic extension and retraction during specified scenarios that are determined based on sensor input as mentioned in this paper. But it is not suitable for the use with a knee knee bolster pad.
42
Patent
Seat belt retractor system
David C. Viano,Joseph D. McCleary,Edward A. Jedrzejczak,William E. Thomas,Richard A. McCormick,Mark J. Sawade +5 more
- 22 Mar 2002
TL;DR: In this article, a new and improved seat belt retractor system having an electronic control unit which is adapted to receive a signal from a sensor responsive to the buckling of the seat belt and causes an electric motor acting through a chain drive to drivingly rotate a reel in one direction for providing a predetermined seat belt loading on the seat occupant and that is responsive to braking of the vehicle under emergency conditions to increase the tensioning of a seat belt to a level that exceeds the predetermined load.
24
Toward a methodology for evaluating instrument-panel controls
H. Lenora Hardee,Charles M. Johnston,James W. Kuiper,William E. Thomas +3 more
- 01 Oct 1990
TL;DR: Two implementations of a methodology for evaluating evaluations of driver performance with instrument-panel (IP) controls are developed, both of which exhibit unique strengths and weaknesses, and differ in their appropriateness for use with certain types of controls.
3