Interesting thought on the heads-up displays, bobjengr. I still have mixed thoughts about that one. On one hand, it does keep your eyes in front of you, instead of needing to glance down to see the instruments, etc. On the other hand, I would almost think that there would be too much "stuff" in your field of vision that would be a distraction. Anybody have any real world eperience that would prove one way or the other?
At the state level there are bans on all video distraction devices. Also, people do not want to die, for the most part. So, watching TV is usually not an action in cars. However, texting is... and almost worse.
Also, the TVs in my car are disconnected... They drain the battery. They are cheap screens and the power supply is wasteful.
Good point, Nancy. Wouldn't you think that an adult driver would be able to distinguish between needs and wants, and would be able limit herself/himself to only the absolute needs while driving? Apparently, that's not the case, though.
Excellent Post Jennifer. I am totally opposed to TV installation in the front seat. Rear seat --OK, good for the kids and keeps them preoccupied during travel. Several days ago I made comments relative to a post that Charles delivered relative to this same subject. In doing so, I looked up the stats regarding auto accidents due to texting, talking on cell phones, etc. Approximately 30 % of the accidents were due to these two occurrences. I'm one of these guys who says thinks that "heads-up" displays for automobiles is waiting in the wings just to insure people stay focused regardless of what they do.
My point is that if there were a simple and very clear law enacted that most folks would not be able to install such systems.
Of course an even clearer case is made for enforcing those existing laws mandating personal responsibility, but we have way to many people who deny the existance of personal responsibility for one's acts.
"They have done it based on alleged emisssions, and they have done it based on crash worthyness"
....And this is why we have big, heavy cars with lousy mileage. The Federal government is NOT the answer to all of life's unpleasantries. They have WAY too much involvement in our day to day lives as it is. Were you aware that the Federal government is only SUPPOSED to do two things? National defense and protect our borders. That's it. Neither of which they are doing very well.
Of course you're not going to get a car with a liquor dispenser. You can install one yourself just like you can modify your car's existing monitor to display videos or TV. Not only do neither of these options make any sense, they're already plenty of laws preventing the use of either. DIU, Open container, reckless driving, etc.
My point is that more laws and regulations are not the answer. Common sense must prevail. Just enforce the laws we already have. We're drowning in them now and it's killing our economy. I'm actually quite surprised the feds didn't place an immediate ban on the over the counter sale of pressure cookers in light last month's terror attack.
"Consumers demand it???" How about a built in liquer dispenser for the driver, based on "the consumers demand it"? This is where our federal government should get into the action and simply say that "you can't sell a car like that here". They have done it based on alleged emisssions, and they have done it based on crash worthyness, so the safety people should certainly be able to stop it based on driver distraction, unless they have been paid off so well that they don't notice the problem. And some of their actions certainly give the impresion that they must be getting paid off to let some things slide by.
Please note that I don't recommend any form of booze dispensors in the front seat of a car. I have seen some of them, though. They were quite interesting.
Are they robots or androids? We're not exactly sure. Each talking, gesturing Geminoid looks exactly like a real individual, starting with their creator, professor Hiroshi Ishiguro of Osaka University in Japan.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.