Slashdot Mirror
Running Apps From Your Car's Dashboard
An anonymous reader writes "I guess is was inevitable, now that BMW is letting you view and make tweets from behind the wheel, but is it really a good idea to let people run smartphone apps from their dashboard monitor? I guess for navigation you could run your favorite map-app there, but there is nothing to stop people from running other apps on their dashboard too. It might be better than texting from the handset, but I'm not sure I want people playing Angry Birds while they drive."
>> I'm not sure I want people playing Angry Birds while they drive
Here in Boston, we use the same techniques for both.
Where would the police come in here?
Yes, in the Wild Wild West, everybody could do whatever the hell they wanted in the privacy of their own automobile while driving down the public roads. However, in the real world, we should probably think this through a little bit.
But I'm not sure that an article whose first paragraph contained the phrase 'Smartphone-centric in-vehicle infotainment (IVI) systems are the next step in mobile convenience' is the place to start.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Why do you think what you want people do to with their cars is any of your business, as long as it doesn't involve hurting you or someone else?
Punish them if they do something stupid and cause a traffic accident... let them work out what they're allowed to do with their insurance company that may have to pay for the consequences, but how did we get to the point where joe anonymous may get a say via the police over what software people are allowed to run?
Because frequently it *does* involve hurting someone else: it's called a fatal car accident, where the person who wasn't playing Angry Birds dies. The person wrecklessly driving will of course face all kinds of consequences from the police/courts/insurance company for the accident (and quite possibly manslaughter charges on top of it), but that doesn't bring the victim back to life.
You must not drive apparently. The majority of people are barely capable of driving without any distractions. I'm all for the Libertarian idealism but too many slack jawed mouth breathers ruined it. Sorry.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Could lead to playing Angry Cars inadvertently.
Recklessly, not wrecklessly. They've definitely caused a car wreck.
...enabled in car systems?
Until recently, I had no touchscreens in my car, but once I got my new shiny smartphone, it had a rather cool "Car mode", where it made all the buttons large and easy to press, etc...
However nice it was in theory, I found that once I mounted it on my dash, it became a right PITA to operate while driving. While complex things (like setting up the maps) would make sense to stop at the side and fiddle with, other things (like setting the volume, or switching playlists/songs) shouldn't.
The biggest annoyance was the fact that operating the touchscreen required me to look at it, even for simple things like the volume control or music switching. I could operate all the major functions of my old car radio without even looking at it, it was well laid out, and buttons were different shapes and sizes, really easy to learn.
I really think touchscreens are not ready for car use just yet, at least until they develop some overlay that can change its tactile feedback. Anything that requires you to look at it to operate should have no place in the dashboard IMO (if it was mounted only on the passenger side out of reach of the driver, that would be good as well, but then I suspect some people would just lean over while hurtling down the motorway).
I don't know, I feel this will just increase the number of accidents due to people looking at the screen in order to find the song they want, or to tweet or something else... and as someone who has to share the roads with them, it is somewhat of a worry.... :/
Why do you think what you want people do to with their cars is any of your business, as long as it doesn't involve hurting you or someone else?
You can't make a statement like this without also defending the idea that "Smartphone-centric in-vehicle infotainment (IVI) systems" won't involve hurting yourself or someone else.
Punish them if they do something stupid and cause a traffic accident... let them work out what they're allowed to do with their insurance company that may have to pay for the consequences
A) Driving is a privelege, not a right.
B) Your statement accepts that the law can force you to purchase car insurance. Why are other restrictions on driving so much more onerous?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Maybe the Germans can exhibit a bit of self control behind the wheel while driving?
So the story goes with VW's engineers that they kept getting complaints from the American dealers that their cars lacked cup holders. The engineers couldn't fathom why you would want a cup of anything while driving. So they determined it was just to store something while driving to a destination. So for the Mk3 Golf/Jetta we got cup holders... That will hold exactly a 12 floz can. Anything larger won't fit.
The Germans have a complete different mentality about driving that most Americans don't get. I got to visit a while ago for a week and when you're doing 200 kph you don't have time for a cell phone. The autobahn gently twists and turns unlike some American highways which you could write your biography if the car's aligned.
So explain to me why a passenger would need to have their smartphone in hand and have the application for it appear on the dash, rather than just looking at it in their hand, that doesn't involve the driver.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
I'm waiting to see how many posts pile up about voice recognition being the way to go in automobiles. It is arguably a better alternative to controlling multimedia functions in a car, definitely better than anything touch screen based. Frankly I wish the legislators would wise up and ban all touch input built into cars going forward. It is a disaster. Hard buttons are the safest way to control auxiliary functions in an automobile. I am being a bit hypocritical though, as I have considered integrating a really cheap Android tablet into my car for GPS and music. I also don't see there being a chance for any kind of ban given the propensity of GPS to use touch input.
Really, their just need to be better UI design guidelines for automotive use. Car mode on Android is alright, but still offers too much for the average mind to scan and pick from. I always thought the UI styles used in most GPS units was best, never really more than 2-4 choices at a time on the screen.
I could see a TTS system reading feeds from twitter, facebook, rss, etcetera being useful and cool even if I would never use it. Get in the car, get on the morning commute and get your /. feed instead of AM talk radio I suppose.
I joke about voice recognition and commands because as many here are aware, vocalization takes 80% of the average person's brain processing power. That is why so many people can't talk on the phone and drive (besides the fact that they are self-centered, spoiled a-holes).
Have people really lost sight of liberty so much?
Yes. They get too emotional about casualties in the name of freedom and opt to restrict what other people are able to do. They cannot handle even a single loss, and they don't even realize that their 'solutions' will often not even solve the problem.
This is why some people support the TSA and the Patriot Act. "We must restrict everyone's rights in exchange for a bit of safety." It's just that there are different things that they want to sacrifice freedom for. In some cases, it's terrorism (restricting people's rights to "stop the terrorists" doesn't seem popular here). In some cases, it's children (I've noticed this is more popular here, especially when it comes to issues like child porn).
By your logic I should be allowed to get shitfaced drunk while driving and society gets no say unless I screw up.
Mind you I personally have no problem with this, I've known people that are safer drivers blacked-out drunk than some people are stone sober. They rarely get caught because they don't give off any "warning signs" no weaving, skipping stop signs, etc. But if we go that route lets start actually enforcing reckless driving laws with severe penalties. If you can't stay in your lane and obey the traffic laws what does it matter if it's because you're drunk, texting, or trying to break up a fight between the kids? Your vehicle is just as big a threat either way.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Make the auto manufacturer liable if they made provisions for the driver to be able to display to the driver applications not related to operation of the vehicle.
How about we skip all that and just hold people responsible for their actual actions that actually harm others, instead of creating a police and nanny state because we're afraid someone may misuse their freedom in some minor way "we" don't approve of?
But how to determine their 'actual action'? Would you be ok with data recorders that log all the actions, so we can hold them responsible? Or do you just want to throw up your hands and say "Oh, there's no way to know, we have to trust what they tell us because they wouldn't lie."
And should we do the same for everyone else? Trust truck drivers (who get paid by the mile) to take long, relaxing rests cross-country instead of being wired on white crosses? Trust school bus drivers not to drink too much from the bottle they keep beneath the seat? Trust that dump truck driver not to get distracted by the TV he's got propped up on his dash?
Personally, I'd rather have neither the data recorder nor the game-boy dashboard. But I do know that if the driver has access to that game-boy, some of them will be using it. Some of them are already texting, reading, drinking coffee, chatting on the phone, applying makeup, or all of the above, we know that some of them will be playing Angry Birds. And these are people who can barely walk and chew gum at the same time.
I'm sure that extra "freedom" is worth your life (and that of your children, given that they're from your gene pool). But, you know, after you've been squished into a twisted ball of metal and shredded meat, whether the perp is "held responsible" isn't going to be real important to you.
that the result will be similar to those in the user images for this product:
http://www.amazon.com/Wheelmate-Laptop-Steering-Wheel-Desk/dp/B000IZGIA8
In the case of a glancing collision, spinnout, etc you can easily get thrown around the cab by forces considerably stronger than you could hope to resist. A seatbelt will keep you in place behind the wheel where you still have a some control over your still-moving vehicle and can hopefully bring it to a stop without any secondary collisions. An only slightly weaker argument applies to front-seat passengers, since they can easily be thrown into your lap severely impairing your control. Rear seat passengers on the other hand are more a case of "think of the children" since any collision which manages to throw them into the front seat will likely have stopped the car anyway. Though, now that I think about it, without seatbelts children are far more likely to be clambering around the back of the car distracting you, or perched between the front seats so they can see out the windshield (and get thrown around the cab), so there's might be some validity to it after all.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Would this person's prosecution for causing an accident resulting in death deter other people from behaving similarly?
Probably not, but that's not the point.
Do you really think that setting up regulations to ban or approve applications that are allowed to run on a computer would deter someone more than the possibility of causing death, either theirs or others?
Yes, I do. If given the opportunity to play Angry Birds on the dashboard, many will opt to do it, because the barrier to entry is nonexistent. People generally believe that the worst won't happen to them, and that it'd be alright because the foreseen circumstances are just fine. However, it is inherently impossible to account for unforeseen circumstances. These circumstances can, in many cases, be avoided with quick reflexes and complete attention on the road, but trying to line up the perfect shot would inherently prohibit one from realizing the danger before it's too late.
Have you thought through the enforcement regime required to ensure people don't have "unapproved" applications loaded on their car computer?
Yes, and it's called "what's worked for the past century: don't run apps on your dashboard at all". Wanna add a trip computer or GPS stats on there? Fine, I'm down with that. But there's no conceivable reason to add games to a dashboard as it does nothing whatsoever to provide better performance to the vehicle or the driver. Just because something is possible doesn't make it a good idea.
Are we talking an annual inspection of their data, or what, you must be a government approved vehicle computer system or application provider?
No, we are talking a dashboard that doesn't run apps.
What's next, regulations about the types of toilet paper, flushing mechanisms or light bulbs "we" approve of? Ridiculous, right?
Redacto ad absurdum much? I'm pretty sure that there are some form of regulations in place to limit the possibility of making toilet paper out of fiberglass or light bulbs out of nuclear waste, because that's the level of absurdity this line requires to make it work.
How about, mind your own damn business until it actually affects you?
My best friend lost her mom in a car accident to a distracted driver. Sue me for the one degree of separation.
Have people really lost sight of liberty so much?
If you want to play angry birds while driving on a closed course or the middle of the desert, go right ahead. It's not a significant infringement of your personal liberties to say that while you're on public highways and operating a motor vehicle that you should act in a manner that doesn't risk the lives of the people next to you for your own entertainment.
Or do they just not think things like this through?
You're defending the notion of adding entertainment in an unnecessary and potentially dangerous manner to cars that will be driving on public roads and putting it under the vise of a liberty issue. I'll take the hit on the "not thinking things through" schtick once you can explain to me how this benefits anyone.
So your situation is to have the passengers display entertainment on the dash board for everyone to see when they could just use the built in displays in the head rests for the back and again the actual smartphone for the person in shotgun..
I understand the "passenger" argument, and i do believe that passengers have a responsibly not to create a distraction.
As for your comment on self driving cars, if you are in a self driving car, then you are all passengers, a computer is the driver, and i wouldn't want the computer distracted beyond it's ability to operate the vehicle.. if you want to "test the waters for socially enabled in car entertainment" that effects the current meat space driver/operator wait till you have the self driving cars so you can let them be entertained by i while the computer drives the car, but it would be unwise to do it before hand.
If you really want to watch a movie on your way to work, do it in a manner where you aren't the one in control of a 3000lbs object traveling at 50 mph while watching the movie.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Distracted morons are one reason why I drive full-size trucks with ugly accessories such as liftgates and tow-truck bumpers.
Besides using them for their intended purpose, such add-ons get driver attention. Flat black Rustoleum FTW!
I also keep my triball Reese hitch installed as a standoff. Anyone who rear-ends me deserves to lose a radiator, not just a bumper cover.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Have people really lost sight of liberty so much?
Yes. They get too emotional about casualties in the name of freedom and opt to restrict what other people are able to do. They cannot handle even a single loss, and they don't even realize that their 'solutions' will often not even solve the problem.
This is why some people support the TSA and the Patriot Act. "We must restrict everyone's rights in exchange for a bit of safety." It's just that there are different things that they want to sacrifice freedom for. In some cases, it's terrorism (restricting people's rights to "stop the terrorists" doesn't seem popular here). In some cases, it's children (I've noticed this is more popular here, especially when it comes to issues like child porn).
Comparing the negative response to the idea of installing Twitter in a car to the hysterical comparison of such negative responses to the support of the TSA and the Patriot Act and strongly implying support of totalitarianism? Slashdot's all well and normal then, the cute little hippy libertarian tykes.
Fucking ridiculous.
I'm surprised there isn't yet a reply to this along the lines of "You drive a truck, ergo you're an asshole and a bully as a driver." I see that all the time, especially in the context of a conversation about driving etiquette.
I drive a full-size truck myself, and am a very polite driver. The nice thing about my truck is it forces people around me to be polite as well.
- Reading tweets/Facebook posts (and with a flick of the iDrive, it will read the tweet out to you)
- Posting one of five/six canned tweets/Facebook status messages (e.g., "It's xx outside, and I'm driving my BMW!") - so you aren't trying to compose a message while you drive
- Web radio
- Looking at your calendar/address book
- News RSS feeds
So it has the capacity to be dangerously distracting, but BMW's implementation is limited enough that it's not. Of course, the driver could still be distracted if they're reading Facebook while they're driving, but if they're going to do that, they would do that anyway with their smartphone in their hand.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
I hope it would be appropriate to denote the observation that your comment presents a fine example of common ethnography.
To return to the common vernacular, however: Lyk, geez you mean they don't do it like us?
(cough cough lol and such)
I'm for personal responsibility, not necessarily for government stepping in beyond the limits of basic law, if to enforce a sense of political responsibility - I think that it sets a bad precedent for government, to say the least.
I find myself distracted at the original occurrence of the word, "Infotainment" however. What a shiny.....
So explain to me why a passenger would need to have their smartphone in hand and have the application for it appear on the dash, rather than just looking at it in their hand, that doesn't involve the driver.
Because innovations like this can drive sales. ...and that, I think. is as far as it goes, honestly and in all candor.
How about, mind your own damn business until it actually affects you?
Because we have a reasonable expectation that it WILL affect us. With irrevocable consequences. You've already acknowledged that someone who "may have to pay for the consequences" should have a say in what is allowed behavior:
let them work out what they're allowed to do with their insurance company that may have to pay for the consequences
The potential consequence to the insurance company is a cash payout. The potential consequence to me is pain, death, or dismemberment. In both cases they are potential consequences. No one disputes that. But they are consequences that have happened before, and we have a reasonable expectation they will happen again.
Have you thought through the enforcement regime required to ensure people don't have "unapproved" applications loaded on their car computer? Are we talking an annual inspection of their data, or what, you must be a government approved vehicle computer system or application provider? Gee, the possibilities for abuse are just endless, aren't they?
What science fiction novel are you living in? Have you thought it through yourself? Drunk driving laws have been on the books for years and no one is clamoring for an Orwellian enforcement regime to ensure that people don't have "unapproved" beverages in their car. Police check behavior when looking for drunk drivers. No one inspects our cars annually for beer cozies, Jägermeister empties, or keg taps. We don't have breathalyzers attached to our ignitions unless we've already driven drunk. And rounding out the analogy, our alcohol providers -- retail stores and bars -- require government approval, with very little burden to the consumer.
Get a grip.
I used to drive a 1969 Dodge Dart with great gaping rust holes, a spider-web cracked windshield, and Bullwinkle the Moose painted on the hood in house paint. People took one look at that car, thought "He's got nothing to lose", and got the hell out of my way.
I live in Seattle, and the only non-polite drivers that I regularly encounter are in Escalades, Navigators, Hummers, and (for some reason) Mustangs. Even Beemer drivers, who tend to be assholes in real life, tend to be all right here.
I grew up in Michigan though, and anything smaller than an F150 would get pushed around there.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Okay, I will bite...
The OP showed that his reasons for driving a truck were pretty selfish (larger vehicle = more damage to environment and roadways), and misguided (safety rating of large vehicles tend to be worse than low fuel consumption compacts, such as the VW Golf, although this is changing).
I don't care how polite you say you are, if you drive a vehicle that is unnecessarily large and obstruct my view of the road ahead as a result (I am talking city driving here) then I will think of you accordingly. Oh, and coercing behaviour out of people isn't something I would equate with polite.
The Germans have a complete different mentality about driving that most Americans don't get. I got to visit a while ago for a week and when you're doing 200 kph you don't have time for a cell phone. The autobahn gently twists and turns unlike some American highways which you could write your biography if the car's aligned.
After spending a week on the road in germany recently, this makes absolute sense to me.
In germany I activated cruise control whenever possible, because I felt like I needed to keep my eyes on the road, I didn't want to look at my speed when I could be looking ahead or in my mirrors instead. On the autobahn the speeds are so fast (not just my speeds, but also the speeds of traffic around me) and lanes so narrow I was on a razor's edge the whole time, in the city the traffic and streets and pedestrians were tight enough to keep me similarly occupied.
There is no way I would drink a can of coke while driving in germany. No way.
Back home, I'm usually bored out of my mind while driving. Without something else to keep me occupied I'll probably fall asleep on the way home from work.
Saw a woman turning onto an on-ramp one morning with a cell phone and cigarette in one hand and a latte in the other. Not really sure how she was steering. The guy behind her was shaving, and the woman behind him was putting on makeup. Made me just want to turn around and go home.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Maybe the Germans can exhibit a bit of self control behind the wheel while driving?
I think it is more the fact that the USA is a much, much larger market than Germany. Cars are designed to sell, so they need to be built with things that will sell in their largest markets - currently China and the USA.
Apropos cupholders: on the E46 BMW (3-series cars circa 2002) there were cupholders on the American cars, but none in the German/European versions. That way they sold more cars in the USA, but didn't annoy people and lose sales in Germany The smartphone app ability may not be built in world-wide either.
Sometimes i think we shouldnt allow people to drive motorcycles on public roads. We force people to wear seat belts in steel cages yet motorcyclists can ride around with no protection at all?
Good-bye
in michigan the rule is, he has the most rust spots wins lane disputes
Good-bye
Again I guess it depends a lot on your perspective. On a motorcycle the goal is avoidance; avoidance of collisions and situations in which a collision may happen. Motorcycles are far more maneuverable than a car and thus a well trained rider (which SHOULD be most, but I will concede probably isn't) should be able to avoid most problems. I know that in about a decade of riding I have had some minor accidents but that two of them were the result of me avoiding a potentially more hazardous situation (car lost control in front of me and would've flattened me had I not ridden into a field next to the road for example... my accident was only because I lost control of the bike on the ploughed ground).
In a car, accidents are about survivability. That means making use of safety features and as such I am not averse to legislation of seat belts. Also plainly put have you watched what happens when someone slams on the brakes in a car as opposed to a motorcycle? The very way a bike is shaped means that a sudden stop only throws you an inch or so forward. Sudden brake application even in the cheapest cars can throw you into the steering wheel potentially causing a loss of control. Even a slight tip of the back end of a car can send it into a spin that can throw the occupants all over the place and thus causing another loss of control. Simply because of mass, the risk of collateral damage of that situation is significantly increased.
Seat belts are more about the driver maintaining control of their vehicle in a difficult situation. At least to the extent that it's possible.