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.
Engineers at Fuel Cell Energy have found a way to take advantage of a side reaction, unique to their carbonate fuel cell that has nothing to do with energy production, as a potential, cost-effective solution to capturing carbon from fossil fuel power plants.
To get to a trillion sensors in the IoT that we all look forward to, there are many challenges to commercialization that still remain, including interoperability, the lack of standards, and the issue of security, to name a few.
This is part one of an article discussing the University of Washington’s nationally ranked FSAE electric car (eCar) and combustible car (cCar). Stay tuned for part two, tomorrow, which will discuss the four unique PCBs used in both the eCar and cCars.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.