Navdy(navdy.com)
navdy.com
Navdy
https://www.navdy.com/
214 comments
This will make driving safer for me. I'm already checking my speedometer and other instruments and often use a GPS. Now I can do all that while not removing focus from the road. This looks like a great device and the pre-order price is fantastic.
And yes, I have no problem with the head patting/belly rubbing. Have you ever seen a cop driving a patrol car? He's juggling radios, phones, a computer with a big screen for looking up warrants and stuff, entering plate numbers, looking out the windows for suspicious behavior - the actual road is a mere distraction. People can learn to manage their divided attention, and if they can't handle checking a speedometer without crashing into the guardrail they probably shouldn't be driving.
That said, I wouldn't use this to text while driving. Seeing who's calling and waving my hand to answer for a brief "I'll be there in 10 minutes" seems reasonable, however, and is safer than fumbling with the phone the old-fashioned way.
And yes, I have no problem with the head patting/belly rubbing. Have you ever seen a cop driving a patrol car? He's juggling radios, phones, a computer with a big screen for looking up warrants and stuff, entering plate numbers, looking out the windows for suspicious behavior - the actual road is a mere distraction. People can learn to manage their divided attention, and if they can't handle checking a speedometer without crashing into the guardrail they probably shouldn't be driving.
That said, I wouldn't use this to text while driving. Seeing who's calling and waving my hand to answer for a brief "I'll be there in 10 minutes" seems reasonable, however, and is safer than fumbling with the phone the old-fashioned way.
The thing with an activity as ubiquitous as driving is that when judging the usefulness or conversely danger of a certain aspect of it, you have to consider the least-skilled (or more susceptible to distractions) group of drivers. Saying "I can do activity X and driving together" is a nice anecdote, but it doesn't give much information as to the overall safety of activity X and driving.
For example, I would guess that there are people out there who can safely drive a car with their blood-alcohol level past the legal limit. There are presumably people who can multi-task (text or phone & drive) safely too.
Once these activities become acceptable, you can't pick and choose who is allowed to perform them based on some skill metric.
For example, I would guess that there are people out there who can safely drive a car with their blood-alcohol level past the legal limit. There are presumably people who can multi-task (text or phone & drive) safely too.
Once these activities become acceptable, you can't pick and choose who is allowed to perform them based on some skill metric.
Do cops really type things into a computer and read the results while in motion?
(Firefighter/medic, not cop) - we have an exemption from cell phone laws, but with the stipulation that it is to be used sparingly, and only in an emergency, i.e. it's recognized that it's not a good practice but sometimes needed (for example in my area, ambulances contact the hospital via cell phone, not radio, and depending on the severity of the patient in back, there may be a need for a driver to make contact - whilst ideally we either have additional manpower, or similar, it's not always possible). Personally, I think there abuses of this.
Yes.
Deputy who killed former Napster COO after drifting into the bike lane while distracted by his laptop will not face charges because he was answering a work-related email
- Milton Olin Jr, 65, was fatally struck by a Los Angeles county sheriff's patrol car December 8, 2013, as he rode in the bike lane in Calabasas
- Deputy Anthony Wood was returning from a fire call when he took his eyes off the road to type a work-related message on an electronic device
- Olin was director of operations for Napster between 2000 and 2002 and was a prominent entertainment lawyer
- The victim's wife and sons have filed a wrongful death lawsuit claiming Wood was negligent
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2736376/Deputy-kille...
Deputy who killed former Napster COO after drifting into the bike lane while distracted by his laptop will not face charges because he was answering a work-related email
- Milton Olin Jr, 65, was fatally struck by a Los Angeles county sheriff's patrol car December 8, 2013, as he rode in the bike lane in Calabasas
- Deputy Anthony Wood was returning from a fire call when he took his eyes off the road to type a work-related message on an electronic device
- Olin was director of operations for Napster between 2000 and 2002 and was a prominent entertainment lawyer
- The victim's wife and sons have filed a wrongful death lawsuit claiming Wood was negligent
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2736376/Deputy-kille...
> while distracted by his laptop will not face charges because he was answering a work-related email
Somehow I feel that if I struck a cyclist while answering a work related email (not that I'd ever do such a thing) that I would not be getting off that lightly.
Somehow I feel that if I struck a cyclist while answering a work related email (not that I'd ever do such a thing) that I would not be getting off that lightly.
eh, in sf, you get a ticket for killing cyclists. Sometimes not even that. It's really not a big deal. So it isn't as if the cop got a special deal.
"We do not know of a single case of a cyclist fatality in which the driver
was prosecuted, except for D.U.I. or hit-and-run," Leah Shahum, the
executive director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, told me. [1]
In conclusion: yes, they do it, and yes, it's a bad idea.
[deleted]
> Cell phones are not dangerous because the driver was looking at his phone or playing with the buttons when he had an accident. They are dangerous because they encourage your mind to wander.
I'm going to speculate that driving is such an activity that doesn't require constant attention and involves quite a bit of monotony. In such circumstances, mind wandering will happen—be there a mobile phone, Navdy, or nothing at all.
This is a human factor. The only complete solution to this issue seems to be self-driving cars, when your mind and its wandering are taken out of equation.
With that in mind, a mobile phone doesn't seem to stand equal to other causes of mind-wandering, contrary to your claim. A phone also obstructs large portions of the road from your view when you're using it.
I'm going to speculate that driving is such an activity that doesn't require constant attention and involves quite a bit of monotony. In such circumstances, mind wandering will happen—be there a mobile phone, Navdy, or nothing at all.
This is a human factor. The only complete solution to this issue seems to be self-driving cars, when your mind and its wandering are taken out of equation.
With that in mind, a mobile phone doesn't seem to stand equal to other causes of mind-wandering, contrary to your claim. A phone also obstructs large portions of the road from your view when you're using it.
> I'm going to speculate that driving is such an activity that doesn't require constant attention...
Stop there. What would lead you to this speculation?
Of course driving requires constant attention and care, the full time you are behind the wheel of an automobile. You're piloting a 2 ton machine made of whirling metal and filled with flammable liquid traveling at high speeds, usually within less than a meter of someone else doing the same.
There is never a good reason to divert attention from the task of driving while you are driving. Full stop.
Stop there. What would lead you to this speculation?
Of course driving requires constant attention and care, the full time you are behind the wheel of an automobile. You're piloting a 2 ton machine made of whirling metal and filled with flammable liquid traveling at high speeds, usually within less than a meter of someone else doing the same.
There is never a good reason to divert attention from the task of driving while you are driving. Full stop.
> Stop there. What would lead you to this speculation?
First, I should've put “constant and full attention” there. My phrasing was off. As to why I came to this conclusion:
1. People often ride for a few hours without breaks. My assumption is that it's not possible to pay constant and full attention throughout this time—our minds are bound to wander.
2. The pattern I usually observe is when the driver, depending on road situation, varies the degree of attention they pay to the driving. At one time they're driving relaxedly and multitasking (talking to a passenger or someone on the phone—by definition they're not paying their full attention at this time), while at another they're more or less concentrated on the road.
Disclaimer—I don't myself drive a car, but I often observe people driving. I've observed both experienced drivers who drive frequently and more beginning drivers, the pattern described under (2) is the same.
Update: the comments here, coupled with my observations, make me believe—roughly—that a) drivers don't (can't) pay their full and constant attention to the road, and b) many are in denial of (a).
First, I should've put “constant and full attention” there. My phrasing was off. As to why I came to this conclusion:
1. People often ride for a few hours without breaks. My assumption is that it's not possible to pay constant and full attention throughout this time—our minds are bound to wander.
2. The pattern I usually observe is when the driver, depending on road situation, varies the degree of attention they pay to the driving. At one time they're driving relaxedly and multitasking (talking to a passenger or someone on the phone—by definition they're not paying their full attention at this time), while at another they're more or less concentrated on the road.
Disclaimer—I don't myself drive a car, but I often observe people driving. I've observed both experienced drivers who drive frequently and more beginning drivers, the pattern described under (2) is the same.
Update: the comments here, coupled with my observations, make me believe—roughly—that a) drivers don't (can't) pay their full and constant attention to the road, and b) many are in denial of (a).
> Disclaimer—I don't myself drive a car
That reminds me of the pope, doesn't play the game but tells others how to play it.
Well, I do. I drive way too much in fact and I believe strongly that driving is a full-time 100% on the ball occupation. That probably saved my life twice this year alone and prevented one other probably bad accident from happening. I drive in places where traffic is very much unlike the traffic that you are probably used to (you'd call it a madhouse), dogs, other drivers, horse carts, madmen, trucks overtaking in blind corners, drunk people on the road (on bicycles, no lights). You name it they've got it here.
When I'm tired even a little bit I stop the car and sleep until I feel rested again. My phone is off. At night I use the GPS to tell me what's going to happen around the corner (hairpins in mountainous terrain where you can't stop are a real joy) when I can't find a place to stop safely to overnight. But as soon as I do the car gets stopped and I wait until it's light again.
I turn down the instrument panel lights to have good night vision as much as possible, this is plenty to read the instruments by if I have to and means I get to see what's on the road, which is a lot more important than whatever is on that screen. (Such as a very black and very large dog that jumped out of nowhere a few weeks ago).
This probably all may seem paranoid but it has served me very well over the years. Even so, I think that navdy has a spot, but only if you use it as a navigation device and place it outside of your direct field of vision. It screws up your night vision and that's bad enough when you have to look at it, it's much worse when that happens all the time.
That reminds me of the pope, doesn't play the game but tells others how to play it.
Well, I do. I drive way too much in fact and I believe strongly that driving is a full-time 100% on the ball occupation. That probably saved my life twice this year alone and prevented one other probably bad accident from happening. I drive in places where traffic is very much unlike the traffic that you are probably used to (you'd call it a madhouse), dogs, other drivers, horse carts, madmen, trucks overtaking in blind corners, drunk people on the road (on bicycles, no lights). You name it they've got it here.
When I'm tired even a little bit I stop the car and sleep until I feel rested again. My phone is off. At night I use the GPS to tell me what's going to happen around the corner (hairpins in mountainous terrain where you can't stop are a real joy) when I can't find a place to stop safely to overnight. But as soon as I do the car gets stopped and I wait until it's light again.
I turn down the instrument panel lights to have good night vision as much as possible, this is plenty to read the instruments by if I have to and means I get to see what's on the road, which is a lot more important than whatever is on that screen. (Such as a very black and very large dog that jumped out of nowhere a few weeks ago).
This probably all may seem paranoid but it has served me very well over the years. Even so, I think that navdy has a spot, but only if you use it as a navigation device and place it outside of your direct field of vision. It screws up your night vision and that's bad enough when you have to look at it, it's much worse when that happens all the time.
The idea of 100% attention when thinking about the brain is just a simplistic notion to make discussions easier but inaccurate. Even in this simplistic approximation of the brain, the idea of 100% attention is pretty thin. If I'm driving somewhere I'm probably listening to the radio (deduct 5% attention points!) or thinking about wherever it is I am heading (deduct 5% attention points!) or if someone is actually in the car with me, I am probably interacting with them in some way (deduct 10% attention points!). And while I'm driving and keeping a constant vigil through the windshield for danger what if I see a glorious new Apple store that I didn't know existed?? That is going to hijack my brain for a bit (deduct 100% attention points!).
The radio , passengers and thoughts are much more passive and easy to tune out but even then I'm sure there have been plenty of accidents that are caused by daydreaming. A passenger can see out of the window and has awareness of the car's surroundings so they will usually know to shut up or at least not expect a quick answer to their question if you are doing a tricky manoeuvre. Electronic devices or people on the other end of a hands-free conversation both require interaction and do not have awareness of the situation that the driver is in.
Why vote him down? Because of his honesty?
I do drive myself. Have for 20+ years. Just drove 1300 miles over the summer vacation, sometimes on long monotonous roads, and I'd be lying if I was paying full attention all the time.
My experience is exactly as he describes. In city traffic, at traffic lights, or just before an exit, my full attention is required and constant (I actually dislike GPS because of this, it distracts, especially if notifications are late, I'm looking at you Google Nav - 'keep left at the fork').
However, after so many years of driving, I have also developed some sort of autopilot/'trance driving' mode. It is typically engaged on long legs, or when extremely tired on a very familiar route (e.g. going home). I betcha if you ask professional drivers like truckers, they'll tell you the same.
Edit: While in this mode, my 'look-ahead' window is maximized. I gaze much further ahead than I do in 'stress' situations. My focus point is definitely way past the windshield, usually several cars ahead of me. I gauge my speed by engine sound, distance to the cars ahead of me, local traffic flow etc etc. As such, I am not convinced that this heads-up display approach is a safety improvement. Sure, your eyes will be on the road, but by requiring a change of focus, you cannot look ahead to anticipate issues/changes/risks.
I do drive myself. Have for 20+ years. Just drove 1300 miles over the summer vacation, sometimes on long monotonous roads, and I'd be lying if I was paying full attention all the time.
My experience is exactly as he describes. In city traffic, at traffic lights, or just before an exit, my full attention is required and constant (I actually dislike GPS because of this, it distracts, especially if notifications are late, I'm looking at you Google Nav - 'keep left at the fork').
However, after so many years of driving, I have also developed some sort of autopilot/'trance driving' mode. It is typically engaged on long legs, or when extremely tired on a very familiar route (e.g. going home). I betcha if you ask professional drivers like truckers, they'll tell you the same.
Edit: While in this mode, my 'look-ahead' window is maximized. I gaze much further ahead than I do in 'stress' situations. My focus point is definitely way past the windshield, usually several cars ahead of me. I gauge my speed by engine sound, distance to the cars ahead of me, local traffic flow etc etc. As such, I am not convinced that this heads-up display approach is a safety improvement. Sure, your eyes will be on the road, but by requiring a change of focus, you cannot look ahead to anticipate issues/changes/risks.
I have to agree. I do drive like this too over long distances. Anything else would just be too tiring. Maybe we expand the zone of perceived predictability. Fascinating stuff. Good point about having to focus in and out.
This plus Highway Hypnosis [1] show that some of us at least drive without full conscious attention.
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_hypnosis
This plus Highway Hypnosis [1] show that some of us at least drive without full conscious attention.
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_hypnosis
> when extremely tired on a very familiar route
Please don't do this.
You're going to get yourself or someone else killed one day. Remember that I can do everything in my power to be a responsible driver I am still subject to the sum total of the risks everybody else takes and driving when you're that tired is an un-acceptable risk.
Please don't do this.
You're going to get yourself or someone else killed one day. Remember that I can do everything in my power to be a responsible driver I am still subject to the sum total of the risks everybody else takes and driving when you're that tired is an un-acceptable risk.
> when extremely tired on a very familiar route
WTF. People shouldn't drive when they're extremely tired.
WTF. People shouldn't drive when they're extremely tired.
Hate to be the type that pulls this one out, but when I became a parent I learned of levels of tiredness I never knew existed, and became aware of a whole segment of society (the parents) who go through most activities in their life at near crippling levels of tiredness. I agree it gets dangerous but it's not feasible to keep them off the road.
That level of tiredness is truly worse than drunk.
And yet, they will.
> Disclaimer—I don't myself drive a car, but I often observe people driving. I've observed both experienced drivers who drive frequently and more beginning drivers, the pattern described under (2) is the same.
When you're driving without distractions, sure, your mind wanders. You're thinking about a date tonight, or that jerk at work, or whatever. But as soon as your eyes pick up something of interest, like an exit sign, another driver, or a bad situation up ahead, you can immediately focus exclusively on the road. You can do this pretty quickly
Similarly, when you're carrying on a conversation with someone, the other person will generally quiet down as soon as the situation changes.
When you're on a cell phone, that changes. You're paying much, much more attention to a cell phone conversation than you are to someone sitting next to you because you have to listen harder. Not only that, the conversation is independent of the driving situation. Most people will not tell the guy on the phone with them to shut up; they'll just try to carry on the conversation. Even worse, a lot of people aren't paying enough attention to the road to realize that the situation requires more attention and that they need to put down the phone. This causes accidents.
Finally, texting is the worst - you're literally taking your eyes off the road to send a message.
When you're driving without distractions, sure, your mind wanders. You're thinking about a date tonight, or that jerk at work, or whatever. But as soon as your eyes pick up something of interest, like an exit sign, another driver, or a bad situation up ahead, you can immediately focus exclusively on the road. You can do this pretty quickly
Similarly, when you're carrying on a conversation with someone, the other person will generally quiet down as soon as the situation changes.
When you're on a cell phone, that changes. You're paying much, much more attention to a cell phone conversation than you are to someone sitting next to you because you have to listen harder. Not only that, the conversation is independent of the driving situation. Most people will not tell the guy on the phone with them to shut up; they'll just try to carry on the conversation. Even worse, a lot of people aren't paying enough attention to the road to realize that the situation requires more attention and that they need to put down the phone. This causes accidents.
Finally, texting is the worst - you're literally taking your eyes off the road to send a message.
Peak Hacker News/Silicon Valley: I have no idea how this system works, in fact, I've never used it. But I'm going to speculate on how it can be improved anyway.
I for one, completely agree with you. Now this is purely anecdotal, but then again everything in this debate seems to be.
I've only been driving for 7 years, but already had several benign accidents (no casualties or whatever, only some damaged metal). On each and every one of these situations, the cause was not speeding, nor my phone, nor any outside distraction, but just my mind wandering off the driving and thinking of something else.
Sometimes I get home and I do not remember the ride, not even which road I took or anything, and I think to myself, what could have happened while my mind was wandering. I just can't keep my full attention on something for that long, period.
I've only been driving for 7 years, but already had several benign accidents (no casualties or whatever, only some damaged metal). On each and every one of these situations, the cause was not speeding, nor my phone, nor any outside distraction, but just my mind wandering off the driving and thinking of something else.
Sometimes I get home and I do not remember the ride, not even which road I took or anything, and I think to myself, what could have happened while my mind was wandering. I just can't keep my full attention on something for that long, period.
For what it's worth, I remember reading two things:
1. Driving is one of those activities where people actually use a lot of their brains functions to do. This is partly why it can tire you out so much.
2. People speaking to a passenger drive as poorly as people otherwise impaired but the fact that they're both in the car (grounding them in the fact that they're in the vehicle) and that both of them pay some attention to the road helps mitigate the negative effects.
All I can recall is that I read #1 in a BBC News article and the latter on something I found on Google Scholar. I feel they're relevant. If you're interested, I hope it helps.
1. Driving is one of those activities where people actually use a lot of their brains functions to do. This is partly why it can tire you out so much.
2. People speaking to a passenger drive as poorly as people otherwise impaired but the fact that they're both in the car (grounding them in the fact that they're in the vehicle) and that both of them pay some attention to the road helps mitigate the negative effects.
All I can recall is that I read #1 in a BBC News article and the latter on something I found on Google Scholar. I feel they're relevant. If you're interested, I hope it helps.
So maybe your should learn driving a car first. I agree that paying full attention while driving is definitely the hard thing to do, but it is also the right thing to do.
[deleted]
> I don't myself drive a car, but I often observe people driving.
Please, shut up.
Please, shut up.
[deleted]
One of the problems is that whatever you happen to be focusing on, you also have to be able to react quickly to potential hazards. I'm pretty sure (guessing) that being not particularly focused on the road is still significantly better than being focused on a mobile phone/Navdy.
I've read the literature on multitasking while driving. Texting is one of the worst. Talking on the phone comes somewhere in the middle (hands free or not doesn't seem to matter), but even talking to passengers has a measurable decrease in safety. The problem is that people, as a whole, are willing to bear quite a bit of risk in order to indulge in their distractions, but their behavior additionally forces those around them to bear some of the risk as well.
I agree that self-driving cars are a huge way forward for safety, but in the meantime it makes sense to minimize human error.
I've read the literature on multitasking while driving. Texting is one of the worst. Talking on the phone comes somewhere in the middle (hands free or not doesn't seem to matter), but even talking to passengers has a measurable decrease in safety. The problem is that people, as a whole, are willing to bear quite a bit of risk in order to indulge in their distractions, but their behavior additionally forces those around them to bear some of the risk as well.
I agree that self-driving cars are a huge way forward for safety, but in the meantime it makes sense to minimize human error.
> One of the problems is that whatever you happen to be focusing on, you also have to be able to react quickly to potential hazards.
True. From my anecdotal observation the reason why talking over mobile phone is dangerous (while talking to a passenger is not) seems to be social norms—immediately cutting off the conversation to focus on the road doesn't seem like an acceptable thing to do, and we avoid doing this unless absolutely necessary. For a more responsible driver, this ‘absolutely necessary’ threshold is pretty low—as it should be—but such people seem to be rare.
True. From my anecdotal observation the reason why talking over mobile phone is dangerous (while talking to a passenger is not) seems to be social norms—immediately cutting off the conversation to focus on the road doesn't seem like an acceptable thing to do, and we avoid doing this unless absolutely necessary. For a more responsible driver, this ‘absolutely necessary’ threshold is pretty low—as it should be—but such people seem to be rare.
First, road accidents are are among top 10 causes of deaths in the world, so this isn't a small matter.
Second, there is research that shows that dividing your attention just between driving and talking can cause a significant reduction of reaction speed. Driving safely is not monotonous activity. Of course, if your car is crawling in a LA traffic jam, accidents are mostly non-fatal, but when you are driving 100km/h, cars are dangerous objects.
Second, there is research that shows that dividing your attention just between driving and talking can cause a significant reduction of reaction speed. Driving safely is not monotonous activity. Of course, if your car is crawling in a LA traffic jam, accidents are mostly non-fatal, but when you are driving 100km/h, cars are dangerous objects.
Driving safely on an empty freeway at 100km/h is one of the most monotonous things I can think of. Hell, if it's a straight flat section of road you are literally doing nothing except trying to stay alert in case something changes. The human brain (or at least mine) is not good at staying in a focused hyper-aware state for a long period of time while nothing's happening.
I believe that accidents caused by distracting devices are only a small % (really small) of this trend. The huge % of car accidents is because of alcohol abuse.
Your speculation is mostly right. Our brains are pretty good at automating repetitive tasks such as driving, so most drivers regularly don't pay complete attention.
The trouble is our brains primarily adapt to repeated stimuli eg driving in good conditions. Since no one spends most of their time driving narrowly avoiding accidents, that activity isn't one the brain can learn to automate ( well, maybe it's possible with a realistic driving simulator), so dangerous driving requires everyone's full attention.
Since we don't usually have advanced warning of when dangerous driving will happen, the best we can do is spend as much time as possible paying attention to road conditions.
Studies have found hands-free phones are just as dangerous. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hands-free-phones-just-as-risky-...
The trouble is our brains primarily adapt to repeated stimuli eg driving in good conditions. Since no one spends most of their time driving narrowly avoiding accidents, that activity isn't one the brain can learn to automate ( well, maybe it's possible with a realistic driving simulator), so dangerous driving requires everyone's full attention.
Since we don't usually have advanced warning of when dangerous driving will happen, the best we can do is spend as much time as possible paying attention to road conditions.
Studies have found hands-free phones are just as dangerous. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hands-free-phones-just-as-risky-...
this may get me down-voted, but i tend to drive faster and more aggressively than, uh say, my parent's would like me to [1]. when i'm driving this way, i'm fully engaged and almost always "in the zone." i constantly work towards a better position and continuously work to predict actions of all cars around me and the consequent reactions of other cars to that action, as well as any reactions i'd make at any point. my mental model of traffic is largely based on fluid dynamics, w/ hooke's law (springs) thrown in for stop/go traffic. i often joke w/ my wife that if there were an olympic event for navigating through traffic, i'd at least qualify for the team. while risks are greater than going 65 in a 65 and not changing lanes, i'm never ever reckless. some may disagree, but b/c of the heightened level of engagement, i do consider my self far safer than other cars on the road who commute home, thinking about work and largely disengaged. day dreaming? can't. texting, etc? cant. drinking coffee? can't. fwiw, i've always driven a car with a manual transmission, and i do feel it's a variable in lower levels of driver disengagement. i've never had an accident or ticket while driving in this manner.
driver disengagement is the problem, whether caused by a physical, visual, or cognitive distraction. the goal shouldn't be weighting how dangerous these various devices are, it should be on how to ensure drivers are engaged to a point where they can take over from auto-pilot (repetitive aspect) when something goes wrong.
[1] i'm not a kid, i have many kids of my own, just trying to avoid quantification of driving.
driver disengagement is the problem, whether caused by a physical, visual, or cognitive distraction. the goal shouldn't be weighting how dangerous these various devices are, it should be on how to ensure drivers are engaged to a point where they can take over from auto-pilot (repetitive aspect) when something goes wrong.
[1] i'm not a kid, i have many kids of my own, just trying to avoid quantification of driving.
Why speculate? It's not like no one researches this stuff.
Associating this product with blood money is highly offensive and it's disappointing that this is the top comment. The team behind this has put a lot of sweat and tears into making this a reality, as is always the case when starting a business of any complexity, and especially true in tech when operating in uncharted waters.
The important tech is heads up display projected rendering on glass in a car. As long as that works well there will be good applications beyond reading twitter. safety information, car and dashboard alerts, and gps map information all come to mind. Anyone who has ever played a video game should be familiar with HUDs that help you and aren't distracting.
The important tech is heads up display projected rendering on glass in a car. As long as that works well there will be good applications beyond reading twitter. safety information, car and dashboard alerts, and gps map information all come to mind. Anyone who has ever played a video game should be familiar with HUDs that help you and aren't distracting.
Just because the founders put effort into something doesn't make it ethically good. The advertised use is still messaging and communication, and I'm sure if they open it up to developers there will only be more distractions like flappy birds on a car. The point is a powerful technology with smart people and good intentions behind it can always result in poor unintended consequences. In this case I can see a lot more potential consequences than advantages.
The team behind this has put a lot of sweat and tears into making this a reality, as is always the case when starting a business of any complexity, and especially true in tech when operating in uncharted waters.
As long as we're being figurative, a lot of sweat and tears have gone into missile design and prison labor contracts. And this is not completely uncharted waters, phone-HUD has been a thing for years now.
As long as we're being figurative, a lot of sweat and tears have gone into missile design and prison labor contracts. And this is not completely uncharted waters, phone-HUD has been a thing for years now.
Ah yes, a heads-up display for cars is just like a missile or a prison.
As analogies between analogies go, this is like comparing the comparison of Charlie Chaplin's mustache to Hitler's mustache to the comparison of Charlie Chaplin and Hitler.
No, it's more like saying that a toothbrush mustache (look it up) does not make one a criminal against humanity nor a comedian.
Video game HUDs are pretty distracting, though. I think the farthest I've driven a car in a video game without hitting something is about a mile.
Is that due to the HUD or because of factors like:
- imperfect/unrealistic physics
- reduced vision
- less/incorrect physical feedback
- imperfect/unrealistic physics
- reduced vision
- less/incorrect physical feedback
I guess virtually everyone who has ever played a video game will remember a moment where you got killed because you looked at your ammo reading for a split-second.
"Cell phones are not dangerous because the driver was looking at his phone or playing with the buttons when he had an accident. They are dangerous because they encourage your mind to wander."
So you are claiming that having to look away from the road for possibly whole seconds to deal with a phone is not really dangerous, but what is dangerous is your mind wandering? I'm sorry but experience and common sense says otherwise.
I would also argue that your second point is not as not clear cut either. Having some sort of distraction is definitely helpful most of the time when driving long distances. I personally find audio books very greatly help to fight off monotony, which in turn keeps my attention higher than if I was not being distracted.
So you are claiming that having to look away from the road for possibly whole seconds to deal with a phone is not really dangerous, but what is dangerous is your mind wandering? I'm sorry but experience and common sense says otherwise.
I would also argue that your second point is not as not clear cut either. Having some sort of distraction is definitely helpful most of the time when driving long distances. I personally find audio books very greatly help to fight off monotony, which in turn keeps my attention higher than if I was not being distracted.
Don't downvote mden if you disagree.
> So you are claiming that having to look away from the road for possibly whole seconds to deal with a phone is not really dangerous, but what is dangerous is your mind wandering?
I'm not OP, but it's not that your mind is wandering per se (which suggests a neutral state) but your mind is actively focused on something other than the road, like an HUD in front of your face.
Peeking at the next turn on nav mode is not a big deal, but if you're composing a text using voice, I'll bet anyone $100 that the voice recognition isn't good enough that you won't be staring at the screen to check it's getting the right words.
The thing I dislike most about this product is that it deludes people into thinking this is a "safe" way to operate your phone and text while driving, and basically gives permission to do so. No way to text while driving is safe, not really even at red lights.
> So you are claiming that having to look away from the road for possibly whole seconds to deal with a phone is not really dangerous, but what is dangerous is your mind wandering?
I'm not OP, but it's not that your mind is wandering per se (which suggests a neutral state) but your mind is actively focused on something other than the road, like an HUD in front of your face.
Peeking at the next turn on nav mode is not a big deal, but if you're composing a text using voice, I'll bet anyone $100 that the voice recognition isn't good enough that you won't be staring at the screen to check it's getting the right words.
The thing I dislike most about this product is that it deludes people into thinking this is a "safe" way to operate your phone and text while driving, and basically gives permission to do so. No way to text while driving is safe, not really even at red lights.
Hmm. I think I took Yxven's comment out of context which in turn made my comment out of context. I agree that interruptions like reading a text message are dangerous regardless of how they are done. They are obviously more dangerous if you have to take your eyes off the road to do it is what I was saying.
In regards to long trips, I still maintain that having a distraction like music, audio books, or company to talk to is actually safer than not having them. Your brain getting tired of monotonous activity and scenery is a real thing as anyone who's done a 10 hour drive can tell you. But again my comment wasn't really in the same context as the parent I guess, so there's that.
In regards to long trips, I still maintain that having a distraction like music, audio books, or company to talk to is actually safer than not having them. Your brain getting tired of monotonous activity and scenery is a real thing as anyone who's done a 10 hour drive can tell you. But again my comment wasn't really in the same context as the parent I guess, so there's that.
> In regards to long trips, I still maintain that having a distraction like music, audio books, or company to talk to is actually safer than not having them. Your brain getting tired of monotonous activity and scenery is a real thing as anyone who's done a 10 hour drive can tell you.
This is of course true, and I noticed that drivers anticipating longer trips often like to take someone with them so that the passenger can keep them awake and concentrated.
But then again, on a long trip you really should make those 30-minute stops every 3 hours or so.
This is of course true, and I noticed that drivers anticipating longer trips often like to take someone with them so that the passenger can keep them awake and concentrated.
But then again, on a long trip you really should make those 30-minute stops every 3 hours or so.
> They are obviously more dangerous if you have to take your eyes of the road to do it is what I was saying.
Yeah, for sure. That's the problem with this sort of product: you release it without texting functionality and [most people will reach for their phone to text] and [some people will stop texting while driving]. And lose product sexiness etc.
You release it with texting and people will think it gives them carte blanche to text while driving. Both not great outcomes.
Yeah, for sure. That's the problem with this sort of product: you release it without texting functionality and [most people will reach for their phone to text] and [some people will stop texting while driving]. And lose product sexiness etc.
You release it with texting and people will think it gives them carte blanche to text while driving. Both not great outcomes.
> I'll bet anyone $100 that the voice recognition isn't good enough that you won't be staring at the screen to check it's getting the right words.
Let me take that bet ;). Some people really don't care, and it makes me want to kill them when I get a voice-typed message that's complete gibberish because the sender thinks comprehensibility is for the losers.
Let me take that bet ;). Some people really don't care, and it makes me want to kill them when I get a voice-typed message that's complete gibberish because the sender thinks comprehensibility is for the losers.
Not that it's without dangers, but you don't have to look at a screen to verify text message dictation. You dictate, it reads it back.
I think better would be a standard library, like "report I'll be late," that relays my current coordinates and ETA in the message to my spouse. (And simply showing up late would make me nervous; reporting my delay relieves tension.) I'm not a brain scientist so I can't say what the total effect would be.
I think better would be a standard library, like "report I'll be late," that relays my current coordinates and ETA in the message to my spouse. (And simply showing up late would make me nervous; reporting my delay relieves tension.) I'm not a brain scientist so I can't say what the total effect would be.
I'm sorry but experience and common sense says otherwise.
Whenever you find yourself saying this, particularly in response to an expert in the field, that is the time to stop and listen instead of talking.
Whenever you find yourself saying this, particularly in response to an expert in the field, that is the time to stop and listen instead of talking.
So you are claiming that having to look away from the road for possibly whole seconds to deal with a phone is not really dangerous, but what is dangerous is your mind wandering?
This is a false choice and something that the person you are replying to never said.
This is a false choice and something that the person you are replying to never said.
> So you are claiming that having to look away from the road for possibly whole seconds to deal with a phone is not really dangerous, but what is dangerous is your mind wandering?
The point is that anything that distracts your mind/vision from the road is dangerous, be it looking at your phone or reading a tweet in a transparent HUD display. What Navdy is building, while interesting, isn't necessarily safer.
The point is that anything that distracts your mind/vision from the road is dangerous, be it looking at your phone or reading a tweet in a transparent HUD display. What Navdy is building, while interesting, isn't necessarily safer.
I agree with what you are saying and you shouldn't be reading messages or w/e when driving, but surely looking away from the road is more dangerous than not? In the very least it takes more time. Again I'm not encouraging the behavior, just saying not all distraction are equivalent...
Totally agree. Any kind of distraction while driving is unsafe. Research has shown that even hands-free phones are unsafe while driving. Here's a much better gadget: http://www.mobileye.com/products/mobileye-5-series/mobileye-...
No, this is only partly true. Driving is primarily a visual activity. If your eyes are not on the road, then your chances of an accident increase. If you are looking down at your mobile, then the chances of an accident increase markedly.
Yes, looking at a HUD increases your risk of an accident. The best option is to have 100% attention focused on the road and your surroundings. If I had to choose between mobile or HUD, HUD would win every single time. If I had to choose between HUD and nothing distracting, then obviously the later is better. Yeah, just put the freaking phone away when you are driving.
Yes, looking at a HUD increases your risk of an accident. The best option is to have 100% attention focused on the road and your surroundings. If I had to choose between mobile or HUD, HUD would win every single time. If I had to choose between HUD and nothing distracting, then obviously the later is better. Yeah, just put the freaking phone away when you are driving.
It is more dangerous to not look at the road than to look at it. Surely.
This is safer than looking at a phone. I agree that it has the same inherent problem of distracting the driver with other tasks and making it easier for your mind to wander. But it's still a step up.
Perhaps they should make it a "driving tasks only" device. Speed, navigation etc. But unfortunately the law allow devices in the car that provide other information and services as long as they're hands free and they're not playing video. While the law allows it, people will fill that gap and these guys would fail miserably by ignoring that side of the market.
Edit: I read comments further down that enlightened me to the point of view that this creates the illusion of safely texting while driving, and people may be texting and tweeting more while driving, distracting them more rather than less. The laws need to change.
This is safer than looking at a phone. I agree that it has the same inherent problem of distracting the driver with other tasks and making it easier for your mind to wander. But it's still a step up.
Perhaps they should make it a "driving tasks only" device. Speed, navigation etc. But unfortunately the law allow devices in the car that provide other information and services as long as they're hands free and they're not playing video. While the law allows it, people will fill that gap and these guys would fail miserably by ignoring that side of the market.
Edit: I read comments further down that enlightened me to the point of view that this creates the illusion of safely texting while driving, and people may be texting and tweeting more while driving, distracting them more rather than less. The laws need to change.
This is pretty accurate, but I think one of the issues with driving is that it's often really... boring.
I mean, I know that it's incredibly dangerous, but because I do it for hours every day, I become desensitized to the danger. So, I check out my facebook feed or respond to that text message. Before smart phones, I would pick up a paper book that I had just bought and skim a little 'cause I just couldn't wait to get home. If it weren't that, I might be looking for wildlife out my passenger-side window or fiddling with the radio, etc.
I guess I'm a bad person, but I'm pretty confident that I'm not the only one. My guess is that a device like this that can keep your attention without diverting your eyes from the road is, in general, going to improve safety.
Of course, I could be wrong.
I mean, I know that it's incredibly dangerous, but because I do it for hours every day, I become desensitized to the danger. So, I check out my facebook feed or respond to that text message. Before smart phones, I would pick up a paper book that I had just bought and skim a little 'cause I just couldn't wait to get home. If it weren't that, I might be looking for wildlife out my passenger-side window or fiddling with the radio, etc.
I guess I'm a bad person, but I'm pretty confident that I'm not the only one. My guess is that a device like this that can keep your attention without diverting your eyes from the road is, in general, going to improve safety.
Of course, I could be wrong.
How about the speedometer dial, the fuel and the oil temp gauges?
Those need to be checked regularly as well and they occupy mindshare. You even need to focus on them and given that they are a lot closer than the road that takes time away from the road, refocus, then inspect the dials then look back out of the front windshield and re-focus.
Driving itself is a multi-tasking effort.
The number of buttons and indicators in a car (especially a high end one) can be quite distracting.
And not checking your speed diligently where I live gets expensive really quickly, 3 km over the actual limit (as checked by the GPS) will get you a ticket. So I actually drive with the GPS 'on' even when I know perfectly well where I'm going because it checks my speed without me looking at it.
Those need to be checked regularly as well and they occupy mindshare. You even need to focus on them and given that they are a lot closer than the road that takes time away from the road, refocus, then inspect the dials then look back out of the front windshield and re-focus.
Driving itself is a multi-tasking effort.
The number of buttons and indicators in a car (especially a high end one) can be quite distracting.
And not checking your speed diligently where I live gets expensive really quickly, 3 km over the actual limit (as checked by the GPS) will get you a ticket. So I actually drive with the GPS 'on' even when I know perfectly well where I'm going because it checks my speed without me looking at it.
I think the speedo dial is a dangerous distraction when speed cameras are about. I know I focus almost entirely on the speedo and only use peripheral vision for the road ahead when going past a speed camera.
When there's no speed camera or other risk of speed trap, I don't pay attention to numeric speed at all. Instead, I drive to the conditions, and approximately follow the speed limit as appropriate - but I may be 5 or 10 over or under depending on how clear the road ahead is of hazards.
Fuel, oil and other gauges don't change constantly and don't demand attention with flashing and animations, unless something is seriously wrong - in which case the vehicle should be stopped.
I should add, though, I don't actually drive. I ride a motorcycle and scooter, daily, all year round in London. Anything less than 100% focus is a quick route to A&E.
When there's no speed camera or other risk of speed trap, I don't pay attention to numeric speed at all. Instead, I drive to the conditions, and approximately follow the speed limit as appropriate - but I may be 5 or 10 over or under depending on how clear the road ahead is of hazards.
Fuel, oil and other gauges don't change constantly and don't demand attention with flashing and animations, unless something is seriously wrong - in which case the vehicle should be stopped.
I should add, though, I don't actually drive. I ride a motorcycle and scooter, daily, all year round in London. Anything less than 100% focus is a quick route to A&E.
In NL they claim the speed cameras are for safety. I'd believe that if they put them in places where people go faster than the 'safe speed', but instead they put them in places where there is a ton of traffic. I suspect that there is an economical motive at work here rather than a safety motive but I can't prove that.
All I do know is that I spend too much time checking that damn dial. So I fixed that by setting the GPS to warn me with an audible alarm when I get to 1 km over the GPS measured speed compared to the posted limit of the road I'm on (it adjusts those automatically). Very useful.
All I do know is that I spend too much time checking that damn dial. So I fixed that by setting the GPS to warn me with an audible alarm when I get to 1 km over the GPS measured speed compared to the posted limit of the road I'm on (it adjusts those automatically). Very useful.
Looking at something indeed doesn't mean paying attention to it. That's why head-up displays can be dangerous (just like handsfree phone usage).
Daniel Simons, a professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Illinois, says this in his episode of the You Are Not So Smart podcast:
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2012/04/24/yanss-podcast-episode...
Head-up displays are discussed starting at 12:31.
If I remember correctly, pilots were at danger to miss planes on the runway while using a head-up display.
"Even pilots use it – it's safe." Is it?
Daniel Simons, a professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Illinois, says this in his episode of the You Are Not So Smart podcast:
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2012/04/24/yanss-podcast-episode...
Head-up displays are discussed starting at 12:31.
If I remember correctly, pilots were at danger to miss planes on the runway while using a head-up display.
"Even pilots use it – it's safe." Is it?
I agree with you in that navdy will not eliminate risk of attention loss. But at least it should reduce the attention loss. Sure, any kind of attention loss is not acceptable in theory. But if navdy is found to reduce attention only as much as say talking to a co-passenger, then may be it's not a bad trade-off. Like one of the other commenters said, we cannot ensure that drivers have 100% attention. Anything that at least reduces risk is still a good thing.
Yea but your brain doesn't work at all like a single process cpu.
>(Try patting your head while rubbing your belly counterclockwise)
What? This was exceedingly easy to do. And I've never heard of this.
What? This was exceedingly easy to do. And I've never heard of this.
Most people have difficulty with it initially, but it's not difficult to make it harder. Try doing all that while rotating one leg clockwise.
Did it on the first attempt, switched hands and legs without difficulty either. And I usually suck doing anything with my non-dominant limbs. Must be all the piracetam.
Bloodmoney?
No-one died just yet from Navdy.
I love to see this kind of technology on HN and not just apps that play with pictures, videos or text.
No-one died just yet from Navdy.
I love to see this kind of technology on HN and not just apps that play with pictures, videos or text.
> BS in psychology
Ah yes. Do you also give philosophical advice by any chance?
Displays like this are standard on a lot of high end performance vehicles. The teams who worked on stuff like this can run circles around your BS in psychology.
I drove cars with this technology and it's actually better since you don't have to look down at the wheel or at the awkwardly mounted portable GPS/phone that usually falls off the mount every other day.
http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicles/mseries/m5sedan/2013/s...
Ah yes. Do you also give philosophical advice by any chance?
Displays like this are standard on a lot of high end performance vehicles. The teams who worked on stuff like this can run circles around your BS in psychology.
I drove cars with this technology and it's actually better since you don't have to look down at the wheel or at the awkwardly mounted portable GPS/phone that usually falls off the mount every other day.
http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicles/mseries/m5sedan/2013/s...
Why can't we just stop using phones while driving? No matter how much one reduces distraction, it is still more distracting than not using it in the first place. Twitter while driving - why on earth?!? For navigation it is obviously a good idea because you can keep your eyes on the street and don't have to look to your GPS or even try to read street names.
Watch »From One Second to the Next« [1] from the »Texting and Driving - It can wait« campaign.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BqFkRwdFZ0
Watch »From One Second to the Next« [1] from the »Texting and Driving - It can wait« campaign.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BqFkRwdFZ0
Hmm, I also can't get this - WHY is it so hard to just answer that text / facebook message / call 10 minutes later after you stop. WHAT in the world is SO URGENT it has to be done right now?!
It's not hard to understand, even though it's completely insane. People simply don't think about driving as a dangerous activity requiring their full attention.
This is actually one of my favorite things about riding a motorcycle. It removes the 'safety net' of the car and forces one to pay full attention to the road. Texting is simply out of the question.
Unfortunately it is also one of the least favourite things about riding a motorcycle - always having to look out for car drivers who are not paying full attention to the road.
Just imagine the road safety if cars had this feature specially integrated.
well the lack of a safety net also greatly increases the risk of life-altering injury if something happens.
You can be as careful as you want, but driving is a collective process, and if the guy next to you messes up, you can suffer a lot.
You can be as careful as you want, but driving is a collective process, and if the guy next to you messes up, you can suffer a lot.
Well of course there are exceptions. Personally I've tried the "emailing from my laptop while riding a bicycle" thing - you take your hands off the handlebars, swing your backpack around (that's the hardest part and most likely to bring you of-balance), take out your laptop, open it, wait for it to come out of sleep and compose and email with one hand while holding it with the other. Of course on an empty park path with a friend to watch out for other people. Depending on the inherent stability of the given bike frame, and the weight of the laptop, it's actually not that hard...
Because instant gratification. We are living in the real-time world after all!
"I killed a pedestrian on the way home, but so glad I got your text about mac n cheese for dinner! Smells yummy, let's eat!"
It's because of the act of driving itself. Before it was phones it was shaving, doing makeup, or eating. Driving promotes an individualist mentality. Backed up by the fact that cars are designed to remove and protect you from the environment that you're still participating in. This separation leads to many things including road rage and not believing that being on your cellphone is a problem. *IMHO
I think it's just that we all suck at multi-tasking but underestimate how much we suck at it. I have never actually met a good multi-tasker. People who do lots of tasks sequentially, but never anyone who does a satisfactory job at two things that are done simultaneously.
I pray for self driving cars, so these idiots can use their phones all they want.
I was following a riced out Acura today that was flashing the brakes all the time, GF said ?old person?, but grandma doesn't drive that car. Some rapper's white girl friend in head to toe pink was diddling on her phone WHILE DRIVING and tapping on the brakes every time she looked up. I see phone usage while driving everyday and the majority of it isn't talking it is interacting with the device itself. Madness.
I was following a riced out Acura today that was flashing the brakes all the time, GF said ?old person?, but grandma doesn't drive that car. Some rapper's white girl friend in head to toe pink was diddling on her phone WHILE DRIVING and tapping on the brakes every time she looked up. I see phone usage while driving everyday and the majority of it isn't talking it is interacting with the device itself. Madness.
There is an interesting harm reduction angle to products like this.
It's probably the case that people using Navdy will drive worse than people with 100% attention on driving. It's also quite likely they'll drive better than people using a cellphone directly. The question is if it makes people feel safer and thus more willing to do the dangerous activity, countering the safety benefit. (There's also a clear benefit to people actually using phones while driving; letting people know they're late, not being bored, etc. It's just generally trumped by the safety loss; I'd be willing to sacrifice SOME safety for convenience/entertainment.)
It's the same thing with sex (abstinence vs. barrier-based birth control vs. hormonal birth control), drugs (illegal vs. decrminalized vs. legalized), etc.
It's possible NOT having technologies like this leads to overall less safety; it's also possible it leads to more safety. It depends on the specifics.
I have nav (with voice, and a driver information display in my line of sight while driving), and use that, and also don't feel particularly bad about looking at my phone screen to see who called, etc. while stopped at a red light (although I realize it's less than perfectly safe; it's also more of a legal risk than a safety risk in california now, IMO.)
Actually using the phone while driving, or having anything but the most brief and cursory conversation while driving in the city, is clearly a sacrifice in safety; I don't mind phone calls on highways, but I generally won't answer in the city.
It's probably the case that people using Navdy will drive worse than people with 100% attention on driving. It's also quite likely they'll drive better than people using a cellphone directly. The question is if it makes people feel safer and thus more willing to do the dangerous activity, countering the safety benefit. (There's also a clear benefit to people actually using phones while driving; letting people know they're late, not being bored, etc. It's just generally trumped by the safety loss; I'd be willing to sacrifice SOME safety for convenience/entertainment.)
It's the same thing with sex (abstinence vs. barrier-based birth control vs. hormonal birth control), drugs (illegal vs. decrminalized vs. legalized), etc.
It's possible NOT having technologies like this leads to overall less safety; it's also possible it leads to more safety. It depends on the specifics.
I have nav (with voice, and a driver information display in my line of sight while driving), and use that, and also don't feel particularly bad about looking at my phone screen to see who called, etc. while stopped at a red light (although I realize it's less than perfectly safe; it's also more of a legal risk than a safety risk in california now, IMO.)
Actually using the phone while driving, or having anything but the most brief and cursory conversation while driving in the city, is clearly a sacrifice in safety; I don't mind phone calls on highways, but I generally won't answer in the city.
Right when weighting the benefits the big one is the fact most people use GPS navigation, having it via HUD is a significant safety boost. I'd say the same for speedometers.
Other situations are still not super useful and probably won't get used. Can you meaningful respond to text messages with voice? Not quite, yet at least. Can you skim read them? Yes. That is not super distracting but still enough of a distraction in some cases. But I can't think of many use-cases that are any worse than a bluetooth headset voice conversation.
Other situations are still not super useful and probably won't get used. Can you meaningful respond to text messages with voice? Not quite, yet at least. Can you skim read them? Yes. That is not super distracting but still enough of a distraction in some cases. But I can't think of many use-cases that are any worse than a bluetooth headset voice conversation.
But navigation was a very small fraction of the video, much less than texting and tweeting.
Does one company make every startup's tech product video?
Edit: Yes. http://sandwichvideo.com/
Edit: Yes. http://sandwichvideo.com/
Haha that's actually pretty cool :-D The first video I saw from them was the Square, but didn't notice Adam in other videos until recently where he was the pizza delivery guy in the Push for Pizza video. Now I know why he is featured in so many startup-videos ;-)
TIL Real Player still exists and they are a customer of theirs..
Check out the license plate at 0:51, it reads SANDWCH.
They replaced the Ford logo with a Bently logo on the car as well.
how much do these videos cost to make?
that doesn't answer my question. $, $$, $$$ are meaningless.
I see on their client list both Lyft and Uber.
haha, saw your comment before the edit and made an account just to post that url.
I said it last time: it's shocking they thought the most important use case was "WATCH INTERNET VIDEOS WHILE YOU DRIVE."
And they still haven't changed their homepage.
Navdy could be really useful, even improving of total safety, as HUD navigation. But maybe that's not where the money is.
And they still haven't changed their homepage.
Navdy could be really useful, even improving of total safety, as HUD navigation. But maybe that's not where the money is.
I thought this was a parody just because of this - I'm still not sure...
"Hey watch this video???"
I just can't believe it.
"Hey watch this video???"
I just can't believe it.
The photo on their home page shows someone reading an SMS, not watching a video. The SMS is from someone recommending a video, but there's no indication that you can actually watch the video while you drive.
It's a poor choice of image, though obviously they were just trying to embed the "Hey, watch our video in your browser" instructions into the photo itself.
Aside from that, even reading SMS while you drive seems like a bad idea to me. But I'm really tempted to get a Navdy for features that improve safety, by moving stuff that I already look at (speed, navigation) from my dashboard to the HUD. I've been shopping for cars recently and wishing that HUDs were available in more affordable models. I just hope you can turn off Navdy's text/call notifications and other extras.
It's a poor choice of image, though obviously they were just trying to embed the "Hey, watch our video in your browser" instructions into the photo itself.
Aside from that, even reading SMS while you drive seems like a bad idea to me. But I'm really tempted to get a Navdy for features that improve safety, by moving stuff that I already look at (speed, navigation) from my dashboard to the HUD. I've been shopping for cars recently and wishing that HUDs were available in more affordable models. I just hope you can turn off Navdy's text/call notifications and other extras.
You obviously get my point though. Exceedingly poor choice of front and center image to use.
This product is going to kill people, and unfortunately not just the ones who buy it.
I am not so afraid of the loss of attention. I think this takes a little getting used to, like using a route planner.
I didn't see a comment yet about placing a loose object in front of your face. During a head-on collision you will eat that thing. Don't even put a box of matches on your dashboard. CD's become chainsaws. And this hunk of plastic?
Every year, loose objects inside cars during crashes cause hundreds of serious injuries and even deaths. In this paper, we describe findings from a study of 25 cars and drivers, examining the objects present in the car cabin, the reasons for them being there, and driver awareness of the potential dangers of these objects. With an average of 4.3 potentially dangerous loose objects in a car‟s cabin, our findings suggest that despite being generally aware of potential risks, considerations of convenience, easy access, and lack of in-the-moment awareness lead people to continue to place objects in dangerous locations in cars. Our study highlights opportunities for addressing this problem by tracking and reminding people about loose objects in cars.
http://www.star-uci.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/ubic489n-...
I didn't see a comment yet about placing a loose object in front of your face. During a head-on collision you will eat that thing. Don't even put a box of matches on your dashboard. CD's become chainsaws. And this hunk of plastic?
Every year, loose objects inside cars during crashes cause hundreds of serious injuries and even deaths. In this paper, we describe findings from a study of 25 cars and drivers, examining the objects present in the car cabin, the reasons for them being there, and driver awareness of the potential dangers of these objects. With an average of 4.3 potentially dangerous loose objects in a car‟s cabin, our findings suggest that despite being generally aware of potential risks, considerations of convenience, easy access, and lack of in-the-moment awareness lead people to continue to place objects in dangerous locations in cars. Our study highlights opportunities for addressing this problem by tracking and reminding people about loose objects in cars.
http://www.star-uci.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/ubic489n-...
I agree that people should just put the fucking phone away, but if this product is bought by people who already text and drive, maybe it's a net gain.
The danger is that it creates the illusion of being able to text and drive safely, so that people who wouldn't text and drive on a cell phone do so with this product.
Probably, but this misses the point. On a differential basis, it may save more lives on the whole.
The same could be said of cars themselves. And phones. And kitchen knives.
You've listed three examples of products that changed the world, and have huge utility despite their danger. The main advertising for this product, however, seems to be that it allows you to tweet while you drive. So I don't think it's a very fair comparison.
I think the parent comment is referring to the lack of regulation of this product by regulatory bodies.
Cars are regulated to travel below a certain speed. Phones are regulated to their use outside of a vehicle (when operated by a human), and kitchen knives are illegal to carry in public.
While the parent comment is a little melodramatic, there's still something to be said regarding the safety of usage in this product and its affect on other people.
Cars are regulated to travel below a certain speed. Phones are regulated to their use outside of a vehicle (when operated by a human), and kitchen knives are illegal to carry in public.
While the parent comment is a little melodramatic, there's still something to be said regarding the safety of usage in this product and its affect on other people.
These regulations were put into place after the products were released. I don't see why this should be any different.
So we need to wait until some poor shmucks kill a few kids and pregnant mothers before we can realize this product (as currently advertised) is a bad idea? I thought we're smarter than that.
HUDs are not bad. But Navdy keeps marketing their product as a text-while-driving aid. Not very smart.
HUDs are not bad. But Navdy keeps marketing their product as a text-while-driving aid. Not very smart.
30k+ people die in car accidents every year in the US alone. These accidents are caused by a laundry list of things, including texting, eating, interactions with other passengers, fiddling with the radio, etc, etc. As cold and as heartless as this may sound, all sorts of products will kill people on the road, but some level is fatalities is "acceptable" when compared to the stifling and unrealistic alternative of aggressively policing every potential distraction.
Texting while driving is one of the most dangerous distractions primarily because of the interface: eyes off the road, hands off the wheel.
If Navdy can potentially reduce the danger of texting to a level comparable to that of, say, talking to passengers in your car, then I don't see how you can justifiably "realize" that it's a bad idea without seeing some statistics first.
Texting while driving is one of the most dangerous distractions primarily because of the interface: eyes off the road, hands off the wheel.
If Navdy can potentially reduce the danger of texting to a level comparable to that of, say, talking to passengers in your car, then I don't see how you can justifiably "realize" that it's a bad idea without seeing some statistics first.
Because hopefully we've learned our lesson from the release of those products?
Nice looking product, but I can't help but think we shouldn't be encouraging sending Tweets while driving. I'd say keep these devices to assist driving (navigation and safety information), but not to assist additional activities on top of driving.
Agree..not sure why every product feels like it needs act like a communications device on top of it's main purpose. Couldn't help but think the same thing with Apple Watch...do you really think people are going to tweet from that?
http://www.hudwayapp.com/ Free application without any hardware. What are you guys trying to prove here. I didn't get your point.
I would imagine a dedicated bit of hardware is more stable than simply placing your phone on the dashboard.
This is also not intended solely for low-visibility conditions when the reflection of the phone on the windshield is visible. I can't imagine the HUDWAY app being particularly useful during the day, for example.
I don't see that they need to prove anything except that it's a cool and useful product for which a market exists. Their point is simply that automated navigation while driving is cumbersome and unsafe with the use of simple phone apps. A dedicated piece of hardware solves that problem, and in a cool way.
I do feel that their message is undermined a bit by the safety concerns presented when you have seamless phone integration for writing and reading texts, answering calls, and tweeting.
This is also not intended solely for low-visibility conditions when the reflection of the phone on the windshield is visible. I can't imagine the HUDWAY app being particularly useful during the day, for example.
I don't see that they need to prove anything except that it's a cool and useful product for which a market exists. Their point is simply that automated navigation while driving is cumbersome and unsafe with the use of simple phone apps. A dedicated piece of hardware solves that problem, and in a cool way.
I do feel that their message is undermined a bit by the safety concerns presented when you have seamless phone integration for writing and reading texts, answering calls, and tweeting.
I would say that's an unfair comparison, as the navdy aims to do much more, for better or worse. That said I had no idea this app existed and it seems perfect as a simple HUD. Given how I use my navigation system, having just the road ahead visualized is all I need.
Nice! Only works at night though. I'm sure Hudway will have less legal issues than a dedicated device. Also, Navdy is pretty expensive for the mass market.
This is genius. I rarely drive, and when I do it's seldom at night, but when I do I want exactly what's in the first picture on this website. I never understood why no GPS (app or hardware) comes with this feature, even though it provides clear advantages. In rally racing providing this info is basically the entire job of the person in the passenger seat.
Hahaha. True.
Driving is a full time occupation.
If you can reduce the number of distractions please do. A phone needs only one button, answer/break connection and you shouldn't be dialling 'out' while driving anyway. No need to pop up pictures and other distractions in front of the driver, such a call at the wrong moment could easily cause an accident, if only because you will instinctively re-focus on the changing item in front of you.
Set your GPS navigator to do voice announcements and only check the display when you suspect a sudden change in direction or are not sure what lane to sort into. Other than that the voice indications should be enough.
If you can reduce the number of distractions please do. A phone needs only one button, answer/break connection and you shouldn't be dialling 'out' while driving anyway. No need to pop up pictures and other distractions in front of the driver, such a call at the wrong moment could easily cause an accident, if only because you will instinctively re-focus on the changing item in front of you.
Set your GPS navigator to do voice announcements and only check the display when you suspect a sudden change in direction or are not sure what lane to sort into. Other than that the voice indications should be enough.
stop using your phone when you're driving. It's not that hard. It can wait. If it can't, find somewhere to pull over.
GPS, cool. Text etc? ARGH.
GPS, cool. Text etc? ARGH.
Check out Navdy's rad video!
As a motorcycle rider, these things scare the hell out of me. Drivers already pay little enough attention; do we really need more distractions? Jets have HUDs, but they also have much less traffic, highly trained pilots, and computers and air traffic control watching out for things the pilot misses. Car drivers have Siri.
If you're feeling left out: http://www.skullysystems.com/
Holy shit, people. The point of this product is not to enable tweeting. Did you miss the ever-present navigation hud?
This is a good product. Don't you use nav? What's better: Looking at your nav screen pinned to the dash or in the console; looking down at the phone in your lap, because you know you can't be seen holding it; or looking at the road with augmented information?
If you think HUDs are more dangerous than squinting at road signs or reading maps, then you can petition your legislators to make it illegal. I'm all for it, though, because I know the alternatives are worse.
This is a good product. Don't you use nav? What's better: Looking at your nav screen pinned to the dash or in the console; looking down at the phone in your lap, because you know you can't be seen holding it; or looking at the road with augmented information?
If you think HUDs are more dangerous than squinting at road signs or reading maps, then you can petition your legislators to make it illegal. I'm all for it, though, because I know the alternatives are worse.
previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8137815
It would be awesome if this product was actually a giant sting operation designed to identify people who have no business being on the road.
"I see you have a Navdy there, ma'am. I'm going to need to confiscate your car keys before you hurt somebody."
"I see you have a Navdy there, ma'am. I'm going to need to confiscate your car keys before you hurt somebody."
Actually there are plenty of Navigation gadgets doing the same function, but non of them works on a sunny day. I bought some of them, but frustrated, non of them are really functional. I drive on a highway a lot and navigation is annoying when it's not in front of you. So how do Navdy solves this problem?
Nice first step! I want this, but with eye tracking so it can plot perspective correct navigation arrows on the actual streets in front of me.
Neat product and like others have noted here - well done on the marketing. Doing other things while driving is dangerous no doubt, but it is also a very practical reality. Any product that embraces this practicality and tries to maximize eyes on on the road is a good step forward in making driving safer.
A random idea: Adding a camera to this could open up the dashcam market. In Russia for example, dashcams a very common and are a part of the driving culture (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dashcam and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance).
A random idea: Adding a camera to this could open up the dashcam market. In Russia for example, dashcams a very common and are a part of the driving culture (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dashcam and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance).
I know the display looks cool and all but this doesn't make driving with a phone any safer. You're still distracted. It's no different to just having your phone on the windscreen.
Even where I live (Tasmania, Australia) I'm fairly sure there is either a proposal or already a law banning even hands free devices, because they are seen as just as dangerous. This device is going to be illegal to start with.
The only two thing I see as being feasible from a safety point of view for cars is either some sort of augmented reality for lane guidance and navigation, or your phone giving you direction via voice (which they already do).
Even where I live (Tasmania, Australia) I'm fairly sure there is either a proposal or already a law banning even hands free devices, because they are seen as just as dangerous. This device is going to be illegal to start with.
The only two thing I see as being feasible from a safety point of view for cars is either some sort of augmented reality for lane guidance and navigation, or your phone giving you direction via voice (which they already do).
When I did driver training they taught us that being lost is a major contributor to accidents. I am very skeptical that I would be safer and less distracted while squinting in the distance for street signs than I would be having a quick glance at my windshield mounted phone with GPS.
I would agree to an extent with that, but I guess with street signs you are still looking outside the car as opposed to inside it.
Ok, nifty device, but what happens when you have a collusion or an accident and that device in front of your head starts flying around ?
I don't want to destroy their hype bu they should really give that problem some thought.
I don't want to destroy their hype bu they should really give that problem some thought.
In fairness, it's not like they're the only device in the world that mounts on a car dashboard. There's tons of GPS receivers, phone holders, etc. that do the same thing.
Wow, what a sweet product. And boy do they know how to market it, "feels like driving in the future."
A killer feature for this would be IR/night vision with an external camera.
They did a great job with the marketing video for this. Really curious to see where this ends up.
They did a great job with the marketing video for this. Really curious to see where this ends up.
More external cameras, IR, heat, whatever, looking out at all angles. I'm definitely for it. Not sure why we still have those drag inducing chunks sticking out of our sleek vehicles, the reflective things that can ice over, and that you have to calibrate for each driver, now that tiny cameras and range sensors are cheap and ubiquitous.
Range sensors that actually work reasonably well outdoors are neither cheap nor ubiquitous. Note that we're talking about imaging range sensors here, not single point measurements.
Time of flight cameras? They predominantly use NIR (900nm or circa) and so they're rubbish in sunlight. Try using your kinect outdoors. Beyond the kinect they're also very expensive, a few thousand each. The kinect 1 also fails outdoors and when the range is > 5m or so.
LIDAR? Well sure, you can buy a rotating line scanner - 100-180deg field of view typical. They're very nice, but also (new) you're looking at around $3-5k. Don't even dream about getting a Velodyne system, like the Google car uses.
Stereo? Yeah... well stereo is nice, but it takes a lot of computational grunt to do it in real time, reliably and in varying illuminations (good luck using it at night).
Thermal? We're getting there, FLIR make some fairly low cost, low resolution sensors, but still you're looking at $500-1000 a pop in OEM quantities.
RADAR/Ultrasonics are reasonably cheap nowadays and they're pretty good for coarse measurements like when you need to know how far you are from the wall in your garage. We're getting to the point where RADAR is good enough for collision avoidance (i.e. auto-braking) on high speed roads.
More cameras are cool, but you need to know how to process the data and present it clearly to the user. I can see the advantage of having a camera for a rear-view mirror particularly for vehicles like vans with no rear windows. Side mirrors are still useful and for most people the cost of installing multiple high resolution video cameras and monitors isn't worth the savings in petrol from drag reduction. If you replace a mirror with a camera you also need a very high resolution display, a wide angle camera that doesn't distort too much and a way of viewing it in any conceivable illumination condition. Mirrors are also nice and mechanical, unless you crash they rarely ever break.
Time of flight cameras? They predominantly use NIR (900nm or circa) and so they're rubbish in sunlight. Try using your kinect outdoors. Beyond the kinect they're also very expensive, a few thousand each. The kinect 1 also fails outdoors and when the range is > 5m or so.
LIDAR? Well sure, you can buy a rotating line scanner - 100-180deg field of view typical. They're very nice, but also (new) you're looking at around $3-5k. Don't even dream about getting a Velodyne system, like the Google car uses.
Stereo? Yeah... well stereo is nice, but it takes a lot of computational grunt to do it in real time, reliably and in varying illuminations (good luck using it at night).
Thermal? We're getting there, FLIR make some fairly low cost, low resolution sensors, but still you're looking at $500-1000 a pop in OEM quantities.
RADAR/Ultrasonics are reasonably cheap nowadays and they're pretty good for coarse measurements like when you need to know how far you are from the wall in your garage. We're getting to the point where RADAR is good enough for collision avoidance (i.e. auto-braking) on high speed roads.
More cameras are cool, but you need to know how to process the data and present it clearly to the user. I can see the advantage of having a camera for a rear-view mirror particularly for vehicles like vans with no rear windows. Side mirrors are still useful and for most people the cost of installing multiple high resolution video cameras and monitors isn't worth the savings in petrol from drag reduction. If you replace a mirror with a camera you also need a very high resolution display, a wide angle camera that doesn't distort too much and a way of viewing it in any conceivable illumination condition. Mirrors are also nice and mechanical, unless you crash they rarely ever break.
> More cameras are cool, but you need to know how to process the data and present it clearly to the user.
Thanks for the state of the art, good to know.
I assumed the relevant sensor tech was cheap and ubiquitous because every time I rent a car these days, it seems to have both a backup camera and radar. Maybe that's all we've got though, and maybe tricky to point that gear in every direction and have it always on, and as you mention, usefully conveyed to a driver is the big hurdle.
Though I have one crazy idea for that, thanks to George Lucas.
Some people pick on this one scene in Star Wars, when Han and Luke are fighting in the turrets, and you hear all these ships whizzing past, even though there's no sound in space. In one of the more contrived retcons, some fans insist that the sounds of whizzing ships are actually just a different approach to HCI. The ship detects threats, then pumps in naturalish-sounding audio telling you where they are in relation to the Falcon.
I know that's not a mass market idea, but my dream car would use fancy radar to make nearby cars sounds a bit like starfighters. (So long as I can turn it off, probably gets old fast.)
So yes, my primary interest in sensor tech is not reducing drag, or even accidents, but in feeling like I'm piloting a spaceship. Don't judge. :)
Thanks for the state of the art, good to know.
I assumed the relevant sensor tech was cheap and ubiquitous because every time I rent a car these days, it seems to have both a backup camera and radar. Maybe that's all we've got though, and maybe tricky to point that gear in every direction and have it always on, and as you mention, usefully conveyed to a driver is the big hurdle.
Though I have one crazy idea for that, thanks to George Lucas.
Some people pick on this one scene in Star Wars, when Han and Luke are fighting in the turrets, and you hear all these ships whizzing past, even though there's no sound in space. In one of the more contrived retcons, some fans insist that the sounds of whizzing ships are actually just a different approach to HCI. The ship detects threats, then pumps in naturalish-sounding audio telling you where they are in relation to the Falcon.
I know that's not a mass market idea, but my dream car would use fancy radar to make nearby cars sounds a bit like starfighters. (So long as I can turn it off, probably gets old fast.)
So yes, my primary interest in sensor tech is not reducing drag, or even accidents, but in feeling like I'm piloting a spaceship. Don't judge. :)
> Thermal? We're getting there, FLIR make some fairly low cost, low resolution sensors, but still you're looking at $500-1000 a pop in OEM quantities.
From what I've heard, the FLIR lepton core might be around $~250 in quantities, which could make it affordable as an add-on module.
From what I've heard, the FLIR lepton core might be around $~250 in quantities, which could make it affordable as an add-on module.
Yep that's true actually, I forgot about the Lepton. Mike's electricstuff did a teardown/hack of it recently - http://www.electricstuff.co.uk/lepton.html.
I would say that camera lenses can ice over just as well as mirrors.
Several cars already have night vision cameras integrated in their heads-up displays: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_night_vision
It's odd that they promote their product by saying that phone use while driving is unsafe. I fail to see who this is significantly safer than using a phone, since to use the HUD one needs to necessarily remove their attention and focus from the road and redirect it to a small point much closer to their face. Granted, it is probably at least a little better than using a phone, but I'd be _very_ hesitant to say that it's safe.
There are two options on the extremes
1. Keep the HUD in focus and the road out of focus. Your eyes are still seeing a lot of road information that doesn't necessarily need the high fidelity. This is relatively safer than looking away entirely. The human brain can do a lot with scarce information.
2. Keep the road in focus and the HUD out of focus. For things like navigation this will still work fairly well since all you usually need for the navigation is the shape of the road, the direction you'll need to turn in, and how many blocks (roughly) you have until the destination. This is relatively safer than looking away at your phone or gps from time to time, or even looking around for the street names.
Realistically, people will switch between the two extremes.
1. Keep the HUD in focus and the road out of focus. Your eyes are still seeing a lot of road information that doesn't necessarily need the high fidelity. This is relatively safer than looking away entirely. The human brain can do a lot with scarce information.
2. Keep the road in focus and the HUD out of focus. For things like navigation this will still work fairly well since all you usually need for the navigation is the shape of the road, the direction you'll need to turn in, and how many blocks (roughly) you have until the destination. This is relatively safer than looking away at your phone or gps from time to time, or even looking around for the street names.
Realistically, people will switch between the two extremes.
>It's odd that they promote their product by saying that phone use while driving is unsafe. I fail to see who this is significantly safer than using a phone, since to use the HUD one needs to necessarily remove their attention and focus from the road and redirect it to a small point much closer to their face.
The thing is, jet fighter pilots use HUDs. If those work for them, I'm pretty sure it's ok for a car too.
Plus the road is quite boring site most of the time. You are not always in fast traffic or streets full of pedestrians. If you leave in Nevada, close to Highway-50 even more so, but I digress.
The thing is, jet fighter pilots use HUDs. If those work for them, I'm pretty sure it's ok for a car too.
Plus the road is quite boring site most of the time. You are not always in fast traffic or streets full of pedestrians. If you leave in Nevada, close to Highway-50 even more so, but I digress.
Jet fighter pilots are extremely focused at all times and use a HUD to be able to increase focus, not the opposite.
I can't believe I have to say this but JET FIGHTER PILOTS DO NOT USE HUDS TO TWEET.
I can't believe I have to say this but JET FIGHTER PILOTS DO NOT USE HUDS TO TWEET.
This must be a joke...have you met the average driver? Compared to fighter pilots, who are the best of the best and have years of specialized training plus millions of dollars of military-grade hardware devoted to giving them situational awareness of all possible threats?
Jet fighters pilot are (amongst other things) selected on their multitasking skills. Plus they have extensive training regarding concentration, reaction time and so on. You cannot really compare them to the average driver.
Replying to all the comments above here:
Yeah, and average drivers don't face even 1/10 of the speeds and situations a jet fighter pilot faces, including the G's.
Things I didn't say but people still replied as I said them: a) that jet fighters and car drivers have the same skills, b) that jet fighters tweet.
My comment was plain and simple. To rephrase: if HUDs work in such quick-response situations, in a vehicle with 100 times the complexity of your average car, 10 times the speed, and missiles against you, then sure the "average driver" can look at a HUD to see a new tweet, if he doesn't have to de-focus from the road with this technology.
Yeah, and average drivers don't face even 1/10 of the speeds and situations a jet fighter pilot faces, including the G's.
Things I didn't say but people still replied as I said them: a) that jet fighters and car drivers have the same skills, b) that jet fighters tweet.
My comment was plain and simple. To rephrase: if HUDs work in such quick-response situations, in a vehicle with 100 times the complexity of your average car, 10 times the speed, and missiles against you, then sure the "average driver" can look at a HUD to see a new tweet, if he doesn't have to de-focus from the road with this technology.
> The thing is, jet fighter pilots use HUDs. If those work for them, I'm pretty sure it's ok for a car too.
I really hope you're being sarcastic and just forgot about Poe's law here.
I really hope you're being sarcastic and just forgot about Poe's law here.
> It's odd that they promote their product by saying that phone use while driving is unsafe.
That part of a video is basically a slap in the face. The video says that when you use a phone while driving, bad things happen. What are those bad things? A police car stopping you. What the hell. They definitely should stop you. And take away your driving license. And your car. And maybe your offspring.
Ok, I'm getting ahead of myself. Basically, police stopping you for texting while driving is the least bad possible consequence.
That part of a video is basically a slap in the face. The video says that when you use a phone while driving, bad things happen. What are those bad things? A police car stopping you. What the hell. They definitely should stop you. And take away your driving license. And your car. And maybe your offspring.
Ok, I'm getting ahead of myself. Basically, police stopping you for texting while driving is the least bad possible consequence.
I think they'd do better to pitch it as a replacement for car UI in general. If it's executed well, it could be a safer replacement for behaviors like looking down at the A/C or radio controls.
Did you even read the front page? Just scroll down a tiny bit and read:
"Navdy's transparent Head-Up Display (HUD) projects information as if it's floating six feet in front of you. In the car you already have."
Further down:
"The image is focused into the distance so the road stays in focus while the driver views the information presented by Navdy. The same technology is used in all commercial airplanes so the pilot can keep their eyes on the runway while landing the airplane."
"Navdy's transparent Head-Up Display (HUD) projects information as if it's floating six feet in front of you. In the car you already have."
Further down:
"The image is focused into the distance so the road stays in focus while the driver views the information presented by Navdy. The same technology is used in all commercial airplanes so the pilot can keep their eyes on the runway while landing the airplane."
You still need to shift your cognitive, focus. It’s still a distraction, and similarly dangerous [1].
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safet...
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safet...
Ah, I was considering only optical focus. Depending on the situation, shifting cognitive focus may or may not be bad. I tend to get highway hypnosis...I think cognitive focus shifts might help me stay alert, not distract me.
You're still not focused on the road though, that's just not how the human brain works, and insinuating that this device somehow makes texting while driving safe is hugely irresponsible IMO, considering how many thousands of lives are lost every year to distracted driving.
(I also doubt a commercial pilot is using this tech to send tweets to his mom while landing a plane. The "Pilots use this, so it's gotta be safe, right?" line just made me facepalm.)
(I also doubt a commercial pilot is using this tech to send tweets to his mom while landing a plane. The "Pilots use this, so it's gotta be safe, right?" line just made me facepalm.)
Can we start adding some context to these titles, please?
Don't hold your breath, the consensus reached in the few minutes the thread below was breathing seems to be that the domain name provides sufficient context.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8258117
See the context? "Navdy (navdy.com)"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8258117
See the context? "Navdy (navdy.com)"
[deleted]
[deleted]
My dev friend and I were looking into doing a similar product a few years back. We stopped because of laws that prevent you from putting anything that may obstruct you or another drivers vision / attention.
For all the anti-distraction people: Why is the Navdy HUD so much more dangerous than the already existing stuff in your car? At least when you are looking at Navdy you are still basically looking through the windshield. When I look at my radio or speedometer on my current vehicle, the windshield relegated to peripheral vision which is useless in this case as you get no depth information from the peripheral. With Navdy, you still should be able to see something coming at you. It seems far superior to the current HUDs in cars.
Illusion of safety. It's the distraction that really matters. Of course looking down introduces a risk factor, but studies have shown that it's the distraction itself that is dangerous. The HUD will create the illusion that it's ok to do certain things -- more often probably too -- while driving, now that you don't have to look down to do them.
One could also argue that when you have to look down to do something distracting, at least you are being reminded -- by taking your eyes off the road -- that the thing you're doing is distracting and you should probably pay attention to the road.
One could also argue that when you have to look down to do something distracting, at least you are being reminded -- by taking your eyes off the road -- that the thing you're doing is distracting and you should probably pay attention to the road.
well... personally, i wouldn't have gone with a name that could be pronounced "nav die".
Safety issues asside, no one seems to be pointing out that this product is unprotectable: nothing they are doing has any barriers to entry, so what is to prevent a car manufacturer or anybody else from doing the same? Here's someone doing the same without any hardware: http://www.hudwayapp.com/
Also, that video is too smug.
It's builtin in my 2014 Mazda 3... It only displays usefull stuff though. Like direction, speed and distance to the car in front.
Is this legal to have in your car in the US? Looking at the state laws for electronics in the car it doesn't appear to be. http://www.ce.org/Consumer-Info/Car-Electronics/Got-It/State...
"Feels Like Driving In The Future"
And I'm prompted to install a now obsolete plugin to watch the video. Oh, the irony!
Anyway, here's a link for anyone else who wants to watch their introduction video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKL4PJICS40
Anyway, here's a link for anyone else who wants to watch their introduction video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKL4PJICS40
This seems like a stopgap till,
a) The car companies head downmarket with this kind of tech and roll out on your entry-level models.
b) Cars get autonomous enough that this tech becomes irrelevant. Though maybe then we can project Netflix on the windshield with this and watch OITNB on your way to work! :D
Sort of an aside, but wtf is the car they are using in that video? It looks like a Ford Mondeo with a Bentley hood ornament; otherwise it's the ugliest Bentley I've ever seen.
Did they do that as a joke (including the SANDWCH license plate from the video production company)?
Did they do that as a joke (including the SANDWCH license plate from the video production company)?
I wonder how soon using this will be illegal in some states. Something like this should only provide an interface to your phone's maps and just maybe help with phone calls. Nothing else.
I'm skeptical of the ability of regulators and traditional car designers to really think about the user experience and its implications on safety. For example, many cars have confusing controls and distracting displays already. Have you seen reasons to be optimistic?
What's going on here? This was a top post just a few weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8137815
Its neat, but it's troubling that they really haven't thought it out.
First big problem I see, is that it will be sitting in the sun while driving, so it will quickly overheat and have sun damage over time.
First big problem I see, is that it will be sitting in the sun while driving, so it will quickly overheat and have sun damage over time.
This is the same actor that appeared in the original Coin video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9Sx34swEG0
> The image is focused into the distance so the road stays in focus
What magic is this?
What magic is this?
It's the same thing used by Google Glass, and other head-up displays (like the ones built into airplanes and high-end cars). I believe it involves collimation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collimated_light
For example, here's a description of the HUD currently available in several BMW cars:
http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/technology/technology_gui...
"The image is projected in such a way that it appears to be about two metres away, above the tip of the bonnet, making it particularly comfortable to read. BMW Head-Up Display halves the time it takes for eyes to shift focus from road to the instruments and back."
For example, here's a description of the HUD currently available in several BMW cars:
http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/technology/technology_gui...
"The image is projected in such a way that it appears to be about two metres away, above the tip of the bonnet, making it particularly comfortable to read. BMW Head-Up Display halves the time it takes for eyes to shift focus from road to the instruments and back."
"From One Second To The Next", A Film By Werner Herzog: http://youtu.be/_BqFkRwdFZ0
Absolutely gut-wrenching.
Absolutely gut-wrenching.
This is a great example of a product where just because you can combine a few pieces of technology in a new way doesn't mean that you should.
Just give me a standalone, turn-key GPS app that lets me keep my eyes on the road. I don't want phonecalls or texts interrupting my driving.
While I love the device and the presentation, I am certain that this will negatively affect your concentration and thus your driving performance.
Isnt this a re-post ? It was a bad idea then and its a bad idea now. Distractions while driving are potentially dangerous.
Don't drive with a passenger. Don't listen to the radio. Don't have your kid in the car. Don't drive with your dog. Don't think about work. Don't scratch your head. Don't...
Very trivial, but there's a typo in the FAQ: "We’re running a 30 day pre-oder campaign"
Looks like an awesome product!
Looks like an awesome product!
i'm going to create a startup for the ultimate integration between mobile phones and automobiles. it's this box and you put your phone in it, and while you're driving you can't open the box.
pre-orders now, just email me at [email protected]
there's no way this will make it past state legislation
pre-orders now, just email me at [email protected]
there's no way this will make it past state legislation
Maybe it would be a bit off-topic - but why these kind of startups doesn't support WindowsPhone system?
I love in the video how they replaced the Ford logo with a Bently logo. Nice touch Sandwich Video.
any idea if this plugs into Google Maps or whether it uses some other map data?
Navdy looks sweet. I want one. Don't currently text and drive, but I would with one of these badboys.
i can't wait for self driving cars and a ban on human drivers.
no way this stays legal in CA
HUDs are already built into many high-end cars (including several BMW and Audi models, the Chevy Camaro, and even some lower-end cars like the new Mazda3). Same for voice-controlled phone and media systems. They're actually touted as a safety feature, since a HUD requires less eye movement and refocusing than a normal instrument panel.
Of course, it depends a lot on what you do with it. Moving existing displays like the speedometer and navigation instructions to a HUD can be an improvement in safety. But if it encourages more interactive phone use, that could obviously cause problems.
Of course, it depends a lot on what you do with it. Moving existing displays like the speedometer and navigation instructions to a HUD can be an improvement in safety. But if it encourages more interactive phone use, that could obviously cause problems.
right, my point is that it will almost certainly be illegal to use this to text and drive. in fact I think it's probably already illegal:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/cell-phones-driving-c...
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/cell-phones-driving-c...
finally someone made this. spot on.
So stupid
Cell phones are not dangerous because the driver was looking at his phone or playing with the buttons when he had an accident. They are dangerous because they encourage your mind to wander. Most people's brains are really not good at multitasking. (Try patting your head while rubbing your belly counterclockwise)
Anything that takes your mind away from the road when you're driving even if you can see the road is dangerous. (They found that talking to someone in a passenger seat is not as dangerous because if they notice danger and you don't, they'll inform you of the danger automatically by tensing up or whatever.)
If your brain worked like a single process cpu, it would be like setting Twitter to high priority while relegating driving your 2-ton SUV to low priority. It will work well enough most of the time, but sooner or later, you'll crash the SUV.
(Source: BS in psychology)