5 ms·

Car manufacturers get bonus points when the screen obscures the backup camera feed. My car's crash safety rating was significantly dinged because lower trim li

by hedora 3y ago

Car manufacturers get bonus points when the screen obscures the backup camera feed. My car's crash safety rating was significantly dinged because lower trim lines don't have low beams that follow the steering. I wish they'd deduct a star for "there is a circumstance in which the car is on, and the main console is displaying a non-time-critical-popup, or refusing to accept input". On a related note, why do car manufacturers make you come to a complete stop on the freeway so the person in the passenger seat can type an address into the navigation system?

bqmjjx0kac 3y ago
> On a related note, why do car manufacturers make you come to a complete stop on the freeway so the person in the passenger seat can type an address into the navigation system? I have to wonder whether adding friction to the UX in the name of safety can have the complete opposite effect. Sure, drivers might do something dumb like trying to pair a Bluetooth device while they're driving, but if the car makes this impossible, isn't it increasing the amount of time the driver is distracted?
avar 3y ago
Presumably because the car doesn't know that there's a person there, the seat may have a weight sensor, and the car knows that the passenger seat belt is plugged in. Both are trivially circumvented.
- ars 3y ago
  Why is it the cars job to even decide if I should be allowed to use the GPS? I have GPS in my car, but I use an external one because the internal one is so annoying this way - the first time I got lost because my passenger could not interact with the GPS was also the last time I used it.
  - avar 3y ago
    Sure, but that's tangential to this sub-thread. The GP is taking the nanny-ware as a given, and narrowly asking why the passenger isn't allowed to bypass it. I'm pointing out that cars don't have a is_occupied_by_human(), just car_seat_weight() and seat_belt_in_use(). That it works this way isn't obvious to anyone who hasn't looked into it.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > I’m pointing out that cars don’t have a is_occupied_by_human(), just car_seat_weight() and seat_belt_in_use(). Um, except they actually do, and its used to control safety-related equipment (passenger=side airbag), safety notifications (passenger airbag and seatbelt lights), and alarms (passenger seatbelt not in use when seat occupied alarm). It may not be wired into the infotainment system, though.
  - WWLink 3y ago
    > Why is it the cars job to even decide if I should be allowed to use the GPS? "I'm a good multitasker! I can do this perfectly safely! Why shouldn't I? Cops do it all the time!" Every time I've seen this sorta subject come up on car-related forums there's a non-negligible amount of people who carry an opinion like that.
    - ars 3y ago
      But I guess my phone doesn't have a nanny? Are we planning to nanny the entire world? Putting a nanny on a car is just stupid. Especially because, surprise, surprise, passengers actually do sometimes ride in cars! This is simply not the job of the car.
      - WWLink 3y ago
        Then let the passenger do that shit on their own phone. Why do you need them entering stuff into the car's nav unit? That shit is distracting anyway. Don't half-ass shit. Besides, we all know you want to fucking watch TV while you drive.
    - messe 3y ago
      Not just car related forums, those people are everywhere. I've seen someone on this site call for the abolition of drunk driving laws, arguing that the punishable act should be driving recklessly rather than the factors that led to the reckless driving; because of course, if you think you can drive drunk safely, then why shouldn't you be allowed to (/s)?
      - lesuorac 3y ago
        I'd be more inclined to agree with their arguments if the driving test tested more than just having a pulse. Sure if you can demonstrate that you can do X activity safely it seems reasonable to allow you to do so. However, that hasn't been demonstrated.
      - avar 3y ago
        That's idiotic, but current drunk driving laws in most places are overzealous in punishing responsible behavior. E.g. sleeping off your drunkenness while sitting in the front seat with the keys within reach. Starting the car to run the heater or AC might get you additional punishment.
  - jdietrich 3y ago
    Because if someone crashes and dies while fiddling about with the GPS, their family might sue. Two lines of code to prevent a potential slew of multi-million dollar lawsuits is an easy risk-benefit decision for the manufacturer. They don't have to bear the cost of being slightly annoyed by the GPS and they know that customers don't check that sort of thing before they buy.
    - amluto 3y ago
      Maybe a solution is for someone to sue the next time a car is navigating to the wrong place or otherwise misconfigured, there’s a passenger in the car, and the car won’t let the passenger fix it. (Almost every modern car knows when there is a passenger in the front passenger seat — they could feed this knowledge to the infotainment system.)
denimnerd42 3y ago
as a passenger do ya know how many times i've tried to pair a phone while at a stop light only to have to try again at the next one? ugh..
bluGill 3y ago
Car manufactures should position the touchscreen/display so it cannot be seen or reached by the driver. If you are driving you don't need to see it or control it - that is the navigators job. If you are solo, then slide over to the passenger seat when you are stopped (I miss bench seats!)
- lesuorac 3y ago
  I don't think US Congress intended for a driver to shuffle into the passenger seat to use the legally mandated back up camera.
  - ThunderSizzle 3y ago
    It would sound about par for Congress though.
kalleboo 3y ago
I live in Japan and here the infotainment system in cars all have broadcast TV tuners and DVD players as standard equipment. They're supposed to blank the video out when the car is moving (going audio-only), but your dealer will pretty much by default pull the one sense wire on the back of the unit that causes it to do that so you can watch TV when driving, since that's what everyone wants. Now here comes the interesting part - despite having the sense wire pulled so that it can play video while in motion, it will still disable the settings menu when the car is moving. So there must be a second sense wire somewhere in the wiring harness that it's using for the "real" safety feature, while leaving a sacrificial sense wire for the feature everyone will disable anyway. Very bizarre.
- brigandish 3y ago
  I wouldn't say bizarre, I'd say clever. What's bizarre is having a TV on in the car!
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
moribvndvs 3y ago
I’ve got a 2014 Mazda 6, it was probably a weekly occurrence where trivial events (calls, song changes, phone connect/disconnect, etc.) would cover up the feed as I was actively backing up. Since common sense has failed manufacturers, is there no regulation (US) to mandate an uninterrupted view? I’ve had to turn off Bluetooth whenever reversing, which creates another problem by distracting myself futzing with the phone.

by hedora 3y ago

bqmjjx0kac 3y ago

> On a related note, why do car manufacturers make you come to a complete stop on the freeway so the person in the passenger seat can type an address into the navigation system? I have to wonder whether adding friction to the UX in the name of safety can have the complete opposite effect. Sure, drivers might do something dumb like trying to pair a Bluetooth device while they're driving, but if the car makes this impossible, isn't it increasing the amount of time the driver is distracted?

avar 3y ago

Presumably because the car doesn't know that there's a person there, the seat may have a weight sensor, and the car knows that the passenger seat belt is plugged in. Both are trivially circumvented.

ars 3y ago
Why is it the cars job to even decide if I should be allowed to use the GPS? I have GPS in my car, but I use an external one because the internal one is so annoying this way - the first time I got lost because my passenger could not interact with the GPS was also the last time I used it.
- avar 3y ago
  Sure, but that's tangential to this sub-thread. The GP is taking the nanny-ware as a given, and narrowly asking why the passenger isn't allowed to bypass it. I'm pointing out that cars don't have a is_occupied_by_human(), just car_seat_weight() and seat_belt_in_use(). That it works this way isn't obvious to anyone who hasn't looked into it.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > I’m pointing out that cars don’t have a is_occupied_by_human(), just car_seat_weight() and seat_belt_in_use(). Um, except they actually do, and its used to control safety-related equipment (passenger=side airbag), safety notifications (passenger airbag and seatbelt lights), and alarms (passenger seatbelt not in use when seat occupied alarm). It may not be wired into the infotainment system, though.
- WWLink 3y ago
  > Why is it the cars job to even decide if I should be allowed to use the GPS? "I'm a good multitasker! I can do this perfectly safely! Why shouldn't I? Cops do it all the time!" Every time I've seen this sorta subject come up on car-related forums there's a non-negligible amount of people who carry an opinion like that.
  - ars 3y ago
    But I guess my phone doesn't have a nanny? Are we planning to nanny the entire world? Putting a nanny on a car is just stupid. Especially because, surprise, surprise, passengers actually do sometimes ride in cars! This is simply not the job of the car.
    - WWLink 3y ago
      Then let the passenger do that shit on their own phone. Why do you need them entering stuff into the car's nav unit? That shit is distracting anyway. Don't half-ass shit. Besides, we all know you want to fucking watch TV while you drive.
  - messe 3y ago
    Not just car related forums, those people are everywhere. I've seen someone on this site call for the abolition of drunk driving laws, arguing that the punishable act should be driving recklessly rather than the factors that led to the reckless driving; because of course, if you think you can drive drunk safely, then why shouldn't you be allowed to (/s)?
    - lesuorac 3y ago
      I'd be more inclined to agree with their arguments if the driving test tested more than just having a pulse. Sure if you can demonstrate that you can do X activity safely it seems reasonable to allow you to do so. However, that hasn't been demonstrated.
    - avar 3y ago
      That's idiotic, but current drunk driving laws in most places are overzealous in punishing responsible behavior. E.g. sleeping off your drunkenness while sitting in the front seat with the keys within reach. Starting the car to run the heater or AC might get you additional punishment.
- jdietrich 3y ago
  Because if someone crashes and dies while fiddling about with the GPS, their family might sue. Two lines of code to prevent a potential slew of multi-million dollar lawsuits is an easy risk-benefit decision for the manufacturer. They don't have to bear the cost of being slightly annoyed by the GPS and they know that customers don't check that sort of thing before they buy.
  - amluto 3y ago
    Maybe a solution is for someone to sue the next time a car is navigating to the wrong place or otherwise misconfigured, there’s a passenger in the car, and the car won’t let the passenger fix it. (Almost every modern car knows when there is a passenger in the front passenger seat — they could feed this knowledge to the infotainment system.)

denimnerd42 3y ago

as a passenger do ya know how many times i've tried to pair a phone while at a stop light only to have to try again at the next one? ugh..

bluGill 3y ago

Car manufactures should position the touchscreen/display so it cannot be seen or reached by the driver. If you are driving you don't need to see it or control it - that is the navigators job. If you are solo, then slide over to the passenger seat when you are stopped (I miss bench seats!)

lesuorac 3y ago
I don't think US Congress intended for a driver to shuffle into the passenger seat to use the legally mandated back up camera.
- ThunderSizzle 3y ago
  It would sound about par for Congress though.

kalleboo 3y ago

I live in Japan and here the infotainment system in cars all have broadcast TV tuners and DVD players as standard equipment. They're supposed to blank the video out when the car is moving (going audio-only), but your dealer will pretty much by default pull the one sense wire on the back of the unit that causes it to do that so you can watch TV when driving, since that's what everyone wants. Now here comes the interesting part - despite having the sense wire pulled so that it can play video while in motion, it will still disable the settings menu when the car is moving. So there must be a second sense wire somewhere in the wiring harness that it's using for the "real" safety feature, while leaving a sacrificial sense wire for the feature everyone will disable anyway. Very bizarre.

brigandish 3y ago
I wouldn't say bizarre, I'd say clever. What's bizarre is having a TV on in the car!

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

moribvndvs 3y ago

I’ve got a 2014 Mazda 6, it was probably a weekly occurrence where trivial events (calls, song changes, phone connect/disconnect, etc.) would cover up the feed as I was actively backing up. Since common sense has failed manufacturers, is there no regulation (US) to mandate an uninterrupted view? I’ve had to turn off Bluetooth whenever reversing, which creates another problem by distracting myself futzing with the phone.