KIA Bringing News & Social Media To Your Car

thecarchik writes "Earlier this week KIA made some major announcements about their future cars. They shed some light on the details of their new UVO system, which lets you answer and place phone calls, send and receive SMS text messages, and access music via voice commands. Moreover, their new widget-based system for the on-screen controls lets you include RSS news, financial information, and weather reports, along with Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn updates. If there is one thing we can take away from this and Ford's recent announcement about the MyFord Touch system, it is that we'll see some heated internet technology battles between car manufacturers." The NY Times pointed out a few days ago that many companies are already turning their attention to dashboard computing, much to the dismay of those who warn against distracted driving.

Comments

"LOLZ"

[technomom]

"I kan has kar rek"?

Re:"LOLZ"

[KGIII]

Here in Maine there's a new(ish) distracted driving law. They took an interesting approach and opted to not single out texting while diving or using hand-held vs. hands-free and instead of just outlawing a single technology they've opted to simply make distracted driving illegal.

So far I've not noticed any cases of the cops abusing it which is nice. The one case that made the news was someone who was texting while driving and crashed. It should be interesting to see the initial judgments and challenges as it goes through the courts and as decisions are made and judgments handed down but that's not the real point to my thinking...

I would have to wonder, question if you will, the potential legal issues in states which adopt laws such as the one here in Maine. There is a lot to do behind the wheel of a car. We all think we're above average drivers and we all (okay, so not all of us but I suspect it is the majority by far) seem to think that those laws are in place for other people. We are, of course, better than that.

We, as humans, might not be evolving fast enough for the technology and I suspect that laws will also adapt to reflect this. I guess I'm being rather verbose in saying that I agree with you entirely. I see this being interesting, a very good idea as far as the ability to access information goes but a very bad idea as far as safety goes.

I suppose that I should add that I'm actually all sorts of excited about the potential and I'd certainly like to play with something along those lines. What? Me? Heh... I'm above average - I won't crash into nuffin' at all... ;)

Re:"LOLZ"

[brianosaurus]

I see this being interesting, a very good idea as far as the ability to access information goes but a very bad idea as far as safety goes.

I agree with you that its a very bad idea regarding safety, but completely disagree about it being a very good idea as far as anything. Its a "neat" idea, and probably implemented in a fairly clever way, but adding new, irrelevant yet more-engaging distractions to the driver is just stupid. If you are driving, you should not be reading RSS feeds, whether on a cell phone, laptop, or the freaking dashboard. If you need to be accessing information while you are driving, get a passenger to read it to you. Or let someone else drive.

Hopefully these things are implemented in such a way that they don't function (or at least don't allow you to interact with them) while the car is moving. If not, then I think the manufacturers are being irresponsible and will probably get sued (hopefully before these systems cause too many fatal accident).

In Oregon we have a similar new law this year. It should have been a more comprehensive distracted driving law, but instead it just outlaws using a hand-held cell phone or texting while driving. Systems like these will allow people to circumvent that law, since they'll be looking at their dashboard instead of the outlawed device. Either way their eyes aren't on the road.

I always tell people, "the problem isn't that *you* can't handle talking on the phone and driving (even though you really can't). Its that all of the idiots around us can't handle it, and I don't want them running into me!"

Make them safer first

[yog]

I think an "infotainment" system for the car is fine for passengers, but if it tempts drivers to take their eyes off the road, it should be accompanied by a collision avoidance system that counteracts the increased distractability factor.

I think Volvo points the way with their low velocity laser/radar collision avoidance system (18 MPH). However I would like to see universal adoption of a high speed system that would at least make collisions more survivable, if not prevent them entirely.

With about 38,000 people dying on the road every year in the U.S. alone, it's unfathomable that our leaders (and the voters) pay so little attention to collision survivability. For a while back in the '70s, they were forcing car makers to increase the force absorption ability of bumpers every few years. It got up to 5 mph, but then in the '80s, with high fuel prices and a deep recession, the standards were relaxed down to 2.5 mph to encourage more profits.

The technology today is light years beyond what we had in the '70s. We could put RF chips in the major roads (buried, or on the railings, or whatever) to help cars stay in their lanes, we could mandate Volvo-style (and airplane-style) collision avoidance systems that would automatically swerve cars out of collision paths, and we could probably increase the shock absorption abilities of passenger vehicles. It costs money, to be sure, but we should ask ourselves, would we rather pay an extra $500 a year in taxes or an extra $100 a month in car payments and live, or be wealthier and dead (or paraplegic or quadraplegic or whiplashed)?

We went to war over 3000 deaths on 9/11, yet we consider the 3000 deaths per month on the road as a normal hazard of our transportation system. Let's take off the blinders and fix this problem already.

Re:Make them safer first

[webdog314]

While I agree that making cars safer would be nice, you don't do that by making the car think for you. Anti-lock brakes work because it doesn't matter what the situation is. Locked brakes are never good. But how does a collision avoidance system that "swerves cars out of collision paths" know what direction is the right one? Great, the car swerves you to the right and avoids hitting the truck that just slammed on it's brakes... and drives you right off the side of a cliff. No thanks. If you want to save lives, how about a campaign to DRIVE SLOWER, or increase the testing needed to actually get a license. Give bigger insurance rate cuts to people who haven't had an accident in multiple years, and actually enforce the laws regarding using a phone while driving. Save the high tech for your living room. When you're in your car, DRIVE.

And as bad as 3000 deaths a month sounds, the part of that sample you don't mention are the number of people who go from point A to point B each day unscathed. Looked at that way, cars seem downright safe compared to say, being shot at in Afghanistan.

Re:Make them safer first

[Dumnezeu]

And as bad as 3000 deaths a month sounds, the part of that sample you don't mention are the number of people who go from point A to point B each day unscathed.

That's a horrible fallacy. Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't make it "highly unlikely." Reason.

BTW, I've got some bad news for you: There is a 1 in 96 chance that you will die in a car accident in your lifetime. The odds seem pretty gruesome to me... Do the math yourself: Population = 300,000,000 people; Deaths/year = 40,000 people/year; Life expectancy = 78.2 years. If your family has four members, then there is a 1 in 24 chance that one of you will die in a car accident during their lifetime.

"Ah, but you don't consider the people that DON'T die" sounds nice, until one of your family members or maybe even YOU are one of them.

Re:Make them safer first

[Hurricane78]

I have a very simple and obvious solution for you:
A new “driving” runlevel, that gets enabled at, say, 5 mph, and can only be disabled by slowing down again. Sort of a reverse Speed bomb. ;)
In that runlevel, the functionality is limited in the same way, when you are inside the engine of a racing game, as opposed to the menu (including the pause menu).

Building on top of that basic concept:

Everything that is displayed, is displayed on the front window, an a specific area with a maximum horizontal and vertical degree (FOV). And every still available control, is limited to special buttons on the steering wheel. Not some generic cursor cross. A special button for every function, or the function does not get integrated. Period. No double or tripe function assignment. No hold, double-tap or shit like that. If this means there would be too many buttons, well tough shit, cause then you have to reduce the functionality! Or make it better. (Recommended is a maximum of one button per finger.)

A nice solution would be, to be able to freely choose the displayed elements and button assignments when you stand. Like the 4096 out of 16.7 million color mapping. A 12 out of 240 action mapping, and a similar display mapping. (Which must automatically enforce free sight by disallowing displayables to be placed in obstructing locations.)

There, is that so hard?
This was 5 minutes of medium thinking.
Imagine I’d have a month of hard thinking! :)

Re:Make them safer first

[barzok]

Fatality rates are dropping annually. I'd say we're already making good progress on making crashes more survivable. Adding more "avoidance" systems only ignores the true problem - people are being encouraged to stop paying attention to driving.

Fix the drivers, not the technology.

Re:Make them safer first

[Corwyn_123]

To consider that the laws are for our own personal safety at our own hands is a very single minded concept.

It's not a matter of your own safety at your own hands that's the issue, the issue is the safety of everyone else around you. Passengers in your car do opt to rely on you for their safety. Other drivers on the road, and pedestrians do not opt to rely on you for their safety.

It's all of our responsibility to watch the road and be mindful of everyone else. That's what the laws are designed for, not you, but the others you can harm but your negligence.

It is the responsibility of the lawmakers, for right or wrong, to keep everyone else safe, due to the lack of people's ability or desire to consider those around them.
--

"The way I see it... If you need both of your hands for whatever it is you're doing, then your brain should probably be in on it too" - Ellen DeGeneres

Why do you all-cap Kia?

[Nimey]

You're not talking about someone killed-in-action (cue obvious jokes about distracted driving). Kia's not an acronym.

Are you one of those tossers who think it's necessary to all-cap "Mac" when you speak of Macintosh computers?

Extra points to Soulskill for non-editing.

Dismay of those warning against distractions?

[sznupi]

How about dismay of those who don't want gimmicks? Those who want primarily...a car. With resources going into its reliability, low fuel consumption and safety?

Yes, "one doesn't exclude the other". But effort described in TFS as at best misplaced in case of cars. There is no place for doing anything else for driver than paying attention on the road, perhaps with some background music or telephone via hands-free and voice control - and that's almost covered, not by car manufacturers. If passengers want something more - it doesn't have to built into the car.

KIA IS an acronym!

[Anonymous Coward]

KIA IS an acronym, it stands for Korean Internet Automobile. The new KIA cee'd was named to cee'd make it easier for people to text and tweet while driving, its original name is "Killed In Action after exceeding the speed limit and posting a tweet about it".

Ridiculous

[tsa]

It's been shown in several studies that car kits are not much less unsafe than using a moblie phone while driving. Introducing even more communication equipment in cars will only lead to more deaths. And do you really need to follow Twitter while you drive? I think it would be a good idea to forbid cars with this kind of equipment on board, or make the equipment stop working while the car is driving.

What Charlton Heston would say

[tomhudson]

many companies are already turning their attention to dashboard computing, much to the dismay of those who warn against distracted driving.

"You can have my driver dashboard computing when you pry it from my cold dead haCRASH!!!"

A lot of places have rules about displays not being visible from the drivers' position.

Then there's the legal liability to the manufacturers when a pedestrian gets killed. *THEY* never agreed to any EULA.

And insurance companies, who will now raise premiums (it's what they do, you know).

I think I'll take the bus instead.

Why?

[HalAtWork]

Is the car a second home now? Maybe this stuff belongs in a camper, or a van (for long trips), but do drivers need to be that distracted? If you think there's a chance you'll be in a long traffic jam and get bored, sure, turn on the radio or use your cell phone and make a call, but there's no need to set up your car like an office or a living room.

Re:Why?

[apoc.famine]

That doesn't make any god damn sense at all.
 
If you're spending an hour a day in your car, you need to spend that DRIVING, not fucking around on the internet.
 
If you're traveling at highway speeds, you're a menace to society if you're distracted. If you're stuck in stop-and-go traffic, you're just going to make the gridlock worse if you miss either the gos or the stops.
 
I don't understand how people can fuck around while driving a car. When I drive, the radio is low, my phone doesn't get answered, I'm not eating, putting on makeup, texting, shaving, or doing any sort of stupid shit. I think that's part of the reason I haven't ever had an accident or a ticket.

I don't know about the rest of ye but..

[ickleberry]

I'd rather have an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Atom with the bare minimum of gadgets and gimmicks than some driverless luxobarge with built-in twitter support.

Modern cars isolate the driver from the road far too much. Soundproofing and power everything makes it easy to forget you are doing 100mph in a large lump of metal.

There is if course also the issue of Twitter and Facebook being long dead (hopefully) before the car reaches half it's expected lifetime.

Of course i have nothing really against driverless cars and people who have no interest in driving a car shouldn't have to, as long as I can still get on the same roads with a completely manual car

Re:I don't know about the rest of ye but..

[Myopic]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Modern cars have expected lifetimes of way way more than five years -- more like thirty years. Are you sure you didn't flip your facts? Cars from the 70s and 80s didn't last nearly so long as modern cars, which have all sorts of special materials which break down far slower than older cars.

It's true that old 'classic' cars were easier to fix, because they were less subtle and complicated, and all of the parts were human-scale instead of microchip-scale. That is indeed a benefit to backyard mechanics, but everyone else benefits from the superior workmanship, materials, and safety systems of modern cars and trucks. In fact one part of the problem faced by auto manufacturers are that they last so long that a person need not buy a new car so often.

I also call shenanigans on your claim to know people who used up six cars in thirty years. The only way that could be possible is if you are referring to six *used* cars, which of course negates the statistic.

More distractions = More deaths

[pariahdecss]

I have been hit by a car as a pedestrian by a distracted motorist that was admittedly texting while driving - thankfully I was not killed. We are going to allow even more temptation to multitask behind the wheel? These things should be backseat only or banned completely. We crack down hard on DUI/DWI but this trend has the potential to be just as onerous.

Too much head-down time

[Animats]

A touch-screen in a car, at least for the driver, is a terrible idea. It can't be operated by feel; the driver has to look away from the road, and probably for more than a second. Not good. Twittering while driving? Please. "Fully Loaded", a Bruce McCall drawing, isn't a design goal.

Auto designers, desperately trying to get margins up with "more car per car" (an old GM slogan) are hanging on unneeded features that are cheap to install. Overpriced car stereos aren't enough any more. Giant hood ornaments are out (there's a "pedestrian impalement" test cars have to pass, in response to a period in the 1950s when auto hoods were weaponized). So now we have dashboard gimmicks.

In aviation, this is called the "head-down time" problem, and efforts are made to minimize head-down time. The military takes this to an extreme in fighters, with the HOTAS ("Hands On Throttle and Stick") concept. This leads to a proliferation of buttons on the throttle and stick, though. Aviation people think hard about how many seconds of head-down time it takes to do something.

If you want to cause accidents, put in a touch screen that's stateful, so the driver has to look. Then give it a timeout, so it goes back to the ground state if the driver doesn't give it undivided attention. This forces the driver to look away from the road. One of the examples in the original article looks very like that.