Renault Opens Up the 'Car As a Platform'

pbahra writes "Renault has launched what it describes as a 'tablet,' an integrated Android device built into its next range of cars, effectively opening the way to the car-as-a-platform. At the Le Web conference last year, Renault's chief executive, Carlos Ghosn, announced the company's intention to open up the car to developers, safety considerations not withstanding. 'The car is becoming a new platform,' said Mr. Hoffstetter. He said the seven-inch device can be controlled by voice recognition or by buttons on the steering wheel. 'We need help now,' he said. 'We need developers to work on apps.' When it launches, there will be about 50 apps bundled with the device, mostly written by Renault. 'We will open a Renault app store for people to download their own apps,' he said." While I like the idea of such apps for certain purposes — a maintenance interface, less-inconvenient navigation and stereo controls, interesting driving stats — I'm skeptical of the average driver's ability to use one of these without turning his car into a 3,000-lb angry bird.

Comments

Or, translated in plain english

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

The automotive market is ultra-saturated, fewer people buy cars because of the crisis these days, so we'll come up with any useless concept to sell them.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[masternerdguy]

And you get car malware.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[Anonymous Coward]

Already had one of those, I've owned a Ford.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[Larryish]

New show on "SyFy" network:

Hack My Ride

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me we've taken technology far enough that a motivated customer could put together a design/welding/machining/mechanical crew and build a beautiful, competent automobile for less than the cost of many new cars from big makers. Sure, it would lack the R&D of a factory ride, and you'd probably want to limit the top end, but most of what goes into a car is pretty standard stuff.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[the eric conspiracy]

Your car drives you to a remote location, locks your doors and refuses to relinquish control until you buy $1000 worth of generic viagra.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[msauve]

"And you get car malware."

Could be worse. Could be Microsoft/Ford Sync.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[Anonymous Coward]

My general rule of thumb is that mass produced consumer products are priced at the cost to produce a one-off/reverse engineered copy if your time & labor is not accounted for.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[BasilBrush]

That's very lacking in imagination. Having computers with UIs in cars is well established. Whilst they provide some useful features there are plenty of useful things third party app developers could supply.

e.g. Apps to direct you to car parks with space. And in future to an actual parking space. Or an app that accesses data in fuel prices and how much fuel you have in your tank to intelligently recommend where to refuel.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[Anonymous Coward]

The malware is that you're driving a Renault.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[eXFeLoN]

Funny thing is, I've driven my Ford 272226 miles as of today with very minor repair work done. Maybe in your case, to use a computer analogy, it's user error?

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[gzipped_tar]

If people can't afford cars because of the crisis, they necessarily can't afford cars with those "useless concepts".

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[Anonymous Coward]

You son of a bitch.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[Capt. Skinny]

That's more or less the vision of this company's owner. I heard him speak at PopTech a couple of years ago, and he has some very interesting goals. Unfortunately, they seem to be limited at the moment to helping you build that ugly-ass rally car on their home page.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[DigiShaman]

True story. I hope my ex gf isn't reading this.

When I was younger, my then girlfriend wanted us to take a late night weekend trip to a porno rental shack. The kind branding an XXX on a small road sign. The entire concept freaked me out. So did the store clerk. I really wanted to go incognito, but she didn't have time for that. Now I know what your thinking. A girl wants to shop for a porno flick by the guy objected, WTF??? Ya I know, but she was a freak and often not in a good way. Anyways, when we walked out to get my car I noticed the keys locked inside it. I called a wrecker to open the door. This 17 yr old rookie on the job instead busted my window from applying too much force. Now we have a bunch of people standing around the parking lot and people slowing down on the street as they pass by. Eventually, the police shows up because my ex starts bitching (never mind it was her damn idea and my car).

I really wish I had OnStar that day.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[Shadowruni]

Cool story bro!

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[jo_ham]

Not every car company is like the US ones. Renault is doing just fine. This is just the logical extension of selling your car with an iPod/USB interface.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[Anonymous Coward]

Your car drives you to a remote location, locks your doors and refuses to relinquish control until you buy $1000 worth of generic viagra.

Naw, not Renault, that would have to be a BMW (which are on record somewhere for locking owners inside).

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when has not being able to afford something influenced the the decision to actually buy that thing? Maybe in Europe or Asia, but it's certainly not the case here in the US. Hell, the meltdown wouldn't have happened if a sizable portion of the population hadn't bought homes they couldn't afford.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[kimvette]

This isn't useless.

If the platform can read OBD, CAN, and other automotive buses, it is possible to write the equivalent of a Tech-II app, design your own gauges, your own trip efficiency calculators (and "most efficient" driving route), and possibly even design your own tuning profile (timing, fuel curve, boost pressure, etc.) or install a tuning profile from your preferred tuner, as well as enable vehicle options (e.g., if you change your head unit, add a disc changer (does anyone still bother with those?), add fog lights, etc.) and program driver profiles. There is a lot this can do for you.

The down side is: if everything (HVAC/defroster, radio tuning presets and volume control, etc) is done through the touch screen, I could see an increase in avoidable collisions occurring. They should never replace physical controls but merely augment them.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[Anonymous Coward]

True story. I hope my ex gf isn't reading this.

NOW she is! ^^

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[Gordonjcp]

What's particularly a pain in the arse about BMW is that from at least the E30/E34/E32 family onwards the central locking actuators have a mechanical locking mechanism that prevents the lock rod being pulled out against the motor - that is, when the central locking is on the locks can't even be released from the inside, or with the key.

Now, imagine you need to recover a nice new 3-series with an electrical fault. There's no power, so the central locking doesn't work. You can't unlock it with the key (the newest models don't even have external locks). Even if you take out a window you can't get the doors open. You can't even release the locks without removing the door card, but you can't do that because the door is still closed and you haven't got room to get at it. You can't get at the wiring to the actuators (and in any case the newest cars use CANBus to talk to them so you're out of luck until you get the electrics back up. You can't get at the body ECU without the passenger door open, without sitting in a weird upside down yoga pose on the passenger seat, legs wrapped around the headrest and head under the dashboard (and if you can do that for any length of time I'd like to meet your sister).

At this point, just sawing the car in half, fixing the locks, and welding it back together starts to look like a viable option.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[Anonymus]

A huge part of that lack of R&D you're talking about is "not cutting passengers in half during a 10mph fender bender" and the simulations and crash tests to prove that won't happen under any circumstances.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[Anonymous Coward]

The down side is: if everything [..] is done through the touch screen, I could see an increase in avoidable collisions occurring. They should never replace physical controls but merely augment them.

From TFA (sorry i read it):

He said the seven-inch device can be controlled by voice recognition or by buttons on the steering wheel.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[sociocapitalist]

I was charged some stupid amount of money for the GPS integrated into my car. I have never bought updated map disks for it because they cost 350 euros.

The apps that you're suggesting are great ideas but they can be as easily done on a non-integrated device that can be replaced or updated without paying ridiculous amounts to the car dealer or manufacturer.

I'd rather have a spot on the dash made to clamp in a tablet frankly, but this won't make money for the manufacturer so I don't expect to actually see it.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[sociocapitalist]

Excellent ideas (that are already being implemented to a degree, see below) but again I'd rather see it on a 3rd party device not something integrated that's under the control of the manufacturer with all the no doubt extremely inflated costs that would come along with it.

http://www.devtoaster.com/products/rev/
http://www.amazon.com/goPoint-Technology-OBD-II-Accessory-iPhone/dp/B00336S7KS/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1323603011&sr=8-2

People learn gun safety. There's nothing stopping them from learning car gadget safety. Failing that I guess they're removing themselves from the gene pool.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[fsckmnky]

You should check out what it costs for the hydraulic press required to form body panels. In a situation where you are forming them by hand, I say, art is not dead, but good luck forming them cheaper than a machine can.

I know when we see the video clips of cars being assembled, it looks easy, but when you look at an actual car, it is a remarkable piece of human engineering, and a small group of hackers aren't going to be able to produce one nearly as cheaply when you factor in time. Even if you bought as many pre-manufactured aftermarket parts as possible, it would still cost 3+ times more than the sticker price.

Overhauling the TV show makes it look easy via the magic of the editing process.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[cvtan]

My BMW did lock me inside (1984 E23 7-series), but it was easy to get out and easy to fix the central locking module. You are thinking of Toyotas where the doors would lock and then blow a fuse that also ran the power windows. Only way to get out was to break the glass. There was a recall I believe.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[cvtan]

I think you are talking about the double locking mechanism that in many cases is never used. There is a trick to unlocking the door with the key involving lifting up the door handle while turning the key. Dead cars can be powered up by energizing the system through the license plate light. Locked cars can still have the hood opened with a long screwdriver stuck through the grill in the right spot.
My MINI has the interesting feature that the rear hatch is opened electrically and the battery is located under the trunk floor. If the battery is dead, you can't open the back to access it without pulling the emergency hatch release handle under the rear seat.
My wife's Prius also has the battery in the rear under an electrically unlatched hatch. There you have to crawl on your stomach through the rear cargo area to unlatch the rear. Great fun, but I don't understand the need for an electrical hatch release mechanism.
The BMW Z1 had doors that would not open unless the side window retracted so the door could sink down into the sills. A dead battery means the doors don't open. There is a story that some high-up BMW executive got stuck in his car when the battery failed. Auto engineers clearly think that car batteries always work. They don't.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[Anonymous Coward]

She was a freak and often not in a good way.

Yeah, right. I bet you were really up for her suggestion of anal sex until she came back wearing the strap-on...

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[breakfastpirate]

I just bought a 2012 Fusion, and I've got to say, I've actually been really impressed with the Sync. If you actually read through the manual once or twice to learn the commands and what it can/can't do, it's incredibly useful while driving.

And it has the added benefit that since it uses your own phone's connection (through a bluetooth phone call) to gather it's traffic/directions/whatever, you don't need to have OnStar-like overlords constantly getting updates on where your car is. It sends it's GPS location, once, when you ask for directions or traffic. That's it.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[mikael]

There's an article in the EE Times, about how car owners are no longer bothering to buy custom navigation hardware but are instead relying on applications written for the iPhone.

The advantages are that it is easier to update an IPhone application, you can take it with you and use it for street navigation as well as prevent theft. Having any electronic gadget bolted to the dashboard is just inviting someone to break in and try and steal it.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[Anonymous Coward]

or, to use another computer analogy, perhaps he's a power user and you are more the Facebook F5er type. Just sayin'.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[smi.james.th]

If Renault was to live up to its historical reputation, the electronics would stop working pretty soon anyway, so you'd have not much to worry about.

They've been doing pretty well lately though, I've been impressed with their newer cars.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[AmiMoJo]

Japanese sat-navs have that kind of thing. They use the mobile phone network to pull down live data on things like road works and parking availability. The Japanese love collecting data about everything so when the technology arrived to make use of it they just needed to collate it.

Unfortunately no-one seems to do that in the UK. Clearly some of the information is available because it gets displayed on road signs (e.g. number of free spaces in car parks) but stuff like detailed traffic data on city roads just doesn't exist. I have been thinking on-and-off about finding a way for people to collect the data themselves and make it freely available online, like they already do with weather stations. It would need some kind of device that could be placed in a window facing a road and measure traffic flow, with an internet connection to report it. It would have to be cheap and entirely passive (no sensors in the road).

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[Anonymous Coward]

Certainly there is a level of risk with anything custom made, I guess the question one would ask one's self is whether the risk of being cut in half in a 10 mph crash is tolerable. Frankly, if that kind of thing bothers you, then odds are pretty good you're going to go to a Volvo dealer instead of making something unique, when it comes time to buy a new set of wheels.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[AmiMoJo]

and possibly even design your own tuning profile (timing, fuel curve, boost pressure, etc.) or install a tuning profile from your preferred tuner,

The manufacturer will never allow that because people overclocking their cars would lead to more warranty claims on stuff they themselves broke. Sure, the control computer could probably log the changes but it would still mean a (possibly legal) argument with the owner. In fact they already do things to make modifying the engine performance harder, not least so they can sell the ability to do it to "selected partners" (i.e. people who pay them lots of money and report the VIN of every car they modify and insure against any damage).

They should never replace physical controls but merely augment them.

Most sat-navs by default prevent the user operating them while the car is moving. I imagine that an Android based head unit would so pretty much the same thing, except for some basic radio/CD player controls.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[Anonymous Coward]

Coincidentally, this just came up today:
http://www.carbodydesign.com/2011/12/ferrari-tailor-made-program/
Although it is pitched at the thin air of the market, it would appear Ferrari thinks increased levels of personalization are necessary for its business to thrive.
3X the price? Well, if you wanted a car that performed nearly as well, sure. But if your expectation is to govern it to, say, 100 mph and rarely exceed the speed limit + 10% (virtually all driving, I'd speculate), I have to disagree.
Look at a company like Kirkham Motors - fully hand built aluminum Cobras for $100k, and nothing holding back an enthusiastic driver. Companies like Dynacorn is cranking out 67-69 Mustang/Camaro unit bodies. There are all kinds of options once a customer starts looking at a 6-figure price point.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[garyebickford]

They should never replace physical controls but merely augment them.

An interesting question - what is a physical control? AFAIK the gas pedals in almost all modern cars is merely a computer interface, asking the car's computer to make the car go faster. So it's a physical control in one sense, but a computer control in another. And of course in every recent car I've driven the dashboard instruments (speedometer, tach, etc.) are all computer output - you can watch them go through the start-up calibration sequence. I haven't kept up but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the same is true of the various knobs and buttons on the dashboard.

As sensor and display technologies march on, I suspect it will get harder to determine whether a given dashboard item is a physical device or some form of touch-screen technology. The actual squishy dashboard material itself could be the display.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[garyebickford]

I believe that at present, installing a performance chip in the car's engine control voids the warranty. So, the issue is already in play. the interesting question would be, what if I root the environmental control so I can use my own music streaming service? Should that void the engine warranty? I think not, if for no other reason than the proposition that it should not be possible to mess up the engine by modifying the dashboard system, for security and federal emissions mandate reasons. Anything accessible by the driver should be in a sandbox.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[fsckmnky]

and $100k is about ... 3 times the price ;)

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[mrchaotica]

installing a performance chip in the car's engine control voids the warranty

One thing I wish more people understood is that (under US law) no action ever "automatically" voids the warranty. For the warranty to be voided, the manufacturer has to prove that the action actually caused the failure. For example, they can't void your warranty just because you had a chip if the reason the engine blew was that the timing belt failed prematurely (or something unrelated like that).

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[binarylarry]

Ford's infotainment system uses Microsoft technology (hilariously so does GM).

And guess what? They both fucking suck at infotainment stuff.

Bring on the android powered cars so I can install cyanogenmod on them, fuck yeah!

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[binarylarry]

Most GM cars let you use bluetooth audio as well as OnStar.

But Ford doesn't have a competing service for OnStar (you know, send me an ambulance I have pieces of glass in my face, find my car it's been stolen, etc.)

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[Richard Dick Head]

Ford makes a solid V8, no doubt about it. At 12 mi/gal, at an average of $3.50/ gal, that is spent $79399.25 on gas. Even at a modest goal of 24 mpg, you could have bought at least one very nice car on the savings. Not saying you'd want anything else, its just there is always a trade-off there. Big engines last longer, but burn more fuel.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[garyebickford]

I think that most warranty clauses have exclusions for actions of that type. IANAL so I don't know how those survive in court though.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[Phoghat]

PEBKAC

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[tehcyder]

Wouldn't it have been easier if you'd just, you know, had sex instead and not bothered going out?

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[tehcyder]

At this point, just sawing the car in half, fixing the locks, and welding it back together starts to look like a viable option.

When you've got a powerful saw and welding equipment as tools, every problem starts to look like one you need a powerful saw and welding equipment for.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[the eric conspiracy]

1989 Camry LE ECU failure - relay contacts would weld shut damaging the door solenoids. There were no cases where all 4 solenoids failed and the windows were still functional.

There was a recall in 1992 for this.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that the function of the little gauge on the dashboard? It gets close to empty, and you get to the nearest station to fill up. You do not really need to wait for the last drop before filling up.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[Politburo]

The Prius has a jump terminal under the hood.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, spot on. More consumerist crap to enslave us to the bank manager. All any of us need is a roof over our heads, comfortable clothing, 3 meals a day, a book to read, some meaningful work to do and a bicycle to get about. Anything else is profligate waste. Anything else is going to kill us and kill the last ever possible civilisation.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[kimvette]

See: Moss Magnuson act

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[garyebickford]

thx. From this quote in the Wikipedia article:

The federal minimum standards for full warranties are waived if the warrantor can show that the problem associated with a warranted consumer product was caused by damage while in the possession of the consumer, or by unreasonable use, including a failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance.

'Chipping' the car would seem to fit into the "damage while in the possession... or by unreasonable use" exception for the reason that installing an aftermarket or home-programmed chip could potentially, for example, cause the fuel/air ratio to become too lean and result in burning the valves of the engine. But I would suppose that a maker of an aftermarket chip intended for consumer street use would at least try to interact with the engine maker to avoid that.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[kimvette]

The mod would have to be the direct cause of failure in order to void the warranty. They can't just void it as soon as they find out there are mods to the car, otherwise very warranty would be voided for using aftermarket filters, light bulbs, and so on. This act exists to protect the consumer against such nonsense.

Re:Or, translated in plain english

[garyebickford]

Ah, I get it. That makes sense. that would be where the argumentXXXXXXnegotiation would start. :)

Angry (Thunder)bird

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to agree with the poster ....... the more gadgets you put in a car, the more accidents you get.

One example, people driving off cliffs and into lakes .... because the GPS told them too.

Re:Angry (Thunder)bird

[Belial6]

Blaming people driving off cliffs and into lakes on GPS devices is a little like blaming car accidents on the consumption of bread the prior day. Yes there is a correlation, but that doesn't make it the cause. Barring mechanical failure, or a road hazard, anyone that would drive into a lake or off cliffs is already driving their car in a manner that is completely unsafe, and an accident is inevitable anyway. Blaming the GPS for those kinds of accidents is like driving massively stoned and then blaming the the billboard for you smashing into the car in front of you because "The sign was soooo trippy...."

Re:Angry (Thunder)bird

[BitZtream]

People already have cell phones in their cars, its about as bad as its going to get already.

They already HAVE angry birds in their car.

Thats not to say we don't need to address the fact that people fuck around on their phones constantly in the car, but its not going to get any worse because it already comes with one.

I can see no problems coming from this

[bryan1945]

Basically what the last line of TFS said, but not from an accidental misuse, but because of someone who thinks he's "an awesome programmer/hacker" and somehow mixes his coolant fluid with the oil. (Yeah, yeah, not possible, hyperbole allowance).

Re:I can see no problems coming from this

[BasilBrush]

Another case where a walled-garden approach to apps is best. Let someone other than the developers and the drivers decide what is reasonably safe and what isn't.

Re:I can see no problems coming from this

[Belial6]

No, it isn't. There is no excuse for this system to have write access to anything that is a safety or basic car functionality feature. The ability of the system to create any unsafe situation beyond distraction (which is going to be there whether this system is involved or not) would indicate that the system was designed incorrectly from the start. Using safety as an excuse to force a walled garden would be nothing more than a con.

Re:I can see no problems coming from this

[BasilBrush]

I'm sure everyone agrees that it shouldn't have write access to any safety critical component.

But you can't just shrug distraction off. Such a device is designed to be facing the driver. So it shouldn't for example allow recorded video or games whilst the car is in motion. And there's no technical means of preventing that without also crippling the system for other types of apps. It needs human intelligence to interpret safety rules on what is allowed and what isn't.

The developer can't be allowed to decide. There are far too many that would compromise safety for profit.

The driver can't be allowed to decide because there are far too many idiot drivers who would ignore safety in order to relieve the boredom of driving.

A walled-garden is the solution.

Re:I can see no problems coming from this

[gl4ss]

you know what sucks more? having to deal with that onboard computer a decade later when the car is still driven by someone on the roads.

Re:I can see no problems coming from this

[garyebickford]

mixes his coolant fluid with the oil.

Someone who did this was on Car Talk asking for advice on what to do just within the last couple of months.:)

Re:I can see no problems coming from this

[Belial6]

So, we can't have developers doing exactly what they are doing now and what it is physically impossible to stop them from doing? $3 of velcro will convert your android tablet into an in-car Android entertainment system. Having the unit permanently mounted isn't going to change it's safety. If you want to avoid having angry birds play, then just get Google (or have the device manufacturer because they can) enhance Androids "Car Mode" to filter out the launching of applications that do not have a "use while driving" flag. I highly doubt that the writers of Angry Birds is going to go out of their way to make sure someone can play the game while driving.

Re:I can see no problems coming from this

[BasilBrush]

The fact that people can use a smartphone for anything they like whilst driving does not provide a reason for not limiting dedicated automotive products to those things that are safe. Can you not see the ramifications for Renault if it released a driver targeted device that plays games? Moral and legal? If not you;re not living in the real world.

If you want to avoid having angry birds play, then just get Google (or have the device manufacturer because they can) enhance Androids "Car Mode" to filter out the launching of applications that do not have a "use while driving" flag. I highly doubt that the writers of Angry Birds is going to go out of their way to make sure someone can play the game while driving.

The writers of Angry Birds might not. Some developer from Russia, Hungry or South Korea probably will. The developer community as a whole can't be trusted to only release responsible software. They just want to make a profit. It requires someone else to moderate their excesses. And given that its got Renault's name on it, they are the obvious ones to do that job.

What you're doing here is trying to fit the world around how Android works, rather than the other way around.

Re:I can see no problems coming from this

[bryan1945]

Holy crap! I tried to come up with the stupidest thing possible, and someone has already done it. I must have to much faith in people. And I'm not a car guy!

Re:I can see no problems coming from this

[garyebickford]

Somebody once said, "The problem with trying to make things foolproof is that the universe keeps coming up with bigger fools". :D

And, as the wiser ones of us eventually find, "Quite often the fool is me". Nowadays I am resigned to the fact that I _will_ soon do something really dumb. My only hope is that it doesn't end up on YouTube.

OTOH, imagine how many people have been entertained by all those YouTube clips - like this one: How to test an air bag.

Phone interface

[Wonko the Sane]

I don't really want a lot of intelligence built into my car. Instead of having a screen built into the dashboard I'd rather have a standard way of docking my phone so that I could use its built-in navigation and audio functions.

Re:Phone interface

[ColdWetDog]

I don't really want a lot of intelligence built into my car. Instead of having a screen built into the dashboard I'd rather have a standard way of docking my phone so that I could use its built-in navigation and audio functions.

And that might be just what you're getting:

The device does not replace existing instrumentation, but rather provides additional services to both the driver and passengers. The device will have access to the vehicles telemetry information and will have mobile connectivity, allowing a number of mobile services to be delivered he said.

OTOH, Did you ever think it was possible that you could answer 'yes' to the question 'Does that car run Linux?'.

Re:Phone interface

[Penguinshit]

Mercedes already has this.

Re:Phone interface

[BasilBrush]

Why on earth would you not want intelligence built in? You scared of Skynet or something?

A purpose built sat-nav device (from Garmin say) is far superior to the sat-nav built in to Android. The same will apply to other aspects. Better to have a specialist computer for automotive needs and a separate smartphone.

Re:Phone interface

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather have a car that does everything for me including driving me from place to place. I'd live longer, and get to enjoy the trips instead of getting stressed out over the traffic on a daily basis.

Of course, I don't have control issues like a lot of people do.

Re:Phone interface

[r_jensen11]

OTOH, Did you ever think it was possible that you could answer 'yes' to the question 'Does that car run Linux?'.

That was one of the goals with meego

Re:Phone interface

[0123456]

I'd rather have a car that does everything for me including driving me from place to place. I'd live longer, and get to enjoy the trips instead of getting stressed out over the traffic on a daily basis.

Sounds like you want a pony.

Re:Phone interface

[Anonymous Coward]

I definitely want to be able to use google maps as a navigation system (free map updates) but most importantly... sync up with my contacts list in gmail so that I have the addresses for most places already entered.

Re:Phone interface

[drinkypoo]

For under three hundred dollars (as little as $120 or so for a crap can) you can get a head unit with bluetooth including phone support. I get in the car and my $20 crapfone is detected by my $120 crappy jvc and if I get a phone call I press one button on the head unit and I get to yak it up.

Re:Phone interface

[BitZtream]

Yea, I answered yes to that question several years ago.

Well, okay, mine ran FreeBSD, but close enough. That was 2002, 2003?

Right this instant my car runs WindowsXP for the digital dash, and my boat has a dual core atom in it that'll likely be running Windows or maybe Linux depending on how obnoxious it is to get my java UI working on it before spring. Both get complete telemetry data from the engine control units via ODB-II (the boat outboard technically doesn't' use ODB-II specifically, but its one of the related interface protocols used by Mercury/Cummings Deisel, and the addition of some sensors I made using Arduinos for a few analog inputs that arent' available or available fast enough via ODB-II (RPM data from ODB-II comes too slow to make the digital tach smooth without a bunch of faking it in code)

My boat already is happy to take input from my phone, I believe that particular system is a combination of Windows CE for the head unit and Linux for the intelligence on the back end.

To put it bluntly, none of this is new, and many many people have had Linux in their cars for years. I wouldn't want it running my ECU, but its fine for UI related stuff.

I certainly wasn't the first.

Re:Phone interface

[BitZtream]

I don't know about your android device, but my iPhone runs the TomTom software. Its going to be hard for a dedicated GPS device to be better than my phone which has higher quality hardware across the board than the dedicated devices AND to top it off, it runs the same software.

Well, that is unless you want to pay $600 or $700 for a nav system.

Re:Phone interface

[Wonko the Sane]

Let's use Microsoft Sync as an example. I bought a new car with it in 2009 and while it works relatively well there are a few problems.

The hardware is built into the car and thus it never gets updated unless I buy a new car.

Software updates are infrequent and a PITA to accomplish

It came with a 1 year free trial of some crappy voice navigation feature that I never ended up using because the Google Navigation app on my phone is superior

I'm already paying for a data connection as part of my phone bill so any apps on my phone.

The peripheral hardware in the car will always be superior to the hardware in a mobile device: there's the audio system, conveniently-located buttons on the steering wheel, large screen in the dashboard, etc. In the hardware department the only place a phone might win is in the CPU department. On the other hand the phone will generally have superior software due to faster update cycles and the fact that it gets used a lot more than the software in cars thus tends to be more integrated. So build a standard dock for phones that exports all that hardware functionality as USB devices. Then we can install an app on the phone that controls it and we can have the best of both worlds.

Re:Phone interface

[The Askylist]

Yes, but Renault can adapt the "shake that ass" advert to "shake that app"...

Re:Phone interface

[BasilBrush]

Without a doubt you're better off than an Android user. The built in Android navigation is shit.

But still, your iPhone with Tom Tom isn't as good as a dedicated sat-nav.

A dedicated sat-nav is going to have higher spec GPS components: chip and antenna. It's typically going to lock on to satellites quicker and be more accurate.

My Garmin Nuvi has a bigger, brighter, non-reflective screen which is much better than an iPhone screen for this purpose. Additionally it auto-adjusts brightness and colour palette depending on light levels. Cost in dollars is $100-$150.

Finally, I have all of Europe on my Garmin. To get the TomTom on iPhone with all of Europe costs $119. So it's not necessarily even saving money to use the app rather then the dedicated device.

Re:Phone interface

[BasilBrush]

It came with a 1 year free trial of some crappy voice navigation feature that I never ended up using because the Google Navigation app on my phone is superior

Wow, it must have been bad, because Google Navigation is shit.

Re:Phone interface

[garyebickford]

Now there is even a cruising-sailboat-specific linux distribution: Navigatrix.

Note - I have no relation, never tried it. I did download it last year but never got round to messing with it. But they guy behind it seems to have the right approach. Right now my boat is at least a year, maybe two, from being to the point where I need to think about it, but I do plan to run a 'glass cockpit' based on linux. Since I will be single handling most of the time, my goal is to be able to control most functions from anywhere on the boat, including via WiFi.

Navigatrix is a complete operating system for your computer. It is put together by people on boats for people on boats.

Navigatrix is a compilation of electronic tools for navigation, communication, information and security that you can use offshore, on shore, or at anchor. It is simple and lightweight and based on the latest Debian/Ubuntu has to offer.

Navigatrix is the fastest, most efficient, and versatile Linux distribution for cruisers and navigators available. Installed on the hard drive it works on most any personal computer built in the last 12 years.

Navigatrix is nearly indestructible running on a 4 gigabyte, or larger, USB stick or SD card. It allows access to your hard drive data if you choose, and even works if your hard drive doesn't.

Navigatrix can also be installed on your hard drive for increased speed and versatility.

Download Navigatrix, install your charts, and test it out. You may find it is exactly what you've been seeking. Navigatrix is free to use and copy. If you have been charged, or you charge, more than a nominal copying fee it's not right.

Re:Phone interface

[garyebickford]

It came with a 1 year free trial of some crappy voice navigation feature that I never ended up using because the Google Navigation app on my phone is superior

Wow, it must have been bad, because Google Navigation is shit.

I dunno. I have a two or three year old garmin Nuvi 1490 (I finally coughed the $85 to get unlimited updates, which I think is now bundled), and the UI sucks (lost in the 1990s), the mapping is poor to fair, and the routing in Google Maps on my laptop is much better.

Re:Phone interface

[BasilBrush]

the routing in Google Maps on my laptop

We're not talking about Google maps, we're talking about Google Navigation - that's their Android satnav.

I have a two or three year old garmin Nuvi 1490 (I finally coughed the $85 to get unlimited updates, which I think is now bundled), and the UI sucks (lost in the 1990s)

I also have a Nuvi. And the UI is not flashy, but it's clear. And you're exaggeraing with "90s". It's more Win XP look than Win 95. But the point is it's navigation is 10 times better than Google Navigation. I'm talking about Google Navigation having poor routing around town - inefficient routes. But also being inaccurate about positioning, often placing your car on a different road from the one you are on, and being inconsistent about where you are on a road when it does get the road right. Which means it's often not clear whether the turn it's indicating is the one further down the road, or the one you are right next to. And the design of the UI itself is awful. Garmin Nuvi is way better.

Re:Phone interface

[PaladinAlpha]

We're not talking about Google maps, we're talking about Google Navigation - that's their Android satnav.

And it uses Google Maps for all of its data and routing. The poor location response is 100% due to the cheap low-power GPS hardware in most smartphones. I've never had any problem with my Infuse.

Re:Phone interface

[garyebickford]

gaack. If it's worse than the Nuvi, it must be really worthless. I'm _this_ close to donating it to Goodwill and buying a TomTom or something. I would love to see the Google Maps interface on a car or handheld GPS. And my Nuvi is relatively poor at realizing which road it is on, in complicated areas. I have determined that its positioning is only accurate to within about 100 feet, and it just fakes the rest. This is mostly with regard to the lateral position, not the distance which it has travelled down the road. But the infinite regression of button menus is a total loser in this day of multitouch. Everything takes too many touches, and navigating up and down the menu system. Things that should be right there on the main travel screen or one button away are three clicks down in the settings menu. If you touch the screen to see the north-up view, it doesn't continue to update the map so your little car finally wanders off the screen. (I used to use north-up all the time, but in this funky Massachusetts maze they laughingly call a 'road system' sometimes you have to have the 3D perspective to get any kind of idea of how to navigate some of the abortions they call intersections.) And why can't I adjust the route, like Google Maps? [/rant]

Re:Phone interface

[BasilBrush]

Yes, it's the same data. And whilst Google Maps is good for it's aerial and satellite photos and it's street views, the road data is terrible. There are discontinuities where one trip in the google streetmapping cars didn't quite meet up with another trip in a joining road. And there are busses only streets that are not marked as such. etc.

I don't doubt that the poor location accuracy is due to inferior GPS in smartphones, but my experience of it is on a Samsung Galaxy S II. That's not one of the cheap Androids.

You're better off having a dedicated satnav.

Re:Phone interface

[BasilBrush]

I don't recognise my Garmin Nuvi at all from your description. For example the only mode where the current position doesn't stay central is the off-road/pedestrian mode, and that uses a blue dot, not a car icon.

I wonder if maybe you have an old version. I have a Nuvi 1390, bought about 18 months ago.

Either that or there's some option we've got set differently. Sorry can't investigate now, I haven't got it with me.

The one that do recognise is the missing feature of alternate routes at the route planning stage. Though I either have it set to most economical or quickest routes, and that is what I actually want, so I'll almost always plan to take the route suggested. It's during the trip that I might decide to overrule the route, based on my opinion of traffic or because I fancy a more scenic route. So I just take my turn off the recommended route at the time and let it recalculate the route then. So I can't say that I've ever missed the opportunity to choose from alternatives at route planning time.

Re:Phone interface

[PaladinAlpha]

I agree that a dedicated GPS unit is far and away superior, but my navigation needs aren't terribly complex... trips within twenty miles of town, mostly, with one ~300mi trip and one ~1900mi trip. Google Maps is much better in the United States vs. elsewhere, as well; that may be a factor in our differing experience using it.

To read the forums, all of the Samsung phones have crappy GPS *grin* I do look at mine askance sometimes, but again, it's never seriously let me down. The big sell to me is it's 100% free after having a data-capable smartphone.

Here's an app for mechanics

[Anonymous Coward]

I call it StuxRenault. Guaranteed business booster.

Hiring?

[Anonymous Coward]

"We need developers to work on apps" So they will be hiring, just like other those other platform based technologies companies.

At last I can play driving games whilst driving.

[Anonymous Coward]

I see no problem playing Asphalt 6 Adrenaline on this whilst driving to work. Or even better, Reckless Getaway. Just hope I don't get the tablet controls and the steering wheel mixed up!

Old News

[Penguinshit]

Mercedes has been doing this for years. First they did it with the iPod integration where the iPod was fully integrated into the COMAND unit and controlled by steering wheel buttons/paddles with the display routed to the cockpit display. Next was the iPhone integrated into the smartcar and now the smartphone integration with full app support.

Obsolesence

[Anonymous Coward]

The real problem is that the hardware will be hilariously outdated in 18-24 months, whereas the car has a much longer expected lifespan.

Re:Obsolesence

[Baloroth]

Only a "problem" depending on whose perspective you are looking at.

Re:Obsolesence

[BasilBrush]

Compare and contrast with Voyager 1. Made 35 years ago, and the technology is so reliable it's still sending data back home from outside of the solar system.

For cars I can imagine something similar to car audio. You get something up-to date with a new car, and you put up with the fact that it ages. Eventually someone purchases it as a used car and decides the audio isn't good enough, and fits an updated one.

Between those two points, the actual music (the apps) change with the times, even if the hardware doesn't.

Re:Obsolesence

[cvtan]

I don't want my car to turn into a computer. There are a dozen computers in my house and when I was working, there were computers in every room I walked into. Computer hardware turns into junk in a few years and the most valuable part ends up being the power cord; I don't need my car to be junked because the hardware is no longer supported or the software has fatal security "issues".

Re:Obsolesence

[Belial6]

Too late. Your car already has a computer.

Re:Obsolesence

[ceoyoyo]

Quite possibly more computers than your house.

Re:Obsolesence

[Luckyo]

I assume you drive a car that is at least 25 years old then.

And if you are driving a relatively modern one, like one bought in last 5 years, you can be sure that everything from power steering to ignition is either fully controlled, or at least monitored by a computer.

Re:Obsolesence

[Belial6]

My house? Not a chance. I doubt more than most houses. People just like to redefine 'computer' once it becomes common enough and unobtrusive enough.

Re:Obsolesence

[evilviper]

The real problem is that the hardware will be hilariously outdated in 18-24 months, whereas the car has a much longer expected lifespan.

Manufacturers have been churning-out ~1GHz ARMv7 Android v2.x smartphones for 24 months now, and there's no sign of that changing for the next few months here... The first change will likely be the OS to 4.0, then maybe dual-core CPUs, but otherwise, things aren't changing very much.

The part that gets me is SD cards... We've been stuck at 32GB max for years and years, and there's no sign of anything else on the horizon. You can pay a couple grand for your smartphone or tablet if you want, and you'll still be limited to 32GB of space per-card, just like all the low-end ($100) Android devices. No way to turn those cheap Android phones running Winamp into a super-awesome solid-state device that one-up's an iPod.

Re:Obsolesence

[msauve]

Only for some definitions of "computer." I don't consider anything with a CPU a computer, and most of the automotive devices you're alluding to, I would call "controllers," not "computers."

My car has many controllers, but not a single computer, which I believe implies a device which is more general purpose and readily programmed than any in my car.

OTOH, by some definitions, the classic vacuum/centrifugal advance distributor would be a (analog) computer.

Re:Obsolesence

[mccalli]

For cars I can imagine something similar to car audio. You get something up-to date with a new car, and you put up with the fact that it ages. Eventually someone purchases it as a used car and decides the audio isn't good enough, and fits an updated one.

Completely agreed, which is why I think form factor and interface need to be standardised rather than operating system. I can fit another stereo because I reliably know the original is a single or double DIN device, so my replacement will fit and can be powered/connected. What about the tablets?

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Obsolesence

[drinkypoo]

The part that gets me is SD cards... We've been stuck at 32GB max for years and years, and there's no sign of anything else on the horizon.

Who told you that? You can buy larger-capacity SDXC cards already, and at a fairly reasonably price-per-gigabyte. Of course, smartphones want uSDHC cards, so you still can't slot them.

Re:Obsolesence

[sociocapitalist]

Compare and contrast with Voyager 1. Made 35 years ago, and the technology is so reliable it's still sending data back home from outside of the solar system.

For cars I can imagine something similar to car audio. You get something up-to date with a new car, and you put up with the fact that it ages. Eventually someone purchases it as a used car and decides the audio isn't good enough, and fits an updated one.

Between those two points, the actual music (the apps) change with the times, even if the hardware doesn't.

Except that many modern cars use bus based systems integrating all of their built in gadgets together so, in my Volvo for example, I can't replace the head unit of the stereo with anything other than another Volvo provided head unit that was available in my model of car in the year it was made in because it's part of the car's 'brain'.

There is no real need to do this, it's just a way to lock the consumer into buying replacement parts from the manufacturer.

Re:Obsolesence

[Luckyo]

Then you are inventing words. Computer is a word with a defined meaning, not a fictional term to which you can assign new meaning at will.

Re:Obsolesence

[msauve]

OK, then. Here's the defined meaning:

an electronic device designed to accept data, perform prescribed mathematical and logical operations at high speed, and display the results of these operations.

Since neither of the examples you gave (power steering and ignition) have output displays, by definition you're still wrong - they're not run by computers.

Re:Obsolesence

[Luckyo]

A computer is a programmable machine designed to sequentially and automatically carry out a sequence of arithmetic or logical operations.

Hence "compute-er", a machine that computes.

Re:Obsolesence

[gl4ss]

if a car has more than 3 "computers" then an usual laptop has 30 computers.. because then the network chip is a computer, the audio chip is a computer and so forth..

Re:Obsolesence

[Luckyo]

Except that laptop's chips are designed from get go to work in tandem, and communicate with each other to work as one whole. Car's computers are separated from each other, and generally control one system or even one aspect of the system independently from others.

I not generally disagree with your assessment, I just feel that this correction is necessary.

Re:Obsolesence

[msauve]

Then you are inventing words. Computer is a word with a defined meaning, not a fictional term to which you can assign new meaning at will.

Re:Obsolesence

[garyebickford]

There is no real need to do this, it's just a way to lock the consumer into buying replacement parts from the manufacturer.

I think another reason is that the standard DIN design greatly restricted the interior designers' options. It was undoubtedly frustrating for the designers to have this rectangular blob forced into the middle of all their nice designs. I haven't looked underneath any recent cars, but I hope & expect that they actually have a DIN-shaped radio underneath, nicely plugged in to their fancy dashboard 'skin'. Since most car audio systems above the bottom price range have had removable front panels for a long time, this makes pretty good sense - the audio folks don't have to build custom hardware, and the car designers don't have to pay for custom hardware, just the designer UI.

For that matter, there's no particular reason the audio even has to be built into the dashboard any more, although it is a nice, climate controlled environment.

Re:Obsolesence

[ceoyoyo]

Most cars have multiple microprocessors/microcontrollers. This article from Motorola (http://www.mcjournal.com/articles/arc105/arc105.htm) puts the number around 100 for luxury cars around 2002. Your home is also full of processors, but maybe not that many, particularly if you define a "computer" as a general purpose computing device that executes software instructions. Your remote, for example, may or may not have a computer in it. The less fancy ones will probably rely on an IR encoder chip that doesn't use software.

Re:Obsolesence

[Belial6]

I'll let you pick what you will define as a computer, but whatever choice you make, it applies both to the car and the house. Whichever you choose, my house, and many other's houses will have more computers in the house than in their car.

Re:Obsolesence

[ceoyoyo]

I will stipulate that you at least are an exception. Happy?

Re:Obsolesence

[Belial6]

Yes, I am happy, but that has nothing to do with this conversation.

The fact is that houses with more computers than cars are common. Very possibly in the majority. You are just counting the ones in cars, and not the ones in the house. Your example of remote controls are a good one. Just do a Google search on "JP1 Remotes". You are going to be surprised that cheap universal remotes are generally programmable.

Re:Obsolesence

[Luckyo]

Correct, that has been what I was saying the entire time. Now, introducing: dictionary. Work specifically aimed to clarify exact meanings of words.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/computer
"one that computes; specifically : a programmable usually electronic device that can store, retrieve, and process data".

Sounds like a downgrade

[evilviper]

While I'm a big Android supporter, having Android in your car sounds (mostly) like a downgrade. The in-car systems now are VASTLY more reliable than and smartphone/tablet I've come across, and running very reliable real-time OSes like QNX. Unlike phones, they have to meet the regulatory requirements of all other new car parts... being fully functional for 10 years, and working on the last day of the 10th year exactly like they did on day 1. It's a very different model.

The desire to have better in-car navigation systems is completely understandable, but car companies are well aware of this need as well, and will soon be addressing these concerns without throwing away their entire systems. (No, I can't provide any details)

The fragmentation of smartphone platforms is much more significant of an issue than in-car systems. Apps need to be cheap or free to entice end users. But when it's bundled with your vehicle, even a couple hundred bucks for an app is lost in the noise of the car's sticker price. With that kind of money available, in-car systems can be as fragmented as the manufacturers want, and they'll still attract developers because the smaller market and specialized skills are more than made up for by the larger sale price.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[Anonymous Coward]

Not àll car parts last for 10 years.. though manufacturers have to make and carry X amount of extra parts to replace any bads ones over a set time.

Theres even been electronic systems that have had pretty bad bugs that needed firmware updates within a couple of years of release (for example the 07-10 CRV needed a reflash to fix a bug in the transmission software)

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[ArhcAngel]

And QNX (Now owned by RIM) has been in the embedded car market for years so it is already integrated with all the drive systems. They have even opened up the platform. In fact for everyone espousing RIM's death because of their missteps with the BlackBerry platform should take a look at all the places QNX is entrenched.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[Belial6]

Citation please. I don't think I have seen a single car that didn't have SOME part fail within the first 10 years. The entertainment system failing in in some way in less time than that is down right common.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[BitZtream]

I have a 2000 Saturn and a 97 Mitsubishi that haven't had any servicing other than the consumables in their life times and everything still works just fine. Well, unless you count the headliner sagging down in the Mitsubishi has a failure. Its actually rather common for cars to last far longer if maintained properly and not abused ridiculously. Hell, I put 70k miles on the mitsubishi in the first year I owned itl

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[Belial6]

Of course the headliner sagging is a failure. The OP claimed that ALL parts of a car must function the same 10 years in as the do the day the car is sold. That is absurd. I am well aware that most cars can easily run for 10 years without major malfunctions. Very few if any make it 10 years without minor malfunctions.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[Luckyo]

My father still drives his 1997 opel vectra. That car has gone through serious punishment, including several Eastern European countries, and he drives around 1000 km on it every week during last two years or so. He's also a very cautious driver, the car has been maintained constantly, and is yet to have a single failure of any significant kind beyond things like motors on door locks freezing occasionally and some entertainment system button lighting going out about a year ago because he can be bothered to pay mechanic to remove entire front panel to replace the lamps.

It hasn't had any engine problems so far, but it did need a pre-emptive replacement of small two drive train parts. As guy maintaining the car pointed out, if my father bought the car a couple of years earlier he probably wouldn't have to replace those, but apparently they now make some components out of plastic in hope that they fail in about 10 years of use and people buy a new car instead replacing the parts.

In a nutshell: barring manufacturing defects, most modern cars will last you well over a decade and around 400.000km without any significant failures provided you treat them well and maintain them appropriately.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[evilviper]

The OP claimed that ALL parts of a car must function the same 10 years in as the do the day the car is sold.

Except he didn't...

The law basically boils down to the OEM must provide EXACT replacement parts for at least 10 years. They can't provide the newer, version 2.0 in-car computer system. They can't insist that you upgrade to version 3.1.9 of the maps and navigator app when it stops working in a few years. They are locked in to being able to repair anything that breaks, back to working EXACTLY like it did on day one, for 10 years... completely unthinkable in computer / tablet markets.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[tinkerton]

I don't think I have seen a single car that didn't have SOME part fail within the first 10 years. My car needed a tiny bulb replaced in the dashboard during that time. Does that count?I have to say the safety belts don't roll up very well anymore.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[stephanruby]

The desire to have better in-car navigation systems is completely understandable, but car companies are well aware of this need as well, and will soon be addressing these concerns without throwing away their entire systems. (No, I can't provide any details)

That's not the real problem.

I was going to tell you what the problem was, but then you beat me to the punch with your next paragraph.

The fragmentation of smartphone platforms is much more significant of an issue than in-car systems. Apps need to be cheap or free to entice end users. But when it's bundled with your vehicle, even a couple hundred bucks for an app is lost in the noise of the car's sticker price. With that kind of money available, in-car systems can be as fragmented as the manufacturers want, and they'll still attract developers because the smaller market and specialized skills are more than made up for by the larger sale price.

This attitude that a "couple of hundred bucks for an app is lost in the noise of the car's sticker price" is the very reason that you've already lost my trust as a consumer.

Do you really want to engender a feeling of disgust every time one of your customers browses your app store? You may make money in the short run, but consumers will learn to stay away from your car brand just like they've learned to stay away from J2ME feature phones, or learned to stay away from your $300 map updates.

Eventually at least one car maker will rise up to the challenge, and make a real car app store that doesn't try rip off its customers, and make car accessories using open standards that don't just try to replace people's smart-phones/devices, but enhance their uses instead, and ultimately that car maker will be the one that everybody will be flocking to (including the developers). Will that be a Japanese manufacturer again? May be, it's sad to say, but unless Google steps in, and does some of its magic, I don't expect much leadership coming from any of the big car manufacturers here in the US.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[stephanruby]

The desire to have better in-car navigation systems is completely understandable, but car companies are well aware of this need as well, and will soon be addressing these concerns without throwing away their entire systems. (No, I can't provide any details)

That's not the real problem.

I was going to tell you what the problem was, but then you beat me to the punch with your next paragraph.

The fragmentation of smartphone platforms is much more significant of an issue than in-car systems. Apps need to be cheap or free to entice end users. But when it's bundled with your vehicle, even a couple hundred bucks for an app is lost in the noise of the car's sticker price. With that kind of money available, in-car systems can be as fragmented as the manufacturers want, and they'll still attract developers because the smaller market and specialized skills are more than made up for by the larger sale price.

This attitude that a "couple of hundred bucks for an app is lost in the noise of the car's sticker price" is the very reason that you've already lost my trust as a consumer.

Do you really want to engender a feeling of disgust every time one of your customers browses your app store? You may make money in the short run, but consumers will learn to stay away from your car brand just like they've learned to stay away from J2ME feature phones, or learned to stay away from your $300 map updates.

Eventually at least one car maker will rise up to the challenge, and make a real car app store that doesn't try rip off its customers, and make car accessories using open standards that don't just try to replace people's smart-phones/devices, but enhance their uses instead, and ultimately that car maker will be the one that everybody will be flocking to (including the developers). Will that be a Japanese manufacturer again? May be, it's sad to say, but unless Google steps in, and does some of its magic, I don't expect much leadership coming from any of the big car manufacturers here in the US.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[stephanruby]

He asked for a citation, not your personal anecdotes.

In any case, I doubt that, as the grandparent is implying, that your entertainment system is using the same software as your car's in-board computer though. It would be crazy to use the same kind of hardware and the same kind of tests for both. One is critical to your safety and your life. And the other is just important to your entertainment. Those two types of functions are simply not the same.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[drinkypoo]

It wouldn't make sense from a cost standpoint anyway. You can buy both systems off-the-shelf, unless you're Ford in which case you will unnecessarily have custom silicon made. But for example Nissans and Subarus have engine management by Hitachi, the ECMs are virtually identical and they just give the same features different names. They're actually able to purchase the entire engine management system including the full ignition system from Hitachi. Well, I don't know if post-Renault Nissans are still like this, but they'd have been fools to change, because that stuff has always been a dream to work with.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[Belial6]

Yes. He did.

they have to meet the regulatory requirements of all other new car parts... being fully functional for 10 years, and working on the last day of the 10th year exactly like they did on day 1.

And, no they don't have to be exactly the same after 10 years. They have to be functionally the same. I have had several cars that the factory replacement parts were not exact replacements. Just look at any part recall. They don't replace the faulty part with another faulty part.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[Belial6]

The OP evilviper that the lights on your father's entertainment system cannot go out in less than ten years. This thread is about entertainment systems, and evilviper is claiming they can't use Android because car Entertainment systems have to work exactly the same after 10 years as the day you bought them.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[Belial6]

evilviper says yes. I say that if that tiny bulb burns out, the manufacturer can replace the bulb with a functionally equivalent light bulb.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[evilviper]

Do you really want to engender a feeling of disgust every time one of your customers browses your app store?

In-car systems don't have app stores. There's no way you're going to know the real price of any of the applications included, any more than you'll know how much the in-car computer system itself costs.

Will that be a Japanese manufacturer again? May be, it's sad to say, but unless Google steps in, and does some of its magic, I don't expect much leadership coming from any of the big car manufacturers here in the US.

Japanese car companies are just as big and entrenched as US car companies. I don't know why you think they've got some magic abilities that US-based car companies do. And it must be a small world you live in, because US/Japan most certainly aren't the only countries with big car manufacturers. In fact Volkswagen (Germany) is on-course to become the largest car manufacturer in the world.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[evilviper]

Yes. He did.

Your inability to read or ignorance of the subject doesn't change what was said. Others obviously understood the statement just fine.

And, no they don't have to be exactly the same after 10 years. They have to be functionally the same.

You're just splitting hairs. Put "functionally" before every "exact" and the point remains the same.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[Belial6]

Amazing how even with a quote stating exactly what you claim wasn't said, you still claim otherwise. As for the splitting of hairs... no. You were claiming that Android systems couldn't be used because the equipment had to be identical. You were very clear that you were saying functionally equivalent wasn't good enough. You even followed up to make sure the it was clear that functionally equivalent wasn't good enough, and capitalized the word EXACT to do it.

The law basically boils down to the OEM must provide EXACT replacement parts for at least 10 years.

Hint: Your old comments don't disappear when you make a new one.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. It's not Renault bur TomTom who have built this. They've built linux dists for years already.

Bur the sticker price argument doesnt hold. TomTom is massicely undercutting the competition based on their volumes, which allows Renault to throw it in as a freebie.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[AK Marc]

Unlike phones, they have to meet the regulatory requirements of all other new car parts... being fully functional for 10 years, and working on the last day of the 10th year exactly like they did on day 1. It's a very different model.

They must provide replacement parts for 10 years. That's one reason why GM never "sold" and EV1, and instead took them back at the end of the least and destroyed them. But there's nothing that requires they be the same part. You can "update" an alternator and replace a bad original with a "new model" that shares zero design or parts with the original. Same with radios. If you require a replacement radio, they can "upgrade" you at your own expense.

This is a regulatory issue pushed for by the Big 3 because the startup costs of doing so would help exclude foreign makers. In practice, aside from punishing smaller car makers, it has no practical effect. There's sufficient demand for GM alternators that GM would make them even if not required, and if they didn't, someone else would. You'd never see a 10 year old radio stocked somewhere to meet regulatory requirements, but you do see the newer radios made in a form that would fit in the old ones so they can make one and put it in new or old cars.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[AK Marc]

You're just splitting hairs. Put "functionally" before every "exact" and the point remains the same.

The point being, you are implying that there need be some effort to emulate the original. There isn't any such requirement. Instead, they must provide parts to obtain the same function. If they replace the shocks with air-only, from an air/oil shock, that's sufficient. If they "update" the Android core every year and do not make any of the previous ones available, that will meet the requirements. But he's stating that your statement implied that if you sold it new with 2.3 on it, "repairing" it with an Android version 12.3 unit would be illegal. That's simply untrue.

You said " They can't provide the newer, version 2.0 in-car computer system. " and that's simply untrue. If they wanted to change the material the suspension was made from so that the '84 car came with steel and in '85 they switched to aluminum (of the same dimensions), there is no requirement they make suspension 1.0 available and can substitute the "superior" 2.0 at the buyer's cost if the buyer walked in 9 years later asking for that part.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[AK Marc]

Japanese companies were 50 years ahead of US companies in trying to remain flexible while large and successful. US companies that reach maturity are passed off to the MBAs to be run into the ground, as per owner demands for quarterly gains at the expense of long term results. Japanese companies have processes in place to increase the flexibility of old companies so they are more capable of reacting to the market, rather than just buying congressmen and hoping laws and such will save them.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[Luckyo]

Entertainment system works perfectly fine. Just the background lighting (which is also responsible for things like lighting the AC controls" lamp is out.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[Belial6]

Point still stands. evilvipers claim that every single part must function the same after 10 years as the day the car is bought is simply incorrect.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[evilviper]

Amazing how even with a quote stating exactly what you claim wasn't said, you still claim otherwise.

My statement is fine, your interpretation is just completely wrong, and that won't change no matter how hard you try to take it out of context. Did you notice you are the only one here going around ranting about it? Everyone else got it...

You were claiming that Android systems couldn't be used be used

I absolutely, positively NEVER said anything of the sort, and I don't see how you could possibly have read that into anything I said. Did you notice the subject line in every single comment in this thread?

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[evilviper]

Japanese companies were 50 years ahead of US companies in trying to remain flexible while large and successful.

Japanese manufacturers have a different style. They have different pros/cons than US manufacturer. Neither is head or behind the other, they are different, not directly comparable.

Toyota had a major blow with the tsunami hobbling their production capacity. GM in a similar situation wouldn't have been notably affected, because they aren't nearly as centralized as Toyota.

The terms in which you even talk about the subject are fluff and far too vague to even have a rational discussion about.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[AK Marc]

You are the one that asserted "Japanese car companies are just as big and entrenched as US car companies." I provided a counter point. You agreed with the point, yet declared I was still wrong. I'm ok with that. You are incapable of having a rational discussion about this.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[Belial6]

You notice that no one is backing you up either? That is because no one cares about this exchange. There is something seriously wrong with you if you think that no one else pointing out your incorrect statements makes your correct. Of course the fact that you can neither remember, nor read your own posts, it is already clear.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[evilviper]

Your assertion is not a counter point, it's vague marketing fluff. I'm sure GM would be happy to tell you how their command structure makes them superior as well. It's vague, fact-free dogma, if not all out propaganda, with no relationship to rality.

I have no idea how my very direct refutation of everything you said, you somehow read as my agreeing with you.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[evilviper]

Hey! What happened to the second part? The part where you show me where I was "claiming that Android systems couldn't be used be used"? I was looking forward to seeing your quotes on that one.

You do have an interesting talent of finding all kinds of off-the-wall meanings, which nobody else sees, in what other people write.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[AK Marc]

I have no idea how my very direct refutation of everything you said, you somehow read as my agreeing with you.

"Japanese manufacturers have a different style. They have different pros/cons than US manufacturer." It sounded like you agreed that for the same size company, the Japanese are more nimble in management, but more centralized. That's 100% agreement with me, and not stating anything that in any contradicts my argument. You've never "refuted" a single thing I've said (other than disagreeing with me saying you didn't disagree with me).

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[evilviper]

In your strange world, "different" turns into "better" in your head?

And my example of Toyota being inferior to GM was also somehow in support of your claim? So "nimble" means poorly organized, unstable and vulnerable to you?

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[AK Marc]

And my example of Toyota being inferior to GM was also somehow in support of your claim?

You said they are essentially equal "Neither is head or behind the other,", but that GM is better for being more decentralized. Now, if they are equal, that means that the Japanese do *something* better than the US. Name it. Otherwise, your comment was essentially "nuh uh" wrapped in lies to make it seem less like a confused 3 year old who doesn't like it when people insult companies in his country.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[stephanruby]

Are we asking about who is going to be the biggest? Or are we asking about which is going to be the most flexible and responsive? Take the Toyota Prius for instance, why couldn't any American or German manufacturer come up with that? It seems now, everybody is doing it, but they're just following the lead of Toyota.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[stephanruby]

In fact Volkswagen (Germany) is on-course to become the largest car manufacturer in the world.

Yes, this gives us an idea of which company you're working with (and/or which country you're from).

That's what happens when your ego is invested in some entity, you start answering questions that no one even asked, nor even cares about.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[stephanruby]

In-car systems don't have app stores.

Not yet anyway.

There's no way you're going to know the real price of any of the applications included, any more than you'll know how much the in-car computer system itself costs.

You mean to say you're going to sell everything as just one package deal, with no app store. I find that hard to believe. And what about five years down the road, when the parent driving the car wants to buy an app for her kid to keep the kid occupied? Not even then?

And what about map updates? Will you still be charging $300 for them? I kind of doubt that too. These days, the consumer is just getting too used to the free up-to-date maps and the free turn-by-turn navigation provided by Google.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[evilviper]

I find you comment is endlessly amusing.

Re:Sounds like a downgrade

[evilviper]

You mean to say you're going to sell everything as just one package deal, with no app store. I find that hard to believe.

So I take it you don't and have never owned a car? That's exactly the status quo, so what you think is "hard to believe" is what everyone else calls "reality".

These days, the consumer is just getting too used to the free up-to-date maps and the free turn-by-turn navigation provided by Google.

Google Navigation isn't free. That's why you don't have it on your iPhone. It's a loss-leader, to get people to use the Google App Store, which you DID pay to get access to (hidden in the cost of your phone/tablet).

Cars are no different. You buy a car and you get navigation software that's just as "FREE" as Google Navigation, except the user experience can be far better on a nice big screen in your car, tied to your sound system, with highly integrated controls (eg on the steering wheel), no battery life issues, etc., etc.

I replied in the hopes you're just loud and ignorant, and not stupid, but you're pretty tiresome either way, so don't expect further follow-ups.

"Car as a platform"

[Threni]

Or, more accurately, a car with an Android phone inside it, much like mine is now.

It's a gimmick, not the future of either cars or..uh..telephones.

Stability?

[gmuslera]

You could fall if you stand over a moving platform

Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box....

[SuperBanana]

Speaking as a road user who is not in a 4,000lb box - this is the last thing we need. Apps for your car? Seriously?

Hang up the phone.
Drink the coffee at your home/work/coffee shop.
Stop texting.
Stop picking out your favorite song on the playlist.

DRIVE. YOUR. CAR. Please. Your car is not an entertainment system, smartphone, web browser, etc. It's a powerful, heavy, moving object. Capable of inflicting life-altering or mortal injuries and enormous property damage, which must be piloted accurately to within less than a few feet at speeds humans were never designed to travel. Treat it as such, which means PAY ATTENTION and keep BOTH HANDS ON THE WHEEL and your EYES ON THE ROAD. Nowhere else, any time your vehicle is moving.

I'm tired of people telling me, "gosh, bicycle? It's SO DANGEROUS!". Yeah, guess why? It's because the same person who declared it "dangerous" can't for one second take seriously piloting a machine capable of so much death and destruction, and instead is texting someone while sipping a mocha grande while checking out that cute person in the shop window.

You want to know why it's so dangerous to jog or walk or cycle along the road? Look in the mirror., across the table at dinner or a business meeting.

It doesn't help that running over a cyclist or (sometimes) a pedestrian is an almost guaranteed way to get away with murder. 99% of the time, the most the driver gets is a traffic ticket for saying "oh, I was changing radio stations" or "the sun got in my eyes." Hell, one asshole in Colorado recently claimed it was "new car smell" in his Mercedes S-class that caused him to pass out, hit a cyclist, and then drive on without stopping until he was across town, where upon he put the damaged bits of his car in the trunk and called for roadside assistance (not 911) for a tow.

Like texting and driving

[rust627]

I'm skeptical of ANY driver's ability to use one of these without turning his car into a 3,000-lb angry bird.

Fixed it for you

Really.

[unity100]

Is this much complication of an existing purpose-built and already complicated machinery, necessary ?

no, please, no

[Anonymous Coward]

people can't drive and use a mobile, the last thing we need is some idiot playing with a screen while driving. And I don't mean adjusting the air-con, I mean spending more time with the screen than the road ahead!

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[Baloroth]

Look in the mirror., across the table at dinner or a business meeting.

I don't think that would help...

Finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's about time.

Translation...

[Anachragnome]

Translation...Your car will now cost even MORE to keep fully functional.

Seriously, retired automotive mechanic here.

Does anyone really think auto-repair shops actually fix this stuff? They do not, for one reason--they are far too complex for the average mechanic to understand, let alone repair. Stuff like this, and others (electronic compasses built into rear view mirrors, sound systems, navigation systems, etc) are simply removed from the vehicle and replaced with a new one when they have failed. At best, the device is sent off to the original manufacturer for repairs--the cost of repairs and shipping is passed onto you. Cars now require specialists, much like the medical field, as a result of the continuing "advancements" and most shops cannot afford to employ these specialists. The result is not having any choice but to bring the vehicle to the dealer for "repairs".

On another note, most new-car dealerships make more from their repair departments then their sales departments.

Re:Translation...

[Anonymous Coward]

Im getting into car mechanics as a casual hobby and I dont like the high tech, disposable nature of modern car equipment either. I love working on my car! Having said that, I would love a tablet based monitoring system where i can get precise fluid levels and temperatures, tire wear, how much the car is veering to the side, god theres probably heaps of handy and interesting stats that would be nice. Then again if the monitor for a particular system breaks then yeah its another cost haha.

Re:Translation...

[BitZtream]

You point out exactly how cars don't REALLY need anything special for servicing because the guy servicing your car doesn't actually do that, he diagnoses and replaces with new, shipping the old back to someone else. Then you say cars need specialists. Which one is it?

All 4 of my vehicles are computer controlled. I am not a mechanic in the traditional sense yet I seem to have no problem servicing my cars. I can plugin and diagnose just like they do, with ODB-II as a starting point and a little bit of experience to let me know when what the ODB-II is saying isn't really whats wrong.

On another note, most new-car dealerships make more from their repair departments then their sales departments.

I believe it, but I'd bet its the manufacture thats paying for the repairs, so I really don't care as car prices now days really are low. EVERYONE owns a car.

You just sound really bitter, like you couldn't keep up.

Re:Translation...

[bruno.fatia]

On another note, most new-car dealerships make more from their repair departments then their sales departments.

This. It's exactly what's happening in most dealerships now, they even say it's ok if sales doesn't make a profit because you're supposed to get most of your income from the repair dept.

Re:Translation...

[Anachragnome]

"...I can plugin and diagnose just like they do, with ODB-II as a starting point and a little bit of experience to let me know when what the ODB-II is saying isn't really whats wrong."

And you'll probably end up following a flow-chart to diagnose the system that the OBD-II trouble code refers to. A lot of flow-chart branches end with something along the line of "Replace PCM with Known Good PCM and retest" which then leads to "Replace PCM" if the system suddenly works with a good PCM in it. Pretty simple. Simple enough for you to do it, probably. So now what do you do, Parnelli Jones? Replace then entire PCM (Powertrain Control Module--the computer!), right? Of course, because you are not an electronic engineer, nor am I. Another issue you might have just noticed is the "...known-good part" aspect. Only a dealership is going to have these components on hand to actually do something like this, as most electronic components are NON-returnable--once an independent shop purchases that part, they own it whether it was the problem or not. Just another tactic the manufacturers use to monopolize the repair industry.

The difference between you and I is that I know enough about the entire system to test EVERYTHING else in that system to determine what took out the PCM in the first place, and I don't need any flow charts to do so. You on the other hand would probably just replace the PCM, like the flow-chart told you to do, and....burn it out the moment you turned on the key because you never fixed that injector harness that was shorted directly to ground.

Even specializing in automotive control systems and driveability diagnosis, the furthest into a PCM I ever got was taking the board out to look for visible failures. My point is that the manufacturers are putting more of these high-dollar, non-serviceable components in vehicles on purpose, that purpose being to sell you more stuff for more money.

And no, I'm not bitter. Just tired of working in a field where I felt most of the people I worked with were crooks. Even though I was brutally honest with every single one of my customers and never ripped anyone off, I still felt guilty--guilt by association. Just got sick of it.

Re:Translation...

[drinkypoo]

All 4 of my vehicles are computer controlled. I am not a mechanic in the traditional sense yet I seem to have no problem servicing my cars. I can plugin and diagnose just like they do, with ODB-II as a starting point and a little bit of experience to let me know when what the ODB-II is saying isn't really whats wrong.

The computer can't tell you WHY you are having MISFIRE IN BANK 1 CYLINDER 2 although it can give you some pointers. At some point you may wind up tearing down that engine, but you want to be sure you needed to. Mechanics know the tricks and that's why they deserve the bucks. Unfortunately, most shops are bound and determined to fuck you over for profit.

You just sound really bitter, like you couldn't keep up.

You hit that spot-on. The world has changed and many mechanics have failed to change with it. All mechanics need to be electricians today if they want to be able to work comprehensively. If you want to do auto body you need to know air conditioning. There's probably a lot of examples like these.

Re:Translation...

[garyebickford]

I believe it, but I'd bet its the manufacture thats paying for the repairs, so I really don't care as car prices now days really are low. EVERYONE owns a car.

Ten years ago it was the case that all mfgrs except Toyota, dealer mechanics were paid less per hour for warranty repairs than for customer-paid repairs. This obviously motivated the mechanics to use more shortcuts on warranty repairs - not a good system.

Re:Translation...

[garyebickford]

In 1970, my friend had a Super Beetle, and the turn signals stopped working. In most other cars at that time, the cure was to replace the $7 blinker module with a new one from the dealer or from NAPA. In the VW, the turn signals were controlled by the electronic control unit, cost about $150, not field repairable.

Re:Translation...

[samwichse]

The 1970 super beetle has a simple relay for the turn signals. You have picked what is probably one of the most modular, easy to work on cars in existence for your example (which is incorrect, btw).

http://compare.ebay.com/like/320758052912?var=lv&ltyp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes&var=sbar&_lwgsi=y

Re:Translation...

[garyebickford]

Well maybe it was the emergency flashers. And it might have been a year or two older or younger. But I recall seeing the PCB, and listening to him swear about the $100+ it cost to fix his ^*(&(&(*&(* turn/flasher lights, whichever it was. Also, (just in case) it wasn't the switch/relay to turn them on, it was the thing that made them flash. I had a $35 Ford station wagon that burned equal parts gas and oil at the time, so I dunno. ;)

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[Gaygirlie]

DRIVE. YOUR. CAR. Please. Your car is not an entertainment system, smartphone, web browser, etc. It's a powerful, heavy, moving object. Capable of inflicting life-altering or mortal injuries and enormous property damage, which must be piloted accurately to within less than a few feet at speeds humans were never designed to travel. Treat it as such, which means PAY ATTENTION and keep BOTH HANDS ON THE WHEEL and your EYES ON THE ROAD.

I heartily agree with you. Cars are dangerous and should be treated with proper respect. Every single god damn day there are news of people crashing or hitting someone, and in almost every case it's because of lack of respect for the dangers a car poses. It's easy to dismiss all the warnings and claim you're totally in control, but when you eventually end up in an accident it's not a laughing matter anymore and you could well have destroyed complete families in the process.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a walker, I've noticed it is usually drivers of upscale vehicles (BMW is especially bad) that try to kill me as I cross streets.

I always assumed it was that only assholes bought status symbol cars, but maybe it isn't just that. Maybe those cars with all the silly worthless crap like windshield wipers for the headlights have more worthless, but distracting, entertainment crap inside them too.

This is not much of a threat

[cvtan]

Given how many French cars are sold in the US. Oh wait, it's NONE. This from an industry that once bragged that they have nothing to learn from the Japanese.

Re:This is not much of a threat

[Anonymous Coward]

um... the so called SMART car is 100% french.. not to mention Peugeot which is not popular but allowed in the us. also.. most of Chevy vehicles are not US made... Aveo = Korea the new "transformers" Camero = Canada. the cobalt, cruise, and sonic also made in Korea. Chevy Silverado trucks, and avalanche trucks made in Mexico... whereas Honda, Toyota, hyundai, and BMW have vehicles made in the US.. ALL of these vehicles have parts made....... in France.

Re:This is not much of a threat

[jo_ham]

Ask Ford where it got the technology for it's modern diesels from.

Re:This is not much of a threat

[int69h]

They should send it back then. Powerstrokes are terrible compared to Cummings or Duramax.

Re:This is not much of a threat

[int69h]

s/Cummings/Cummins/

Re:This is not much of a threat

[jo_ham]

I said modern diesels, not those old tractors ;)

Re:This is not much of a threat

[Anonymous Coward]

Given how many French cars are sold in the US. Oh wait, it's NONE. This from an industry that once bragged that they have nothing to learn from the Japanese.

Actually, Renault & Nissan are very tightly aligned. Nissan does sell & make many cars in the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault-Nissan_Alliance

Re:This is not much of a threat

[cvtan]

Yes, you are correct. My brother even has a Smart so I don't know how I overlooked this! I guess I don't think of the Smart being 100% French with its Mitsubishi engine and Mercedes connections. Memories of his previous Peugeot are overshadowed by the troubles getting it to run. And then there is the story of the roof of his Smart coming unglued at 60mph. We had to hold it down with duct tape to get home.
I was thinking more of the traditional marques like Renault, Peugeot and Citroen and their experience in the US market.

Re:This is not much of a threat

[AK Marc]

Yeah, the Smart is French like Airbus is French. Everyone lets France claim it or name it (hence why International System of Units is abbreviated SI) to stop the whining, but it isn't "French" in the sense that the French designed the core parts or made the critical components, at most, they just design the shell and assemble it under the close watchful eyes of other.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[LordVader717]

I kinda agree, but on the other hand this could provide real world relief for the distractions that people are going to do anyway. I dread to think how many people have died because of retarded interfaces on car radios. This is something that's gotten harder over the years. A nice voice-activated or large-button touch interface OTOH would mean people taking their eyes off the road for less time.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't help that running over a cyclist or (sometimes) a pedestrian is an almost guaranteed way to get away with murder.

I understand that you're trying to make an important point about human life and civic responsibility, but as a pedantic, Slashdot-reading nerd, I'm duty-bound to point out that you'd merely be getting away with manslaughter. Now please carry on.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[BasilBrush]

On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, the quicker we hand over the actual driving to the computers the better.

Between those two extremes there's room for apps that add safety. That warn of a driver that's likely to jump a red light. That alert the driver to vehicles in blind spots etc.

Heck I think satnav has added to safety. Whilst it has distracted some people, it's also stopped other people trying to read paper maps whilst driving.

screw apps and media

[Anonymous Coward]

I want a joystick interface- with one mode for normal steering + pedals and one mode that's push forward to accelerate, pull back to brake, leave center to stay at same speed.

Re:screw apps and media

[jd]

There's Open Source automotive control software listed up on Freecode/Freshmeat. Why not download it and add the joystick code?

DMCA / right to repair

[Joe_Dragon]

We need laws so all this smart car crap does not lock you into the dealer for all service work even oil changes. Why not make so that any shop can use the platform to get car diagnostic info in full or at the very least they should have the right to hack the software so they can get that info.

but some times this smart stuff locks out basic

[Joe_Dragon]

car repairs on things that are not the electronic compasses built into rear view mirrors, sound systems, navigation systems, etc. But the dealer has the info to fix it but not the non dealer places.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the number of cars on the road there are a lot of bad/impared drivers and that's not going to change. They hit cars, bikes, pedestrians, people changing tires, trees, houses, low flying aircraft, etc. You put yourself on the same roads with them (which weren't designed for sharing high and low speed traffic). What do you think is going to happen? Yes, folks need to pay attention when driving. Accidents happen. One person gets a new mirror and the other gets flowers at the side of the road.

So bicyclists: FOLLOW. THE. LAWS.

Hang up the phone.
Drink the coffee at your home/work/coffee shop.
Stop texting.
Stop picking out your favorite song on the playlist.

And... Don't run stopsigns and red lights. Don't split lanes. Don't drive the wrong way. When on sidewalks or in crosswalks follow those laws. Pull over and let vehicles pass where required to do so. Make sure your bike has brakes, lights, and reflectors as required by local laws. Keep both hands on the handlebars. Wear helmets where required. Only pass on the right where allowed. Yield to pedestrians. Signal turns and stops (and at the distance) as required by law.

And when something happens and we get too close or you get scared, don't yell or slap my car or engage in some other kind of road rage behavior. And if you do, don't limit yourself to the mom with kids or the middleage guy or anyone that is too smart to react to it. Also do it to the big angry guys and the carload of thugs. If you don't, you're a coward.

so only the dealer fix stuff no data plan choice

[Joe_Dragon]

so only the dealer fix stuff and why can't you say have the maps from the provider that they want and you can't pick the the data provider for the 3g / 4g to wifi link that you want or use a sim from a other network so you can say get spirit over verizon or say get a Canadian sim for the time you may be in Candida so you don't pay insane roaming fees.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[Jedi Alec]

Heck I think satnav has added to safety.

Quite often using satnav allows me to anticipate side roads well before I can actually see that is there *is* a road. Especially in the dark when there's trees or cars blocking the view just knowing that there is a road helps a lot in my opinion.

Heck, in order to pass the driver's exam I have to demonstrate being able to operate the thing and make use of it to find my way, might as well reap the benefits while I'm at it.

and do I need 2 Battery's to power all this stuff?

[Joe_Dragon]

and do I need 2 Battery's to power all this stuff?

Open Source makes for SmartCars

[Anonymous Coward]

They will develop a collective consciousness and take over the world, just like the apocalyptic movie -- http://disney.go.com/cars/.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I'm tired of people telling me, "gosh, bicycle? It's SO DANGEROUS!". Yeah, guess why? It's because the same person who declared it "dangerous" can't for one second take seriously piloting a machine capable of so much death and destruction, and instead is texting someone while sipping a mocha grande while checking out that cute person in the shop window.

Uh, no. It's because you travel less than a quarter of the speed of the vehicles you're traveling with, you're likely to instantly die if you're involved in a collision with a car, and you think traffic rules don't apply to you. It doesn't matter how good all the drivers in the world become, you're still greatly increasing the chance of a tragedy by riding your bicycle on a road designed for cars.

You are willingly putting yourself into a dangerous situation, you really own up to it.

Driving Distraction...

[InnerInsight]

If I had a Renault and played angry birds as I drove, Does that mean if I cause an accident due to the distraction, I can sue Renault?

Re:and do I need 2 Battery's to power all this stu

[ChrisMP1]

No.

Re:so only the dealer fix stuff no data plan choic

[BasilBrush]

iPhone has a walled-garden store. Multiple map providers. Choice of networks.

I'm skeptical too, but

[drinkypoo]

I see a lot of virtually identical comments about driver distraction, but none about reducing it. What about a PID climate control system that learns what temperatures you expect and when, and how quickly the cabin can get there based on outside temp and coolant temp? Sure, climate control is becoming more common but it's not everywhere yet. What about a better road atlas that's easier to use so that the driver spends less time dicking with the computer? Tune the stereo based on the GPS region. Hell, tune the engine based on the drive history and the traffic conditions. Use the vehicle logging system and fault codes to give the driver information that's useful right now instead of lighting a little picture of an engine on the instrument panel. None of these are new ideas but being able to put them all in one computer and be able to replace pieces of them if they suck is a fantastic idea.

Re:I'm skeptical too, but

[Xtifr]

Yeah, my initial reaction was like a lot of other people's: this is a bad plan. But even before seeing your post, I realized that there's some positive potential there as well. Something as simple as leaning over to change your radio station is a mild distraction, and forces you to take your eyes off the road. Trying to dial through your music lists is far more so. With decent voice recognition, you could simply ask the car to play you a particular song or band. With the "listen to me" button on the steering wheel, your distraction would be very minimal.

I'm less than impressed by the systems I've actually seen so far, but you're right that the potential is there for something that could actually be useful and beneficial. Of course, what we'll actually get is an improved targeted ad-delivery system for your car. When it senses that you need an oil change, it won't just tell you that--it'll use GPS and AdSense to try to tell you where to go. :)

Re:I'm skeptical too, but

[drinkypoo]

When it senses that you need an oil change, it won't just tell you that--it'll use GPS and AdSense to try to tell you where to go.

That's not really a new feature, though. If you buy a Magellan GPS with the AAA TourBook you'll get the same "service" :)

Re:I'm skeptical too, but

[swillden]

When it senses that you need an oil change, it won't just tell you that--it'll use GPS and AdSense to try to tell you where to go.

That's not really a new feature, though. If you buy a Magellan GPS with the AAA TourBook you'll get the same "service" :)

But only if you spend some time poking at the screen to ask for it. Xtifr's point was that the car could initiate this search when it realizes that you need an oil change, which isn't the same thing at all. Now, I'm not sure I'd want my car bugging me about getting the oil changed, much less randomly suggesting routes to service stations, but what he's suggesting is about the integration, not the lookup feature.

Re:I'm skeptical too, but

[drinkypoo]

Depending on the feature to give you good advice is the commonality between both situations. In one you have to ask for an oil change, then you get whatever AAA thinks you need. In the other it tells you to go to the dealer like cars always do.

Re:I'm skeptical too, but

[AK Marc]

There are parking cameras and sensors in lots of cars now (most new ones yet? they seem so common). So, get a few cheap sensors to track the white lines. If the driver drifts out of a lane (or changes lanes without a signal), then sound a loud alarm, they are either illegal and unsafe or falling asleep. LEDs can flash in frequency to deliver 100+kbps readable by the car in front or behind. Program it to flash the DRLs in the front or brake lights in the back to negotiate cruise control speed so you won't creep up on them and have to slow down and creep up again. Use IR cameras to alert the driver to dangers that are invisible (like a deer out of range of the headlights that the computer can see) so the driver can slow before it is too late. Have a camera pointed at the driver measure eye movement and increase music volume and decrease temp when the eye movements are depressed (i.e. wake the driver before the crash wakes them).

If cost wasn't an issue and computing power was unlimited, I can think of hundreds or thousands of ways a car-based computer could be used to improve safety. And I've watched someone in traffic watch a movie on a laptop, and most entertainment systems viewable by the driver shut themselves off when in gear.

SAAB was first with this concept

[kimvette]

SAAB was first with this concept, in their IQON system:

http://media.saab.com/press-releases/2011-03-01/world-first-saab-saab-iqon-open-innovation-car-infotainment

Too bad it will likely never see production since SAAB is probably going to be dead next week. (one could argue SAAB is already dead and the mortician just hasn't declared time of death yet)

New business strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the reasoning behind this obvious? The increase in damaged and totaled cars due to people fiddling with their tablets while driving will boost Renault's sales of replacement parts, maintenance services and new vehicles. Should help the funeral home industry too.

Developers

[codepunk]

Quote : "We need developers to work on apps"

Hmmm, no the monetization in the android market sucks so bad I don't even waste my time hitting the compile button for a android release.

Re:Developers

[Anonymous Coward]

And there should be some corporation to make sure everything is expensive and no free evolution?
You are saying you can not compete?
Working for MS?

I don't care what you think as long as everyone is free to think and act different.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[jrumney]

You want to know why it's so dangerous to jog or walk or cycle along the road? Look in the mirror.

I do that every morning while shaving on my way to work. I assure you that it didn't help me avoid all the joggers and cyclists that stupidly got in the way of my car though.

It's not the whole car, just the console

[dutchwhizzman]

They won't be running all car computer systems on this, only the display/console bit. Brakes, engine, climate and all those computers will still be the same, connected via CAN buses and all that.

The worrisome bit is that car manufacturers are once again getting away with proprietary hardware hookups, so it's hard to replace your "car stereo" or "navigation device" once it becomes obsolete. There was a time where you could just get a DIN or double DIN car stereo and put it in your car, regardless of what brand car or what brand stereo you'd like to get. It seems those days are over and we'll once again be forced to use overpriced proprietary devices that age much quicker than the vehicle.

Re:It's not the whole car, just the console

[drinkypoo]

Who cares if it's a proprietary hookup if you get an open software platform?

You're not forced to use the devices that come with the vehicles. Stereo-bus hacking is alive and well, so you can often even use your steering wheel controls. Even in cars with those stupid oval-shaped stereos there are replacements which fit and there are kits to fit rectangular ones. My personal approach today is to use a PMP hooked up to an amplifier, then I can take it out of the car with me and put it in my pocket. I would personally fill one of those oval spaces with gauges. But then, I tend to buy cars which would benefit from having more of those.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[Osgeld]

on the other side of this coin, where I live we have thousands of miles of quite low trafic roads, and where do the cyclist decide to do their ass wiggling? Thats right folks ... right down the fucking middle of one of the most windy 2, congested 55MPH highway in the city.

Brilliant

Many Possibilities

[Ol Olsoc]

With this sort of integrated system, and national networking we'll be able to enforce the speed limit. That would be trivial.

A real time tracking system would allow anyone who wanted to know where you we to know where you were.

Recording of what you were doing at the time of an accident would allow for determination of fault.

Multiple cameras would be able to record the accident scene, or interactions with law enforcement. There could bean interior camera, one out the front, and one on the other three sides.

Your car could be disabled automatically by the police if it is stolen, if they want to stop you to avoid a high speed chase, or if you're a deadbeat dad or your wife is mad at you.

You'd be able to have complete control over your teenager's driving, disabling the vehicle if need be. I can envision with serious integration that the car could alert home if the bad kids pulled into a beer or liquor store. Even more advanced apps might be able to disallow the car to turn into those places.

Seems a bit like a brave new world, powered by apps.

The only platform this is going to become...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is a platform for malware. A virus that locks all your doors and demands a payment of 1000$ to an offshore account? A little trojan that can remotely disable your breaks and floor your acceleration? No thanks.

OBDII?

[AugstWest]

OBD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics) included in the car? No more trying to get a USB cable to work with a laptop just to read the stuff that's been being recorded by my car for a decade+ now?

Yes, have some.

Re:OBDII?

[BitZtream]

ODB-II has been included in every car since 1996, as a legal requirement, at least in the US.

Do you know how to Google? You can get freaking phone apps and bluetooth ODB-II adapters for fucks sake.

Re:OBDII?

[AK Marc]

His idea seemed to be an OBD decoder into the Android device, just as you describe, as today, OBD means you hook up an computer (or computing device like phone) to the port before OBD has any use. Otherwise OBD-II will just light the check engine light and you have nothing. Even in today's cars with full-function navigation computers, they will not make diagnosis easier, as they want them annoyingly hard to use (hence why OBD had to be passed as law) to drive trips to the dealer.

Renault makes great cars.

[Anonymous Coward]

My family already bought 5 (just me and my brother). One uncle has another and finds it very good, too.

I don't own any share or sell the cars, nor am I an employee. Just a satisfied customer.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[colinrichardday]

Not quite, SuperBanana said

which must be piloted accurately to within less than a few feet at speeds humans were never designed to travel.

Which could mean either that humans were designed for different speeds, or not designed at all. Also, what verb would you use in place of "designed"? I don't believe that it is the best verb for this purpose, but I can't think of a different one.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[colinrichardday]

And to be equally pedantic, there was an episode of Quincy where the driver murdered the pedestrian. Of course, Quincy didn't let him get away with it.

Captain Renault

[colinrichardday]

plus its logo looks like a vagina.

I am shocked, shocked to discover a French company having a vagina-shaped logo.

I didn't find it that vagina-shaped.

Re:Captain Renault

[BitZtream]

Its unlikely he's ever seen a vagina to compare it too.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[ceoyoyo]

Hm. As a biker, do you obey all the traffic laws? Complete stop at all stop signs, never go through lights, no riding on sidewalks or using crosswalks or passing slow or stopped traffic on the right in the non-lane between traffic and parked cars or the curb?

Speaking as someone who moved from a place where bikers DO obey traffic laws to somewhere where nobody, bikes, cars or pedestrians, obeys traffic laws, if there's a problem it seems to very rarely be exclusively with the drivers.

Re:and do I need 2 Battery's to power all this stu

[jo_ham]

Three random troll posts in a short period.

Are you off your Ritalin?

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not a cyclist. I have seen cyclists who are jackasses and put themselves in danger. I've seen drivers who are jackasses as put everyone in danger. I've also seen examples of both who aren't dangerous. I know that stereotyping those silly spandex-wearing folks is a cool thing to do, but don't pretend that you're actually correct.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[ks*nut]

Yes, there are assholes piloting bicycles. You just never hear about them killing anyone.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I know that stereotyping those silly spandex-wearing folks is a cool thing to do, but don't pretend that you're actually correct.

Fact: Bicycles move slower than car traffic. This means more obstacles are on the road. This increases danger. I am correct. Sorry.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[BitZtream]

I have a friend who regularly argues with me about how bicycles are fine for driving down the road and that drivers need to be more careful. My response is always 'you should use the damn sidewalk' to which the response I get back is 'there are more accidents on sidewalks resulting in injury than on the street'.

And this is always where I give up on logic. The reason there are more on the sidewalk is because more intelligent people are on the sidewalk when they aren't on a car than there are standing on the street, you can usually get into multiple accidents involving a bicycle and a pedestrian and likely WALK away, but its possible to break a bone or something more serious. Not too many people walk away from a car impact.

I've made him an offer several times, yet he refuses to take me up on it. I'll stand on the side walk, my back to him, and let him hit me as absolutely hard as he can with his bicycle. As long as afterwords I get to do the same thing with my car.

IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER WHOS FAULT IT IS OR WHY THE CAR HIT YOU, YOU ARE STILL FUCKING DEAD AS A DOOR NAIL and nothing more than a dark red smear on the street. The laws of physics do not give a flying fuck about the laws of man.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

My response is always 'you should use the damn sidewalk' to which the response I get back is 'there are more accidents on sidewalks resulting in injury than on the street'.

I've heard that to. Having been both a driver and a pedestrian, I would MUCH rather dodge cyclists on a sidewalk than on a street. I'd happily take a broken arm if it meant I'd never collide with a cyclist in my car.

I've made him an offer several times, yet he refuses to take me up on it. I'll stand on the side walk, my back to him, and let him hit me as absolutely hard as he can with his bicycle. As long as afterwords I get to do the same thing with my car.

If it were me I'd tell him he needs to go the DMV and pass a test to get a license to ride his bike on the road like every car driver does. Then he'd have to be subject to all of the traffic laws and safety procedures (i.e. wearing a helmet and having lights installed on the bike with proper training on their usage) and he'd have to pay registration fees that help maintain the roads.

I'd love to hear all this talk about responsible driving from somebody who could get a ticket for not wearing a helmet or for running a red light.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[Luckyo]

For the record, I'm a lifelong cyclist (learned at 5, never stopped), but I don't live in US. I live in Finland, and we have cyclist safety quite well thought of. We usually have a cyclist lane on any major road that does have a separate one, and when there isn't one we can legally drive within one meter of right end of pavement.

Reality is, it's about attitudes. Those of cyclist him/herself, AND those of car drivers. Here, most cars will let me pass, and follow the rules, and I give them the same courtesy. As a result, I've never been in an accident, and only one "close call" where it was driver's fault.

As a result, I would argue that the biggest problem on the road is not the level of lethality of each moving object, or difference between them, but the attitudes of people driving those.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[Luckyo]

So, speed limits are bad, and everyone not driving ferrari enzo is dangerous to REAL drivers. Gotcha.

I was talking about egos just above in this very same thread. Thanks for showing exactly what I was talking about.

Really? No analogy jokes?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't understand the summary very well. Can someone give me a computer analogy?

Re:Really? No analogy jokes?

[Bigos]

Look for the Microsoft jokes. The future seems disturbing. 6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single “General Protection Fault” warning light. 7. The airbag system would ask “Are you sure?” before deploying. 8. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.

Translation...Information wants to be locked up.

[Anonymous Coward]

You left out how a lot of OBD-II information is locked out from those who repair cars.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

So, speed limits are bad, and everyone not driving ferrari enzo is dangerous to REAL drivers.

Ummmmmm no. Just for clarification, do you understand why you only use the left lane for passing?

I was talking about egos just above in this very same thread. Thanks for showing exactly what I was talking about.

What, by making you respond?

What I want and what I don't want

[istartedi]

1. I want the car to function in some capacity even if all the modern electronics go *zap*.

2. I want access to sensor data so I can turn the built-in screen into... wait for it.. a REAL GUAGE PACKAGE instead of "idiot guages".

3. I don't want access to certain control systems. Passive readouts only. If my *job* were writing control systems for autos I think I could do it well. I'd still want several engineers reviewing my code, and I pray that's how the professionals at the car companies do it. I certainly don't want to program engine, transmission, or braking systems as a hobby. I don't want to be on the road with cars where those systems were programmed as a hobby.

4. I do want access to less vital control systems such as wipers, headlights, and for cryin' out loud I want some way to disable the "cryin' out loud" of those damn alarmed systems they build into cars these days.

Re:What I want and what I don't want

[AK Marc]

I want the car to function in some capacity even if all the modern electronics go *zap*.

So you'll only drive a 1960s Diesel?

Re:What I want and what I don't want

[istartedi]

No.

Re:What I want and what I don't want

[AK Marc]

I don't know of any new car that would run past an EMP (when electronics go *zap*), even the Diesels. It'd have to be older. I'd expect a mechanical distributor to survive, but I have no idea which current or recent cars use mechanical distributors. So that leaves older cars, and more likely Diesels to meet that need. So, if not 60s Diesels, then what?

Re:What I want and what I don't want

[istartedi]

If there's an EMP, you've got bigger problems, like whether your neighbor's hide will taste better with garlic or pepper. :)

I didn't really want to go down a rabbit hole of hair splitting detail on this. I thought it was pretty obvious what I meant by "modern electronics".

Spark ignition has been around as long as gasoline powered cars (at least as long as the model-T) so I don't consider it "modern".

It's like pornography. You know it when you see it. When I say "go zap", I mean, for example, a chip going bad in the computer. Now there are a lot of possibilities here but let's just cover two. Either your engine can run without the computer or it can't.

If it can run without the computer, without damaging itself, I'd like it to do that. The best analogy here is the stealth fighter. It can't fly without the fly-by-wire tech. It's inherently unstable without the computer. The pilot's inputs are to the computer, which computes the correct positions for the control surfaces. If your engine is like that, then of course it should shut down if the computer fails. OTOH, if your engine is a basicly stable ICE that just happens to have a computer there to fine tune the emissions and economy, then the console should flash a light when the computer is out but it should let you keep driving.

Also, other things I consider "modern" such as instrument controls that are not vital to the basic function of running a car, these should not cause you to shut down. If your guages are on an LCD, and you lose that, you should still be able to drive.

Long story short, maybe a better way for me to put it would have been, "separate the mission critical electronics from the non-mission critical electronics", where the "mission" is being able to drive safely without destroying the mechanical systems.

Now since I've written even more text than before, I know there are 10X as many semantic nits for people to pick.... but... whatever.

open means evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a car with integrated navigation. The price for those is high (Huge part of it because taxes, I live in country where they have always considered car as a toy for upper class. And being wealthy is a crime in itself.)
Anyway, the system does not even show the speed! Probably because the cars own meter shows 10% too much and huge difference would be embarrassing.
System can not warn properly about speed cameras.
There is no updates for the software at all.
Of course the system needs updated maps. There is a map update available (flash card). That update costs twice the price of a good navigator device (which would be much better features and usability). And you have to go to a service to switch the card which is just in normal slot on dashboard and takes seconds to replace.

So, opening the system a little sounds really good.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the lack of respect cuts both ways.

I've nearly driven over pedestrians on rainy nights who were dressed all in black that just walked out into the road in front of me, without a single glance either direction before they did so.

Sometimes the only reason you don't hear news stories about it is because the car's driver *is* paying attention.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[CBravo]

They also have big 'safe' cages blocking view. If entities are on collision course then the angle doesn't change and you are not/less seen because the pedestrian only 'becomes bigger'. That is why a small change in speeds really helps.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[CBravo]

You are missing a lot of factors in the equation. Just naming one does not make a valid equation in this case, only an oversimplification.

learn the law

[SuperBanana]

Hm. As a biker, do you obey all the traffic laws? Complete stop at all stop signs, never go through lights, no riding on sidewalks or using crosswalks or passing slow or stopped traffic on the right in the non-lane between traffic and parked cars or the curb?

If you run a red light, can I shoot you in the head a week later? No?

Anyway - yes, actually, I do follow all my state's laws (okay, you got me, I once gave a lady friend a ride on the back rack of my bike, which is illegal.) Two notes, though:

1)Riding on sidewalks is permitted anywhere in the my state save business districts. However, because it's more dangerous to be out of the traffic flow than part of it, I very rarely do.

2)It is specifically permissible by law in my state for a cyclist to pass vehicles on the right. It's also specifically stated that it is the motorists' responsibility to check their mirror before making a right turn or moving to park.

Also: several states have laws which permit cyclists to travel through stop signs and red lights because legislators recognized that cyclists are somewhat more motivated to judge when it's safe to do so, and they only place themselves at risk when they do so (even a collision with a pedestrian is likely to cause more injury to the cyclist than the pedestrian.) Idaho is one example of such a state - stop signs can be treated as yield signs by bicyclists.

Grow up.

Re:learn the law

[Anonymous Coward]

If you run a red light, can I shoot you in the head a week later? No?
Grow up.

How immature!

I ride a motorcycle and believe me I'm fully aware of the hazards posed by distracted drivers. I must be doubly sure to pay attention to the road and drive defensively on the bike, and that habit carries over when I'm driving a cage.

That said, bicyclists have largely earned comments like the one you responded to so smugly. I often see bicyclist (adults in full cycling gear on fancy bikes, not kids) running stop signs and red lights without even slowing down, and no, my state (Missouri) does not foolishly permit bicyclists to treat stop signs or red lights as yield signs (except after a reasonable wait at a light designed to detect traffic). I've had to avoid collisions at 4-way stops with scofflaw bicyclists on several occasions. I've also hit and nearly killed a pedestrian (unavoidable on my part) with a Blazer, and believe me, that experience was very unpleasant, even though I was allowed go on to work that morning after the police did their preliminary investigation and I was never charged (or sued - the guy came by my workplace on crutches about a year later and apologized for any trouble he had caused me). I do not wish to repeat this experience because some bicyclist has become accustomed to ignoring traffic signals everyone else is expected to honor (and naturally assumes the cyclist is too).

If you're one of the few who actually follow traffic laws, congratulations! Please encourage your fellow cyclists to do the same. There's a lot of bad apples in that barrel. If cyclists want respect, they must earn it like everyone else. As a group, if you want the right to "share the road", cyclist need to learn that right comes with certain responsibilities to share it appropriately and safely.

Re:learn the law

[ceoyoyo]

"Grow up."

I'm getting the feeling you're one of those cyclists who give the rest of us a bad name, with drivers, pedestrians, and anyone else who has to share the road with you.

who feels threatened here?

[SuperBanana]

Grow up...and learn to use Google. http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/drivers-at-fault-in-majority-of-cycling-accidents-28489/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study The vast majority of cyclist injuries and fatalities are due to driver error or the driver breaking traffic laws.

Re:who feels threatened here?

[Anonymous Coward]

If a car and a cyclist collide the cyclist will get hurt. Who do you think gets the benefit of the doubt? I routinely see cyclists pick and choose when they consider themselves traffic or not in order to avoid having to pay attention to pesky laws that don't concern them, at least not for the next five second while there's a red light that would otherwise hinder their progress.

Drop the self-righteous bullshit, there are no shortage of stupid and irresponsible cyclists either.

Re:who feels threatened here?

[AK Marc]

Confirmation bias has made you stupid. The benefit of the doubt does not go to the bicyclist. Reality has a well-known pro-bike bias. When the bikers do something dangerous, they know they are and take more care. When the cars run over a biker riding on the shoulder, they blame the biker for being on the road.
I don't bike now, but I commuted for a year in Dallas (one of the least bike-friendly places I've lived) and saw it all. And the cars cause most of the problems themselves. Asses like you demanding they always follow the law would be pissed if the bike rode in the center of the lane all the time like a car, as it would slow you up. You demand things you don't want people to actually do.

Re:who feels threatened here?

[Anonymous Coward]

When the bikers do something dangerous, they know they are and take more care.

Taking care would be to not do something dangerous (and illegal) in the first place. Sorry to burst your bubble of self-righteousness

Asses like you demanding they always follow the law would be pissed if the bike rode in the center of the lane all the time like a car, as it would slow you up.

The law doesn't say all vehicles must be in the centre of the road. The fact that you are ignorant of the law and yet you still break what you believe it to be for your convenience only demonstrates what a danger someone like you is no matter what form of transportation you use. I might be able to take solace from the fact that as a cyclist you'll most likely be the one who suffers the injuries from your own stupidity if it weren't for the fact that whatever poor person you inflict your idiocy on will probably suffer emotional and legal consequences if only because they are the one who survives your fuck up.

Re:who feels threatened here?

[AK Marc]

Sorry to burst your bubble of self-righteousness

That would imply that I'm a biker, which is wrong. You are so focused on proving all bikers wrong (why do you hate them so much?) that you aren't responding to what's said.

Taking care would be to not do something dangerous (and illegal) in the first place.

So, you are asserting that everything dangerous is illegal and everything illegal is dangerous? That's stupid and grossly unsafe.

The law doesn't say all vehicles must be in the centre of the road.

It says they can, car or bike. That you are unaware of the law proves you not only stupid and unsafe, as mentioned before, but ignorant and proud of that ignorance.

you still break what you believe it to be for your convenience

In addition to being stupid, unsafe, and proudly ignorant, you are a liar as well. It's impossible for me to have broken it for my convenience when I don't ride a bike, yet you assert that I do, an obvious falsehood.

Re:who feels threatened here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to misread every single line you quoted. Nice trolling retard.

Re:who feels threatened here?

[AK Marc]

Then say what you mean, rather than vomiting your emotions onto your keyboard and getting all indignant when people read what you wrote, not what you thought you meant to write.

Renault Telemetry

[Whiteox]

Current Renaults* have excellent user controls. A level above pretty much everything else on the road. Brilliant cruse controls, fast onboard computer, efficient stereo, aircon etc. Better than the VW/Audi clones. Entry - startup and off-exit from these vehicles is superfast. Someone in Renault spent a lot of time in cabin design and driver operation. It is well thought out and very much appreciated.
Now by adding a device that can show you proper telemetry would be a real bonus. Not only that, but you get some sort of wi-fi access as well. With car-to-car shared telemetry and sensor access just over the horizon this can only be a bonus.
Renault (also read Nissan+Samsung cars and electronics) are real future thinkers. Don't discount them.
I bet Samsung will make the tablet and Renault will incorporate it into pretty much all their models.
The only problem I see, is that certain countries may not get the benefit of the device as some free services (like RDS News and Traffic) have been monopolised by 3rd party vendors. I can see this happening with services being crippled by providers.

*Yes, I own an upmarket Renault and a VW Clone.

Re:Renault Telemetry

[gTsiros]

current renaults have ... what? they are laggy, not reckognizeable by touch and if we take the driving controls into account, the accelerator has ridiculous lag and nonlinearity, at least on my twingo II 1.2 GT

Re:Renault Telemetry

[drinkypoo]

Great, they got the interface between driver and car working. Now if they could only get the car working you'd really have something.

Re:Renault Telemetry

[Whiteox]

I have a Laguna 2.2 Turbo diesel. It recognises my touch. Very little lag. Do not have your mobile/cell phone near your Renault card!

Re:Translation...Information wants to be locked up

[Deb-fanboy]

a lot of OBD-II information is locked out from those who repair cars.

And from the owner of the car. I drive a Renault Espace, when it is working. In order to get an idea of faults on my Renault I bought an OBD-II interface and bought a reader that was designed for a Vauxhall car, there is non available to the general public for my Renault.

If this proposed Android device allows the fault codes to be read from the engine so that I can phone around mechanics with symptoms of the car's problems then this will make me hugely less dependant on the dodgy big Renault garage in my area

Well at the moment I now have an interface for this car, but it was not easy to get the equipment I needed. Renault had no interest in letting me read the fault codes on my own car, they want me to go to the big Renault Garage on my town and hand over lots of money every time I get a fault light up.

Well I have a superb mechanic lives 5 minutes up the road from me who can do wonders with the mechanical side of car maintenance but cannot use the OBD-II interface, and having the fault codes is all he needs to get the car working.

So I would be delighted to have the android device connected to the car, but only if it gives me diagnostic information about faults.

really, really bitter

[gTsiros]

I have a renault twingo II GT.

it is a horrible, horrible car and with horrible, horrible service ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4orHdycJl4 if you're in the mood).

i have no idea what they think this whole android-in-the-car idea will accomplish.

Re:Translation...Information wants to be locked up

[drinkypoo]

1) Why on earth did you buy an espace? You do know it's made by Renault, right? Was it because they once made an F1 car that looks like one?

2) The car is probably required by law to give you the generic powertrain codes without a fight, so what are you really trying to get out of there?

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[DerPflanz]

It is not retarded interfaces that killed. It is the retarded users that didn't take the time to learn it, and took their eyes ff the road too long.

A few days ago, I saw a bus driver playing with his phone. While driving. If it is this accepted (a professional driver thinking it's ok) to do this, something is wrong with the people's priorities.

There's an App For That

[retroworks]

= JawsOfLife App, PryBikerFromBumper App, ExplainToOfficer App, WeavingOnRoadWarning App.... There are no "problems", only opportunities for software developers.

Drivers abilities

[Antibore]

"I'm skeptical of the average driver's ability to use one of these without turning his car into a 3,000-lb angry bird."

That's no problem, since all drivers describe themselves to be above average as drivers

I'd say it's about time

[Terrasque]

Most people here are negative, but I say it's about time. I've been thinking about something similar for years now.

There is a lot of interesting potential in it, if they do it right. For example, allow apps to read (not write, just read) car data, like for example real time fuel use, speed, gear, engine rpm, voltages, brake events, and so on. I can already think of a few apps using that data.

And, many modern cars come with electric control of seat height and angle, mirror position and so on. Why not make a profile system of it? You set things just so, save it, lend it to your son.. And when you get it back (and fixed that bulk on the side), you can just select your profile, and everything turns back the way you wanted it. Steering wheel, radio channels, mirrors, seat, climate control... You could even have different profiles for different situations. One for driving to work in the morning (a bit stiffer back angle, higher temperature), driving around for fun in the summer (own playlist, lower seat, a bit stiffer steering wheel)..

There are a lot of possibilities in it, but most people here only seem to think "Angry Birds on a car!" for some reason.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hell, one asshole in Colorado recently claimed it was "new car smell" in his Mercedes S-class that caused him to pass out, hit a cyclist, and then drive on without stopping until he was across town, where upon he put the damaged bits of his car in the trunk and called for roadside assistance (not 911) for a tow."

I found your story a little hard to believe, but other than the detail that the driver supposedly had severe sleep apnea in addition to the "new car smell" affecting him, it checks out. And, wow, is that guy a slimeball, but at least he wasn't chatting on is cellphone or playing with the in-car computer.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot "/rant", or are you not done yet?

You have some seriously perverted view of the world there, buddy. I think your pretentiousness may have done some permanent damage. I have to leave to catch a flight at 430am every Monday, you insensitive clod. I set the cruise at 68 in a 65 while I sip my coffee thank you very much. If I hit a bicyclist in the center lane on 95, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be fined or jailed.

Before you go off next time, try to think for one second that your personal situation doesn't cover ALL situations. We're not ALL irresponsible assholes who drink coffee behind the wheel.

Re:Translation...Information wants to be locked up

[Deb-fanboy]

1) Why on earth did you buy an espace? You do know it's made by Renault, right? Was it because they once made an F1 car that looks like one?

Renault Espace is a 7 seater people carrier very comfortable for long journeys through Europe. FYI there is no F1 car that looks like a people carrier. The idea is laughable.

2) The car is probably required by law to give you the generic powertrain codes without a fight, so what are you really trying to get out of there?

Fault codes mainly. There is some obfuscation going on with Renault. There is no law that I know of that I can call on to make Renault give me detailed fault codes, although I do agree that they should be forced to make it easy.

Not RightToRepair

[jago25_98]

Not to be confused with the RightToRepair campaign subject:
http://www.r2rc.eu/
http://www.righttorepair.org/

Re:Translation...Information wants to be locked up

[drinkypoo]

Renault Espace is a 7 seater people carrier very comfortable for long journeys through Europe. FYI there is no F1 car that looks like a people carrier. The idea is laughable.

google is your friend

Not opening up anything

[Hentes]

They are just bundling a tablet with the car, there s nothing in the article indicating that the owner will get access to the inner functions of the vehicle.

Re:Translation...Information wants to be locked up

[Deb-fanboy]

Renault Espace is a 7 seater people carrier very comfortable for long journeys through Europe. FYI there is no F1 car that looks like a people carrier. The idea is laughable.

google is your friend

Renault made a car called the Espace F1, but they did not make a car that looks like a F1 car. Take a look at the Espace F1, it looks like a big van not a formula one car.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as a BMW driver, perhaps if y'all didn't blindly walk out into the fucking road while on your phone you'd have fewer near-misses.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Well, we could sit here and have an in-depth non-oversimplified conversation, but we'd still land on the point that cars sharing roads with bikes is more dangerous than roads only being for cars. Simple math and statistics willl bear that out regardless of how talented you make every driver in the world to be.

The people who think it's more complicated than that would do the world a great service by becoming organ donors.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[CBravo]

you sound like a politician, to make things even more simple.

Re:Translation...Information wants to be locked up

[drinkypoo]

You are having problems with English. Go back, re-read my comments, re-read your comments, and you will find that you are objecting to things I have not said.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[garyebickford]

It is not retarded interfaces that killed. It is the retarded users that didn't take the time to learn it, and took their eyes ff the road too long.

No, sometimes it is the radio design. I have had several cars over the last couple of years (long story), and the radio front panel designs vary a lot. Some of them can be completely controlled by feel, some are difficult, some are downright impossible to do anything to without looking. My favorite (a Pioneer that I installed in my truck in about 2002) had a remote, which seemed a bit silly at the time but was really great, because I didn't even have to reach for the radio. It was by far the safest of all.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[garyebickford]

I have a friend who regularly argues with me about how bicycles are fine for driving down the road and that drivers need to be more careful. My response is always 'you should use the damn sidewalk' to which the response I get back is 'there are more accidents on sidewalks resulting in injury than on the street'.

Every place I've lived, it's illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[garyebickford]

You reminded me of one case, back in the 1970s IIRC, in Eugene Oregon. Two bicyclists were riding full-tilt in opposite directions on a bike path (one of those skinny ones with a white line down the middle) through a park, in the middle of the night. It was dark so they were both riding down the white line. This was a real 'head-on' collision. Both died.

the solution to our political problems...

[Anonymous Coward]

One example, people driving off cliffs and into lakes .... because the GPS told them too.

I just realized we should make this a required test of anyone who wants to run for political office.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

.... and?

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[mrchaotica]

My response is always 'you should use the damn sidewalk' to which the response I get back is 'there are more accidents on sidewalks resulting in injury than on the street'.

If you said that to me, my response would be IT'S ILLEGAL TO RIDE A BIKE ON THE GODDAMN SIDEWALK!

By the way, the reason riding a bike on a sidewalk is more dangerous than riding in the street is NOT bicycle-pedestrian collisions, it's bicycle-automobile collisions where the car is pulling into/out of a driveway or side street and isn't expecting a bicycle [illegally] barreling down the sidewalk.

Re:Translation...Information wants to be locked up

[mrchaotica]

Holy crap, that's awesome!

Reminds me of SUN

[gr8_phk]

When SUN came to the one of the trade shows in Detroit and claimed a car was just "a browser on wheels".

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[ceoyoyo]

They run into pedestrians occasionally. But if I'm driving (I also run, walk and bike frequently) I'm going to be very unhappy if some idiot on a bike gets killed because he blew a stop light in front of me and I couldn't stop. He's just dead. I have to live with killing him.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[AK Marc]

When I commuted for a year by bike, I regularly passed cars (moving ones, not ones stopped at stoplights). I'd travel the speed limit or higher. The increase in danger is the incompetent drivers. The worst of which focus on everyone else, like you, so we can only presume you to be one of the worst drivers on the road.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[AK Marc]

I've watched two bikes collide, sending both riders unconscious to the hospital (both were wearing helmets). If I hit you from behind on a bike, you'd be dead. Hell, I have a friend that was hit in the back while skiing and was dead before his lifeless body hit the snow.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[AK Marc]

When you won't fund a bike lane and pass laws making it illegal to ride on the sidewalk (not that there is one where you are mentioning), what do you expect?

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[AK Marc]

Bikers follow the laws more than the cars do. They don't "always" but then, nobody holds the cars to that standard.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

When I commuted for a year by bike, I regularly passed cars (moving ones, not ones stopped at stoplights). I'd travel the speed limit or higher.

Oh? Can you ride at 40mph? That's impressive, nobody where I live can.

The worst of which focus on everyone else...

You mean the other cars that the road was designed for.

...so we can only presume you to be one of the worst drivers on the road.

Ah. I express my opinion and I'm greedy, but when somebody puts themselves in a dangerous situation and blames everybody but themselves.... Mmm hmm.

I'd like to point out two things: 1. The car drivers are the only side being blamed and 2. The actual physics of this discussion have been ignored by everybody who rides a bicycle. When smokers do this, it's cognitive dissonance.

Oh you angelic law abiding bicycle riders, cursed to eternity by the un-ritghteous. You do know that none of us actually want to hurt you, right? It'd be nice to actually see an admission of that, for once.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[Osgeld]

what sidewalk? this is a highway not a fucking city street, within thousands of miles of back country roads which have maybe 6 cars a day vs the thousands

and where we have bike lanes, its a 5 lane highway in the middle of the city 45 miles per hour, whats next you want bicycling on the freaking interstate as well? If you want to be stupid about it dont whine when you get smacked by a box van, and if you want to ride on the sidewalk dont be suprised when you get sued for breaking an old lady's hip when YOU run them over

Re:Translation...Information wants to be locked up

[Deb-fanboy]

OK.

I said "I drive a Renault Espace". Your comment was "Why on earth did you buy an espace? You do know it's made by Renault, right?"

So why ask if I know that the Espace was made by Renault, when it is obvious that I do. Also why say "Why on earth did you buy an espace?" that is an unproductive and unfriendly way of asking the question

Next: "Was it because they once made an F1 car that looks like one?". Well if you ask anyone whether something looks like an F1 car they will not respond as if F1 commonly refers to a version of a people carrier made in 1995. It might seem clever for you to later put a url to that effect with a moniker "google is your friend". But if you think that the obscure version of a commonly used term is as valid as the commonplace usage because you can google for it, then I think google might well be you enemy.

Well your responses seem to be adversarial and unfriendly and. whether you intended them as such they appear trollish.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[AK Marc]

You don't want bikes on your roads, and don't want bike lanes. That's a logic fail I can not help you with.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[AK Marc]

Oh? Can you ride at 40mph? That's impressive, nobody where I live can.

Ah yes, the "I've never see it, so it *never* happens argument. I can't change what you've seen, but I can correct your incorrect statements, as I have done. Believing the truth is still up to you.

You mean the other cars that the road was designed for.

No, I mean the others the road was designed for. Even without sidewalks, most intersections in urban areas have pedestrian crossing lights. You are apparently arguing that roads with explicit pedestrian signals at *Every* light are designed for cars *only*. That is a logic fail I can not help you with.

Ah. I express my opinion and I'm greedy, but when somebody puts themselves in a dangerous situation and blames everybody but themselves.... Mmm hmm.

They claim control for what they can control, and blame others for what they can't control. I've seen a car drive up on a sidewalk and hit a pedestrian. Your argument is that is the pedestrian's fault for walking so close to a busy street. I disagree. If you are in a situation where you would be 100% safe if everyone else followed the rules, are you really responsible for what the lawbreakers do to endanger you?

Oh you angelic law abiding bicycle riders, cursed to eternity by the un-ritghteous. You do know that none of us actually want to hurt you, right? It'd be nice to actually see an admission of that, for once.

I don't ride bikes anymore, but I ride a motorcycle in a place where lane-splitting is explicitly legal. Having had someone swerve out of their lane to honk at me (indicating they saw me) then deliberately strike me while they weren't even in their lane (they saw me passing cars, waited until I was close, then swerved to commit assault by purposefully striking someone else), I have to say that just because you don't wish ill of bikes, doesn't mean everyone else's intentions are identical. Some people are just evil that way. I've been in the car with people that have cursed and threatened bikes in a bike lane that passed them because getting passed by a bike was somehow offensive.

The actual physics of this discussion have been ignored by everybody who rides a bicycle.

The physics are simple. If the paths of the two objects never intersect, then it doesn't matter what the kinetic energy is of either for calculating the collision damage.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Ah yes, the "I've never see it, so it *never* happens argument. I can't change what you've seen, but I can correct your incorrect statements, as I have done. Believing the truth is still up to you.

Every day I drive by a flock of bikes not traveling at the same speed. Your statement doesn't apply to just me.

You are apparently arguing that roads with explicit pedestrian signals at *Every* light are designed for cars *only*. That is a logic fail I can not help you with.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying I'm saying .... actually shouldn't you just ask for clarifications my views before ranting about lack of logic? Seriously, half of what you said here is a response to some fictional story you wrote.

Your argument is that is the pedestrian's fault for walking so close to a busy street.

No, that is not an argument that I have made. I didn't say anything about pedestrians and my opinion on them wasn't asked. But since we're all being snippy here, I'll just use your debate style, here.

"Apparently you think sidewalks shouldn't exist at all and all roads should just be flat from one end to another. Pedestrians, instead of walking on a raised surface designed specifically to handle their traffic and to offer a level of safety, should just walk in their own lane as explicitly defined by a line painted on the road. They'll be perfectly safe so long as drivers are 100% safe when they drive."

Amazing. I am seriously amazed.

If you are in a situation where you would be 100% safe if everyone else followed the rules, are you really responsible for what the lawbreakers do to endanger you?

Why is this conversation strictly about law-breakers? The whole point I've been making is that it's dangerous, not that it's dangerous because there are law-breakers. The very nature of it is dangerous for very obvious and observable reasons. You're throwing random stationary objects on the side of the road and the onus is completely on drivers to deal with it . If a city is designed for that, fine! I'd be surprised if even one city in the US was. Even in the area I live in, there are bike lines, and they're crammed with self-righteous dippies who still manage to bunch up traffic and narrowly avoid getting hit.

I've been in the car with people that have cursed and threatened bikes in a bike lane that passed them because getting passed by a bike was somehow offensive.

I'd love to see an instant replay of that. You've probably just seen an insane person, but I'm curious if you were seeing somebody violate traffic rules and not realize it. I've watched bicycle riders ride in between cars and become a hazard. I've seen them run red lights or stop signs because they don't give a shit about traffic rules. I've watched them ride in bike lines but cause a massive bunchup because they ride very close to the inner line and ... wobbly. A bunch of cars have to drift into the other lane to go around them because a.) The cyclist is going too slow and b.) They're worried he's going to fall on his side and get his head run over. In the US it's not very difficult to get a driver's license, and there are lots of dumb drivers out there as a result of it... and riding a bicycle on a road doesn't even have that minimum level of exclusivity!

The physics are simple. If the paths of the two objects never intersect, then it doesn't matter what the kinetic energy is of either for calculating the collision damage.

Exactly! If bikes and cars don't cross paths, then the amount of energy, measured in any unit system you like, is ... ZERO! We actually agree on this.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[AK Marc]

Every day I drive by a flock of bikes not traveling at the same speed.

"I don't see it, so it never happens anywhere."

No, that is not an argument that I have made.

Yes, it is. You've argued that bikes traveling as required by law, have only themselves to blame if they are hit by cars (if they weren't there, they wouldn't be hit).

Pedestrians, instead of walking on a raised surface designed specifically to handle their traffic and to offer a level of safety, should just walk in their own lane as explicitly defined by a line painted on the road. They'll be perfectly safe so long as drivers are 100% safe when they drive.

Absolutely true. Pedestrians do walk in their own lane on the road. They are called "crosswalks" and these mythical pedestrian lanes are (comparatively) unsafe for pedestrians, and almost exclusively due to actions by those in the cars. So yes, your fictional straw man is actually on topic and applicable. But only if you think about it, and you obviously didn't try that so far this discussion. You are so busy justifying your personal opinion that you haven't stopped to even consider anyone else might be right.

I'd love to see an instant replay of that. You've probably just seen an insane person, but I'm curious if you were seeing somebody violate traffic rules and not realize it.

When it comes to driving, most people are insane. You do realize that traffic engineers used to model traffic with ping pong balls, until they realized that people were stupider than ping pong balls, so they had to computer model based on the well proven and known ping pong ball models, then make the model "dumber" to accommodate actual drivers, who brake for no reason, change lanes in a manner that slows down everyone on the road and such? And it was a bike in a bike lane riding past stopped cars who were in the adjacent car lanes who were stopped because of traffic. The jealousy of car drivers is insane, I agree, but I've not seen any car driver that didn't exhibit that trait.

Why is this conversation strictly about law-breakers? The whole point I've been making is that it's dangerous, not that it's dangerous because there are law-breakers.

And that's the disagreement where you aren't understanding anything. If nobody broke any laws, then there'd be no crashes (bike/car or car/car), though that's somewhat a tautology, as police are known to give tickets because someone crashed for activities they wouldn't have ticketed if they saw them and nobody crashed. Everything is "dangerous" to some degree. The question is about levels of danger and levels of responsibility. You assert that car drivers have no responsibility to "respect" others if they deem those others to be unworthy (bikers in this case, as all bikers are slow, inconvenient law breakers and deserve to be run over, and then spit on for getting in the way of a car).

You're throwing random stationary objects on the side of the road and the onus is completely on drivers to deal with it .

Fuck yeah. If you are driving a car and can't avoid the street signs and pedestrians, there's a problem. If you are driving a car and hitting bikers in bike lanes, you should go to jail.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"I don't see it, so it never happens anywhere."

"I don't see it, so it never happens anywhere."

Yes, it is. You've argued that bikes traveling as required by law, have only themselves to blame if they are hit by cars (if they weren't there, they wouldn't be hit).

That is a different statement from the one you used. That's also not a complete understanding of my point. If you could tell the difference between the two statements, you'd understand my view a lot better.

Absolutely true.

Wrong. A crosswalk is not a bike lane. A crosswalk, for example, stops traffic for the safety of pedestrians. The rest of the time, they walk on sidewalks. There's a reason for it!

You are so busy justifying your personal opinion that you haven't stopped to even consider anyone else might be right.

You are so busy justifying your personal opinion that you haven't stopped to even consider anyone else might be right.

You do realize that traffic engineers used to model traffic with ping pong balls, until they realized that people were stupider than ping pong balls, so they had to computer model based on the well proven and known ping pong ball models, then make the model "dumber" to accommodate actual drivers, who brake for no reason, change lanes in a manner that slows down everyone on the road and such?

It doesn't surprise me at all. Notice you're only (again) speaking of drivers?

If nobody broke any laws, then there'd be no crashes (bike/car or car/car),..

Wrong. WRONG. Wrong. Wrong.. Wrongity wrong from Wrongsville, Wrongsylvania. You do understand that collisions are called 'accidents', right? Seriously, this is bar-none one of the stupidest statements I've ever seen on this site and, amazingly, you disproved your own statement in the same post. Seriously dude, you are amazing me again.

You assert that car drivers have no responsibility to "respect"....

I have not, actually. What's funny is the actual point I have been making you have been supporting with your own arguments. Can't wait to read your next work of fan-fiction!

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[Anonymous Coward]

* Except themselves.

Sounds like

[Anonymous Coward]

They are taking a page from Steve Jobs, and trying to figure out how to make you pay at every turn. "You are about to make a left on Main Street. There is an app for that."

More and more people are buying cars and driving till the wheels fall off, and this is a way for them to start making a monthly fee, or app fee to generate more revenue. I wonder who will take responsibility for the apps that cause real damage like when it did with Toyota.

S u m a n

Marketing strategy

[pgpalmer]

I'm skeptical of the average driver's ability to use one of these without turning his car into a 3,000-lb angry bird.

It's unlikely that they'll reach a 3-star score for that level, but after the attempt the car would be wreaked, so they'd have to go back and buy another car to improve their score.

The manufacturer and car dealerships get more money, supporting more jobs, the car-wreak industry gets more work, supporting more jobs, and the driver is able to keep up with the latest safety features in his car. It's brilliant!

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[AK Marc]

That is a different statement from the one you used. That's also not a complete understanding of my point. If you could tell the difference between the two statements, you'd understand my view a lot better.

Your point seems to be that bikes are at fault for being run over by a car, even if the bike is traveling safely because 1) they had to have broken the law at some time because they are on a bike and bikers deserve what they get, and 2) the biker is at fault in all crashes because, regardless of what the law says, they put themselves in the :"dangerous" situation of proximity to cars.

Wrong. There's a reason for [crosswalks]!

So, by implication, you are asserting there is *no* reason for bike lanes.

You are so busy justifying your personal opinion that you haven't stopped to even consider anyone else might be right.

Nope, I'm not discussing my personal opinion. I'm discussing yours. You aren't discussing my personal opinion. You are discussing yours. As such, your statement must be incorrect, and mine could be correct. Given the fact that you didn't refute my statement in any way (other than the ignore and deflect tactic) indicates to me that you believe it to be true, otherwise, why not tell me I'm wrong? My opinion on this (other than yours is wrong) has never come up. You haven't asked, you don't care. You *only* care about proving yourself right and not listening to anything that contradicts your pre-conceived opinion.

I have not, actually. What's funny is the actual point I have been making you have been supporting with your own arguments.

I think you have detoured into lying. If I had been supporting your agruemnts so well, why are you arguing so vehemently? To quote you:

Wrong. WRONG. Wrong. Wrong.. Wrongity wrong from Wrongsville, Wrongsylvania.

That doesn't sound like agreement to me.

You do understand that collisions are called 'accidents', right?

You do realize that the Feds changed the name of the "accident" reporting system to "analysis" (to keep the acronym and avoid the impliciation that "accident" means what you are implying). Nobody who works in traffic safety or crash reconstruction calls them "accidents" anymore. They are "accidents" like shooting yourself playing russian roulette is an "accidental discharge of a firearm." *every* "accident" is avoidable. When you accept that "shit happens" then you are unsafe. And all I've seen from you is justification on why you feel OK with being unsafe and why your "unsafe" isn't any worse than anyone elses, and thus meets you definition of "safe" even if not so, and you are grumpy with bikes because they make you feel less safe, despite the fact that they do not reduce the safety of people in cars at all.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[AK Marc]

Why is this conversation strictly about law-breakers? The whole point I've been making is that it's dangerous, not that it's dangerous because there are law-breakers.

If nobody broke any laws, how do you see the thousands of cars running over bikes to continue to happen? Cars just "accidentally" run them over while the bikes are in the bike lanes and the cars are in the car lanes? Come on, you asserted that it's dangerous even if nobody ever broke a law, so just give a few plausible examples of how a car will be running over a bike while both are following the law.

It doesn't surprise me at all. Notice you're only (again) speaking of drivers?

Notice, you are proving my point that you are dumber than a ping pong ball. It was a general statement about traffic flow. Bikes on a road, acting as cars are "drivers" in that context. They are rare enough that they are ignored by traffic engineering, and plans for bike paths are often handled by parks and recreation departments, separate from the road and street departments.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Your point seems to be that bikes are at fault for being run over by a car...

No, I'm saying that mixing cars and bikes on the same road is dangerous.

So, by implication, you are asserting there is *no* reason for bike lanes.

What?

Given the fact that you didn't refute my statement in any way (other than the ignore and deflect tactic) indicates to me that you believe it to be true...

Of course it does. You wish it to be true, so you tried to find something that'd support that statement. I know a guy that believes aliens are skimming our planet and all of these reports of 'UFO activity" indicate to him that they're here. Same thing.

You *only* care about proving yourself right and not listening to anything that contradicts your pre-conceived opinion.

Projecting.

I think you have detoured into lying. If I had been supporting your agruemnts so well, why are you arguing so vehemently?

That's a funny way to ask "What do you mean?" Or were you trying to distract from just how stupid that statement really was? Clarify, please?

...despite the fact that they do not reduce the safety of people in cars at all.

Ahhhh now we've reduced the scope to just the people in the cars! That's sneaky, dude. (The statement's still untrue.) That's actually worse than claiming what I see on a daily basis doesn't actually happen then denying cyclists are 'stupid ping pongs', too. I think you're starting to see that I'm right.

If nobody broke any laws, how do you see the thousands of cars running over bikes to continue to happen? Cars just "accidentally" run them over while the bikes are in the bike lanes and the cars are in the car lanes? Come on, you asserted that it's dangerous even if nobody ever broke a law, so just give a few plausible examples of how a car will be running over a bike while both are following the law.

The answer is within your previous post. If that's not enough, then I'd like to know why life hasn't taught you this already. Have you not had a driver's license for very long? Are you still living with your parents and haven't been out in the real world for very long? Do you have a medical condition and all you know about life you get from reading the Internet? I just want to understand why you don't understand the phrase 'shit happens' before I spend any amount of time explaining to you what the word 'accident' means.

Notice, you are proving my point that you are dumber than a ping pong ball. Notice, you are proving my point that you are dumber than a ping pong ball. It was a general statement about traffic flow. Bikes on a road, acting as cars are "drivers" in that context.

" And it was a bike in a bike lane riding past stopped cars who were in the adjacent car lanes who were stopped because of traffic. The jealousy of car drivers is insane, I agree, but I've not seen any car driver that didn't exhibit that trait."

You didn't let me down. The best bit was when you accused me of lying! It really is hard to take your comments too seriously when you expressly live in denial of 'shit happens'.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[AK Marc]

No, I'm saying that mixing cars and bikes on the same road is dangerous.

But when I point out that the same happens with pedestrians and crosswalks, you claim that's not the same. I honestly don't see a massive difference between sidewalks and crosswalks to the idea of bike lanes.

Ahhhh now we've reduced the scope to just the people in the cars!

I've continually done that. You go back to "danger" (an undefined danger, to who and from what is never defined, as you claim the bikes are unsafe lawbreakers, but never actually acknowledge that the cars have nothing to fear from the bikes). Why are you, as a car driver, so opposed to bikes on the road? They don't reduce your safety. So why is it an issue to you if it is dangerous? You want to protect people from themselves against their will?

It really is hard to take your comments too seriously when you expressly live in denial of 'shit happens'.

"Shit happens" is what the inattentive driver says after they hit a tree that jumped out in front of them. Everything has a cause. Implying that there exists causeless actions gives in to helplessness that promotes unsafe behaviors, after all, if accidents are unavoidable, why try? You can' never succeed, so it's a waste of time. And yes, that defeatist attitude is real, and does reduce safety, that's why the NHTSA removed the word "accident" from the Fatal Accident Reporting System. http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/airbags/Archive-04/PresBelt/crash_accident.html (not a press release on FARS renaming, but an official article declaring "Crashes Aren't Accidents."

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

But when I point out that the same happens with pedestrians and crosswalks, you claim that's not the same. I honestly don't see a massive difference between sidewalks and crosswalks to the idea of bike lanes.

You don't see how stopping traffic to let people through isn't a huge difference?

Why are you, as a car driver, so opposed to bikes on the road?

Because I don't want to hit one.

They don't reduce your safety.

Yes, they do.

...implying that there exists causeless actions gives in to helplessness that promotes unsafe behaviors...

Nobody said 'causeless'. I can't believe the ignorance you're displaying here! Are you over-zealously defending your point or are you really so inexperienced at life that you don't understand this topic? I really hope it's the former.

...if accidents are unavoidable, why try?

Because the number of accidents is an integer and not a boolean.

And yes, that defeatist attitude is real, and does reduce safety, that's why the NHTSA removed the word "accident" from the Fatal Accident Reporting System. http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/airbags/Archive-04/PresBelt/crash_accident.html (not a press release on FARS renaming, but an official article declaring "Crashes Aren't Accidents."

Oh that's classic, man. Hahaha. Do you see the world 'preventable' all over the article you sent me? Think about it.

Re:Speaking as a road user not in a 4,000lb box...

[AK Marc]

You don't see how stopping traffic to let people through isn't a huge difference?

Not all crosswalks are controlled, and not all cars or pedestrians follow all the laws. As such, assuming that every pedestrian and every car follow all laws when in proximity and the opposite when bikes are in question seems odd. Though you have implied that even if every biker and every car were driving safely and within the law, there would still be car-nage, as the mere proximity is dangerous.

Because the number of accidents is an integer and not a boolean.

Whether you crash this year is a boolean.

Oh that's classic, man. Hahaha. Do you see the world 'preventable' all over the article you sent me? Think about it.

Yes. Preventable means it wasn't an accident, it was a negligent. Preventable means that someone did something identifiably wrong (and no, a bike being near a road isn't "preventable" in the scope of this. Again, how does a car run over a biker if they never cross paths? If neither breaks any laws, how so they attempt to occupy the same spot at the same time?

How do the bikers reduce your safety? You've asserted this more than once, and there is no means by which a bicycle striking a stationary car has any reasonable chance of injuring the driver of the car. Add to that you can't even give a single example of two law abiding road users striking each other, I can't understand what your objection is. "I don't like bikes near me because I fear them" is about the closest I can guess as to your meaning, as when I press for details, you refuse to answer and tell me I don't understand without adding anything that might possibly expand anyone's understanding of your stance.

Nobody said 'causeless'. I can't believe the ignorance you're displaying here! Are you over-zealously defending your point or are you really so inexperienced at life that you don't understand this topic? I really hope it's the former.

You laughed about the link, like you read it, but you didn't understand it. People take "accident" to be "causeless" or "blameless" which is the *reason* that the NHTSA stopped using it. You agree that crashes aren't "accidents" in the fatalistic can't-be-avoided definition, yet feign incredulity when I made the distinction to help discover if you are using it in that manner. They are crashes, almost every one has an identifiable cause, and "bike near car" isn't a cause. And you can't give any answer either, other than "accidents" which means you are using "accident" in the exact same manner you claim you are not. If you don't mean it to imply "causeless" then tell me a reasonable scenario of a causeless of a crash where a bike and car collide. Since you can't, I take that to mean you recognize there isn't one, so you'll be pounding on the table, since the facts and the law don't agree with you.