Amazing Things Your Automobile Can't Do

dslmodem submitted this NYT story on nifty automobile technology that isn't coming to the United States. The report suggests that legal liability is a significant reason for not offering various driver-distracting options in the U.S.

Comments

good, we don't need that crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to drive an urban assault vehicle, then get off the phone & keep your eyes on the road.

Re:good, we don't need that crap.

[Frymaster]

your real options in this situatin are:

1. don't answer the phone
2. stop eating your egg mcwhatsit

you have voice mail. your egg mcdoodad won't get any more gross for being a little colder. make the right decision.

way more americans die in traffic accidents every year than because of international terrorism. you, sir, are threat to homeland security.

Glad

[jdc180]

I'm GLAD that those features aren't available in the US. I don't need the added worry that they guy in the car next to me is reading slashdot, or trying to keep up with the lyrics on some karaoke song!

Re:Glad

[Anonymous Coward]

yea, lets make everything illegal that way we can all be safe from each other all the time. no ive got a better idea lets just make it illegal to be an idiot.

I want to be Free and Safe, but if i have to choose between the two, I think I choose Freedom.

And dont bother replying to this thread, Darwin Doesn't care what you think about his law, and neither do I.

Re:Glad

[jd]

That is true. On the other hand, they're probably fishing around for a DVD for the back-seat player, gurgling along to their latest pop favourite on the CD player, watching the RADAR detector device, hoping that red-light camera fooler works... It doesn't help that many US drivers think "speed limit" refers to how many drugs you can take...

American drivers manage to be dangerous, even without all the fancy extras. The threat of lawsuits against manufacturers deters innovation but a lawsuit against an individual just means forwarding the bill to the insurance company. Speeding fines, parking fines, traffic violations - these are seen as normal living expenses, and most of the add-ons I've seen American drivers put on their cars are ways to avoid cops and fines.

Automatic parking, email-to-speech systems, etc, are nowhere near as dangerous as the stuff already in widespread use. I would consider it infinitely preferable for drivers to be able to get e-mail while driving than using a hand-held mobile phone.

Re:Glad

[ConceptJunkie]

The only city where people stop for the green and go through the red.

And the traffic cameras get you a ticket on the green.

Washington drivers are dense, but in places liek Boston, it's cutthroat, and you know what, I could deal with that because it's more predictable. Nothing is worse than someone coming to a complete stop on an entrance ramp to the Beltway.

As an unrepentant gadget freak, I don't find most of the devices appealing. It's just more grossly overpriced crap to sell you. Give me a decent stereo and my cellphone headset and I'm fine. I can see the benefits of the navigation systems, but I can function just fine without one.

Superflous.

[Raven42rac]

I really want my car to do 1 thing, get me from point A to point B, reasonably efficiently and safely. A modicum of comfort does not hurt either.

Re:Superflous.

[Tassach]

I really want my car to do 1 thing, get me from point A to point B, reasonably efficiently and safely. A modicum of comfort does not hurt either.

Then you have many options that will work for you besides cars[: Walk, Bike, Moped].

Unfortunately for most people those options are neither efficent nor safe. You cannot legally (or safely) walk or ride a bike or moped on an Interstate, which is for a great many people the only practical way to get to work. Likewise, any open-air vehicle is unsafe in rain or snow.

Tort Reform Redux

[geomon]

The tort system does need revision, but the only proposal I've seen so far gives relief exclusively to corporations. For tort reform to work, it will have to include:

1) eliminating slap suits,
2) limiting damages that individuals must pay to corporations (what's good for the goose, etc), and
3) shifting the burden of proof from the defendant to the plaintiff (same as for criminal cases).

Then I can support tort reform.

Otherwise tort reform is yet another corporate bailout.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[Maestro4k]

• The tort system does need revision, but the only proposal I've seen so far gives relief exclusively to corporations.

While I agree that we need Tort reform in general, in this case I don't see the threat of lawsuits as a problem. Frankly these are things that aren't needed in cars, especially not for the driver. Even with reasonable restrictions in place (shutting off the video when the car goes faster than 3mph) wouldn't stop idiots from killing themselves and others because of these distractions.

While a lot of the resulting carnage would probably be from people disabling built in safety restrictions, ultimately it's hard not to blame the company for selling something like a TV screen built-in to a car for the driver's usage. In this case the fear of lawsuits is probably helping to prevent many, many deaths due to unnecessary, distracting, potentially deadly car accessories.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[TopShelf]

2) limiting damages that individuals must pay to corporations (what's good for the goose, etc),

Is that really a problem? Haven't heard too many egregious instances of individuals getting hit with massive judgements against them by corporations. The only ones that come to mind are the copyright infringement suits that allege zillions in damages. On the other side of the coin, however, you have individual executives who get sued by their former employers and shareholders (like the Computer Associates and Conseco guys). These suits against individuals can go into the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, and yet are completely reasonable....

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[bcboy]

It's a fairly classic example in game theory. You set up an auction such that the 2nd highest bid (i.e. the loser) pays. You can't bid more than you have.

Now, who wins? The person with the most money. He always has incentive to bid higher (his cost goes to zero when he does), and he can keep bidding the longest.

Contracts with "loser pays" clauses are basically million dollar gift funds for lawyers. There's always incentive to pay more because if you win, your costs are zero.

As a deterrent to frivolous suits it sounds reasonable, but it's not.

Re:Tort Reform Redux

[Alaska Jack]

I just have a simple question.

In Europe and Japan, has the result, in fact, been "carnage?"

- Alaska Jack

Re:Wow... point and click parallel parking... COOL

[RetroGeek]

positioned where the vehicle should wind up

And we all know that this is 100% repeatable, don't we...

Car Insurance

[donnyspi]

My collision and comprehensive coverage are friggin high enough. Keep this distrating technology away or face higher premiums.

Another Big Reason...

[diagnosis]

The article suggests it's not just that obvious punching bag, litigation, that causes these features not to appear in the U.S. The real reason may be that people don't actually *want* the ability to watch broadcast TV in their car:

"Safety and security are our winning features," said Terry Sullivan, vice president of communications for OnStar, the communications system owned by General Motors and available on 50 of its models as well as those of other manufacturers.

"While customers can hear their e-mail using OnStar's Virtual Advisor service, the number that do is minuscule, in the low thousands," Mr. Sullivan said. "More telling is that 80 percent of its 2.7 million customers buy the air-bag notification system, which sends a signal to a central office when a car's air bag is deployed, to dispatch emergency services.

-----------------
Rate free iPod offers: RateTheOffers.com

(Flat screens and Desktop PCs too)

Stop sueing everybody!

[SteroidMan]

Darn it, look at all the cool toys we could have if we would just take some personal responsibility for our actions.

Re:Stop sueing everybody!

[Anonymous Coward]

Darn it, look at all the cool toys we could have if we would just take some personal responsibility for our actions.

If you were to or kill or injure me or a member of my family playing with one of your toys, "taking personal responsibility for your actions" after the fact just isn't going to cut it.

I ride a motorcycle

[Anonymous Coward]

I ride a motorcycle and spend enough time watching out for idiots talking on their cell phone who wander over into my lane. The last thing I need is someone singing a Jessica Simpson song turning me into roadkill. You are driving an automobile and are putting other lives as risk. You should not be eating a big mac while talking on the phone while you are crusing down the highway at 75mph.

Re:Video would be nice

[AuMatar]

A system like that wouldn't be too bad. The problem is those that don't stop at over 3 miles an hour. The minute the driver can watch TV, you'll see a huge spike in accidents. We're better off without these features.

Instead of adding, why not remove shit ?

[phoxix]

Lets start with those damn ultra-bright lights. Holy cow are those super annoying. I'm not even driving but walking down the streets with those suckers turned on is enough blind me.

Sunny Dubey

Re:Instead of adding, why not remove shit ?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Xenon headlights are what he's talking about, and even properly adjusted they are a pain to have come around a corner at you with the brights on.

They're just TOO bright, and have become more of a "status" thing.. Much like wings, rims, and mufflers for ricers.

Paranoia

[fiannaFailMan]

Terrorism has also created a switch in what consumers deem to be necessary equipment as they drive. It is the ability to communicate, not to be entertained, that seems to matter most to Americans, some industry officials have concluded.

You know what? Please don't mod me troll, but do I wish USAians would get over this terror thing. Countries like the UK and Spain have had to put up with terrorism and the the threat of terrorism for decades, but they haven't developed a culture of fear, and it has not stopped them from getting on with their lives as normal. This 'but what would the terrorists think?' automatic reaction to just about everything is starting to get a bit old.

And another thing, I could have sworn that it was illegal in the UK to have a TV playing within view of the driver.

Re:Paranoia

[IncarnadineConor]

Do their leaders do everything in their power to reinforce the culture of fear?

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who uses USAians deserves to be modded as trolled. Do you also call the british the UKians? In case you don't know the A in USA stands for America. Thus the moniker American. If somebody wanted to refer to the entire continent it would be North American or South American. You don't get to decide what Americans should call themselves.

And the average person in the US really isn't obsessed with the terror thing. The media and politicians love to talk it up but we still go to work everyday, fly in airplanes, and visit large cities.

Re:Paranoia

[wdconinc]

Is American better than? The American continent has some 20 other countries in it! The OP was only talking about the US, so expanding to the whole continent would have been a distortion of the truth.

Re:Paranoia

[Le Marteau]

Countries like the UK and Spain have had to put up with terrorism and the the threat of terrorism for decades,

That should have clued you in. Americans have little experience in such things. Cut them a break, eh? Sure, lots of Americans are lacking in worldly wisdom, but you're exhibiting just that in your "oh how I do wish the silly little minds in America would grow up" attitude.

Re:Paranoia

[RandomCoil]

Countries like the UK and Spain have had to put up with terrorism and the the threat of terrorism for decades, but they haven't developed a culture of fear, and it has not stopped them from getting on with their lives as normal.

Speaking as a US citizen, I agree with you that it would be "nice" if American culture was less terror-driven, but I think it's a tad unrealistic to compare the terrorism in the UK and Spain (ignoring, perhaps, the recent train bombing in Spain) to the effects of Sept 11th. The US culture weathered the Oklahoma City bombing and the first WTC bombing in a reasonable fashion. Having four planes, the twin towers, a portion of the Pentagon, and a few other sundry buildings fall out of the sky and/or collapse is, and I'm going out on limb here, a rather more disturbing event than what Britain and Spain experienced over a few decades. I'm not saying that to lessen the experience of the other countries, but there's not a lot of historical precedent for how a people should react to terrorism of Sept 11th's magnitude.

Is it really surprising that Americans are still a tad bothered by the whole terrorism thing?

And yeah, there's just gotta be a law against drivers watching TV...

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

I will state my semi-informed opinion..

Living in the U.S. all my life, I've come to the opinion that the 'average dumb-ass American' (which I am, from time to time, though I like to think that I make a worthwhile effort not to be) is just like the citizen of the Roman empire (or U.S. regional bell telephone companies).. Fat, Happy, Dumb.

The typical U.S. citizen who grew up post WWII has never 'suffered', so they are arrogant, impatient, (brain washed by the "media"), etc. Say the word radiation, they get all jittery.. 'duck and cover!'

I would generalize that those who grew up in the 1930-1940, don't have this 'personality feature'.

Perhaps this country needs a kick in the ass to bring them out of the clouds, not crippling, but.. move them out of the center of the universe. Suffer a bit, it will give you perspective.

I remember in the weeks after 11-Sep, Pres. Bush had approval rating of 90%ish. For what.. what did he do, other than maybe give a nice speech on national TV? I'm not bashing Bush, but the dumb asses who rally around the president the same way little kids hide behind their parent's when someone new comes to visit for Sunday dinner.

"Remember the Maine!"

Re:Paranoia

[Misch]

"We will not let fear be used as a weapon" - George W. Bush.

Notice he said nothing about "political tool"

Re:Paranoia

[alexo]

We need a modern day analogy to Godwin's law concerning the mention of terrorism.

Re:Paranoia

[kraut]

Yes.

Re:Paranoia

[Idarubicin]

I think it's a tad unrealistic to compare the terrorism in the UK and Spain (ignoring, perhaps, the recent train bombing in Spain) to the effects of Sept 11th. The US culture weathered the Oklahoma City bombing and the first WTC bombing in a reasonable fashion. Having four planes, the twin towers, a portion of the Pentagon, and a few other sundry buildings fall out of the sky and/or collapse is, and I'm going out on limb here, a rather more disturbing event than what Britain and Spain experienced over a few decades.

There's some good statistics on the UK's conflict with the IRA here. In all, more than 3500 were killed by military and paramilitary groups between 1969 and 2001. The peak death toll was in 1972, with 479 killed--that's about three Oklahoma City bombings (168 deaths in that incident). In six consecutive years (1971 to 1976) there were more deaths due to terrorism than were killed in Oklahoma city; four additional years had terrorism-related death tolls above a hundred. Between 1969 and 2001 there were no years in which there were no IRA-related deaths in the UK.

Two members of Parliament and two British Ambassadors have been killed by the IRA, and in 1984 there was a bombing attempt directed at the Prime Minister and her cabinet.

There is evidence that the IRA received funding, weapons, and other support from Libya and from the PLO at times in its history.

That's three decades of terrorism, with hundreds of people killed in some of those years. Tens of thousands of people injured, above and beyond the thousands of deaths I've listed here. Targeted bombings of politicians and judges. Yeah, it's different from what the States experienced--but I wouldn't be so quick to say one or the other was 'less disturbing'.

How many terrorist attacks did the United States have in 2003? In 2004? The British had bombings--multiple bombings--each year, every year, for decades.

Gas

[StevenHenderson]

nifty automobile technology that isn't coming to the United States

Like fuel efficency, maybe? That *for sure* won't be coming to the US anytime soon!

Karaoke??

[YrWrstNtmr]

Gimme a break. This is a car, fer crissakes. Not a mobile party room. What's next? A stocked wetbar that pops out of the glove box?

How about we drive, and not kill so many of us doing it.

More annoying than being regulated out...

[ivan256]

I just want the damned navigation system for my car. It's available in Europe and even Canada, but GM has decided that they'd rather sell OnStar in the US because it has a recurring revenue model, and that navigation systems interfere with OnStar premium subscriptions, so they decided not to offer the feature in the US.

The one thing I *don't* want is anything that requires a monthly fee. I'm sure I could come up with some choice words about where they can stick their recurring revenue.

Lawsuits

[slars]

This strongest point I got from reading the article (Yes, I actually RTFA!) is that auto makers, and probably many other companies, are hesitant to introduce new stuff to the US market, whether we need it or not or if it's stupid or not, for fear of being sued.

Our country has turned into a lawsuit machine. It's become too easy for Bubba to sue S&W and Coors for shooting himself in the foot after downing a 12-er or Coors Light. Who knows - he'd probably win.

Lawsuit as the Jackpot

[dpilot]

Has the lawsuit taken on some of the roll of a lottery in the US? Winning a lawsuit becomes like winning the Jackpot.

In the old days, you worked hard, and you got ahead. IMHO, that's no longer true, for the most part. You usually can't get ahead without working hard, but 'merely' hard work is no longer sufficient. More and more, it also takes connections an luck - being in the right place at the right time with the right idea. Furthermore, simply knowing how to build the better mousetrap isn't enough either, you have to also know how to market that mousetrap, or at least license its IP.

All in all, I suspect the American Dream is getting farther and farther away, for most Americans. Is the increasing number of state-run lotteries because of legal relaxations, or is it because more people are giving up on earning their way up, and figure their odds are about as good gambling their way up? Consider lawsuits in that light...

Re:Lawsuit as the Jackpot

[cavemanf16]

I have no idea why this post got modded "Insightful." The most insight this poster displays is on his depth of knowledge of cliche ideas such as "In the old days, you worked hard, and you got ahead." or "...simply knowing how to build the better mousetrap isn't enough either..."

Give me a break!

Re:Lawsuit as the Jackpot

[normal_guy]

You could never work hard your entire life as a coal miner and expect to get ahead. Connections, personality, and motivation have always been the hallmarks of those able to move up a rung. Many people still invent things then sell the patent to a corporation. Lotteries have always been around. People want to spend a few bucks for a chance to win a few million. Laws have relaxed because they're huge revenue draws for the state.

This Office Space philosophy smacks of wage slave desperation. There has always been a working class - and the need to claw your way up the way everyone else has, by buying a nice suit and playing golf with the boss once in awhile. Lawsuit-lotteries or no, there will always be those looking for the easy way out.

another amazing thing that US cars cannot do

[Anonymous Coward]

drive more than 45 or 50 miles per gallon using standard internal combustion engine (and not these hybrid nonsense that don't do any better but cost a heck of a lot more); something my good ol' (and cheap) Nissan Micra (model not available in the US of course) could easily do back in late 80s... (and I was driving a lot faster, carrying as much cargo/people than I can with my appalingly inneficient chevy);

now if someone can tell me how I could get a Smart Fortwo over here in California (Smart brand will be available in the US market, but selling yet another gas guzzling SUV believe it or not); their marketting dept seems to have somehow missed the point; and no, I already called dealers in Canada and Mexico (where the Fortwo will be available) and they cannot sell them to US residents without loosing their dealership;

--

Re:Litigous == good?!

[Cade144]

Perhaps the engineers at Toyota believe that all Nipponese 3-year-olds are smarter than to run into where a car is parking, or perhaps that there will be a parent watching over a kid that is playing near the street.

I, for one, would prefer an autodrive system that could safely and reliably take some of the decision making out of the hands of the driver.
It would be great if I could just sit back and relax while my car took the most optimal route to work, avoiding crazy drivers, potholes and anyother dangers allong the way.

Yeah, and my car should fly too.
And be powered by "Mr. Fusion"

Ah well.

Re:Gee, I can't figure out why this is bad...

[southpolesammy]

Yeah, regardless of the safeguards they talk about (auto-shutoff after 3mph, etc), this is a bad idea, whether in Europe, AsiaPac, or America. Driving is a skill that requires dedicated attention and quick responses to visual stimuli. Providing a mechanism to divert that necessary attention is bad, even when stopped.

Even the heads-down navi systems that are in cars nowadays can lead to bad driving, and they're supposed to be driving aides -- providing web/email access while driving is a "Very Bad Idea".

legal liability prevents innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

Defending oneself in court takes time and money and prevents oneself from moving forward.

Being able to sue for any cause/action comes with higher costs to everyone.

Re:legal liability prevents innovation

[nigelc]

Taking responsiblity for your inventions is a bitch

and taking responsibility for your own actions is even more of a bitch.

Oh sorry, I guess that's un-American these days.

Re:legal liability prevents innovation

[alienw]

It prevents innovation, and it also prevents unsafe products from getting out there. I don't know about you, but I don't think people should be able to watch TV while driving. Also, I value my safety a lot more than some useless car gadget that encourages bad driving.

Re:Gets rid of those #&%! kids and their socce

[anon*127.0.0.1]

You mean once the cars started its parking process, it can't be stopped? It's like some crazed, out of control parking cyborg, and the poor driver is trapped and helpless until its completed its mission?

I kinda figured they'd design so that doing something like stepping on the brake would halt the process. You know, like they do with cruise control. That way the driver could sit in the car and keep an eye out for trouble, and not be distracted by trying to maneuver the vehicle into a tight space without hitting something. Driver watches for trouble, car parks itself, everyones safer.

Granted, some people will hit the "Park" button, then start making phone calls or putting on makeup or hell, get out of the car and head into the mall and leave the empty car to park itself. I chalk those problems up to stupid people, not a stupid design.

As for your 700 cc engines and 50 mph speed limit... come vistit me in Dallas sometime. We'll make a day trip to El Paso, and along the way you'll have plenty of time to tell me how much you you enjoy driving at 50 MPH.

Re:We still don't have a lot of 'em....

[jevfro]

I was amazed when I went to Japan two weeks ago, just how many cars had TVs/LCD navigation systems and the like. My Fiancée's parents owned a 10 year old Toyota sedan and it had a 6" TV (although reception came and went), power everything, including rear seat recliners w/ vibrating massagers, a separate cassette deck in the rear seats, with seperate AC heat CD controls, etc... All of this was original to when they bought the car in 1993. I'm not sure what other features it had but I can imagine they take all the electronics to a similar "next level". These things would probably not be a good idea for your average US driver. But as far as I could tell the Japanese drove amazingly well. You have to realize how much harder it is to drive in Japan in the first place (at least in the urban areas I visited) The hords of lil' cars, motorcycles, scooters, bicycles, busses, trains, and shool children and lil' ol ladys on thier way to the market, all fighting for position. Sure I saw a couple fender benders and one more serious accident, but the number of people using the streets has to be huge! I think driving is taken much more seriously in most other parts of the world. We feel it is our right to drive, and when we're 16 damn it! I think you should have to beable to pass some sort of erratic manuver simulation test before you get a licence. Just to see what the person does when they are facing the unexpected. Jevfro, out

Re:Er, thanks, but no thanks

[xenoandroid]

Part of the problem is that a lot of average American drivers seem to think that the world revolves around them. Seriously, they're like, "I'll drive at half the speed limit in the left line while yacking on the phone if I want to, oh shit I needed to make a right, who cares if I can just turn at the next turn and make my way to the right street from there, I'll just cut across everyone else!

It's the inconsiderateness combined with the distraction. If a call is too involving for me to drive at the right speed for I say, "Hold on." Find a parking lot or a good out of the way place to pull off to then pick the phone back up. It makes me and the other drivers on the road more comfortable. If I'm on a time constraint then it's, "Sorry I can't talk now I'm driving." If they won't get off the phone, "I'm driving and I hate having long conversations on the phone while driving, talk to you later." I also have distinctive rings for people who I would want to pick up the phone for even when driving. The average call is ignored until I get to my destination. I might make an exception to listen to the message to determine if it's important or not at the next red light.

The only near misses I've been involved in were due to those very people who have their cell phone as part of the entire driving experience.

TV with a video cut off is not anywhere near as bad as cell phones, when the video cuts off I'd imagine it's no worse than radio. I personally would love to at least have these features available in cars, the parking one seems very useful to me too. Ever have those spots that you know you can fit in but are small enough that you have to be extra careful about parking (usually because of some other idiot who is too far past or too far back from his/her meter. I fear for those other drivers myself who would 1) Do stupid things because the technology is there (such as get out of the car while it's parking) and 2) Blame the company for their own user stupidity.

Driving courses and tests need to become more rigorous to include more common sense than memorized knowledge.

"If you're having a conversation on the phone while driving that is getting really intense what would you do?" No multiple choice, just written answer, if they say, "Keep driving" they fail, one common sense answer wrong, they fail. No exceptions.

Here's my 2 cents

[Anita Coney]

The article didn't mention the fact that cars (and trucks) are a heck of a lot larger in the US versus Japan and Europe. Thus, automboile accidents here are much more serious.

Getting hit with a Fiat would be nothing compared to a Hemi equipped Dodge 2500 truck.

Re:One more reason to vote for bush?

[Holi]

How does any president reform a law? I mean he can ask some congressman or senator to try and repeal/enact a law but he certainly does not have the power to propose a law.

Re:Video would be nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Check your rear view mirror, you tv watching, erraticly swerving, lane changing, brake hitting mother fucker. Often times the worst drivers ARE NOT IN ACCIDENTS,
its those of us trying to get out of your way because you are too concerned with the tv, phone, kids, makeup to drive from point A to point B.

Re:Video would be nice

[Quixote]

Between 95 and 97 percent of all lawsuits filed end in settlement.

That's because the cost of lawyers is so high that it often makese sense to settle.

If you sue a company for $1000, it will cost the company more to just file a response in the court. The company might be better off just giving you the $1000 to go away (and never come back).

TVs for the driver?

[DrDebug]

Are they kidding? Here in America people think they can drive responsibly with a cell phone in their ear. Now they want to take our eyes off the road, too?

Yep, this is just BEGGING for a lawsuit.

Re:Gets rid of those #&%! kids and their socce

[MarkLR]

That seems like a bad design. In normal use of a car you press the brake to stop not take your foot off of it. Won't a person using them system and react by pressing down harder on the brake when they suddenly need to make an emergency stop (kid with soccer ball, etc)?

US bombs are OK

[Anonymous Coward]

The IRA was of course largely funded by Republican sympathizers in the USA who wanted British troops to get out of Dublin.

Re:US bombs are OK

[Anonymous Coward]

A very informative post. Informative about the level of ignorance in the USA.

I suppose next you're going to tell us that Al Quaeda is funded by Islam sympathizers who want US troops to get out of Tehran?

Re:Video would be nice

[Anonymous Coward]

You're either a lawyer or a used car salesman. You hold hot coffee between your legs, you may get burned. A reasonable precaution is to use a fucking cup holder.