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.

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

[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.

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.

Car Insurance

[donnyspi]

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

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.

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

[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

[Misch]

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

Notice he said nothing about "political tool"

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.

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

[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.

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: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.

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: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.