Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
GUI

New Car Heads-Up Display To Be Controlled By Hand Gestures, Voice Commands 142

Posted by timothy
from the don't-take-that-call dept.
Lucas123 (935744) writes "A new company has just opened a crowdsourcing campaign for a heads-up display that plugs into your car's OBD II port and works with iPhones and Android OS-enabled mobile devices via Bluetooth to project a 5.1-in transparent screen that appears to float six feet in front of the windshield. The HUD, called Navdy, works with navigation apps such as Google Maps for turn-by-turn directions, and music apps such as Spotify, Pandora, iTunes Music and Google Play Music. Using voice commands via Apple's Siri or Google Voice, the HUD can also write, read aloud or display notifications from text messages or social media apps, such as Twitter. Phone calls, texting or other applications can also be controlled with hand gestures enabled by an infrared camera."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Car Heads-Up Display To Be Controlled By Hand Gestures, Voice Commands

Comments Filter:
  • ...speech impediment or weird accents or sore throat, please start by using the hand gesture "shoving a giant middle finger into the dashboard".
  • Years ago, in "National Lampoon," they had all the country's gestures for FY. Starting from the American middle finger to the Italian right arm scooping up cradled in the left arm.
    • by dpilot (134227)

      As long as the guesture input subsystem isn't connected to the in-car weapons subsystem.

      • Anybody but me ever see "Legend of the Rangers", the attempted Babylon 5 spin-off? Not that I'm going to recommend it, but putting the weapons officer into virtual space and have her fight using body gestures was at least fun to watch.

  • by mark-t (151149) <markt.lynx@bc@ca> on Thursday August 07, 2014 @10:19AM (#47622319) Journal
    If a display is not integrated into the car itself, and in particular where the *sole* purpose of a display should be to assist in driving the car safely, then it's going to be considered a distraction from driving, and therefore not going to be legal to use while driving.
    • by thieh (3654731)
      Then comes the hand gesture "Oh no you didn't" which will make the device play the legal justifications in the voice that is used by the GPS and other things.
    • Just because a display is integrated into the car itself doesn't make it any less of a distraction from driving. Anything that requires you to take your eyes off the roads to look down and to your right distracts you.

      • by mark-t (151149)
        HUD's don't require you to take your eyes off the road. Also, really they aren't a distraction from driving when their purpose is to actually assist in operating the vehicle safely. In many cases, that's going to only be largely redundant data that can also be presented on the dashboard right in front of the driver, or presented to the driver as an audible warning, if applicable, but there are certainly exceptions that may have shades of augmented reality. The problem with this device is not so much its
        • by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Thursday August 07, 2014 @11:47AM (#47623111)

          HUD's don't require you to take your eyes off the road.

          Ideally, no. In practice, IME we aren't quite there yet: the focal distance for current in-car HUDs still tends to be significantly shorter than where a driver should normally be looking. However, it's still interesting to consider whether even the HUDs we have available today are an improvement on static instrument consoles, where the driver also has to look down/over, as well as changing focus to an even closer range.

          Hopefully it goes without saying that using this kind of technology to display anything that isn't immediately relevant to driving (such as the notifications shown on their site right now) is crazy.

          However, in a few years, I can imagine that navigation systems will use a combination of eye-tracking and HUD technology to skip the stylised graphics we use today and just highlight the required driving line directly on the road ahead. My other big wish for this kind of technology is enhancements for when visibility is poor: think night vision/IR with additional highlights on hazards such as a car ahead slowing down sharply or a pedestrian moving toward the road. Those kinds of qualitative improvements in driver awareness could save a lot of lives and a lot of time, not to mention the general frustration that sometimes comes with driving in unfamiliar places today.

          • by mark-t (151149)

            Ideally, no. In practice, IME we aren't quite there yet: the focal distance for current in-car HUDs still tends to be significantly shorter than where a driver should normally be looking.

            Of course, and it is why HUDs should probably not have information that requires actually focussing on the windshield, which means no textual presentation of any kind... the only things that it should visually present to the user are iconographs that can be easily recognized even when you are not focussiing on them.

            • by Richy_T (111409)

              It would be interesting to see if technology using lasers similar to that in red-dot scopes would be effective. OTOH, astigmatism can make that a poor option for many.

            • I've done some work with human factors evaluation of HUDs for aircraft. Some information just needs to be text. It takes a bit longer to process but it is better to have critical text available near the field of view and refocus than to have to hunt for it at my knees and lose my reaction time. BTW, a well designed HUD isn't in focus at the optic. It looks like this one is focused a bit in front of the vehicle. A really nice one will be focused at pseudoinfinity and is mostly in focus anywhere you loo
          • by Aighearach (97333)

            Even if the focal distance is the same, you're still taking your eyes off the road by moving your focus to a non-road object. There is more to vision that just where the lens is focused.

            • by BobMcD (601576)

              Sort of like when you blink? Or tune the radio? Sneeze? Read a billboard?

              • by Aighearach (97333)

                Blinking does not count, no. And you'd only think it did by intentionally pretending you don't understand the concept, even though it is simple. That one is intellectually dishonest.

                Tuning the radio, well, if you're looking at it to tune it, yes. If not, then no. Seems pretty simple. Don't really see the gray area there. I personally keep my eyes on the road and operate the radio by touch.

                Reading a billboard is also very obvious. Yes, if you're reading billboards, your eyes are off the road. If you're readi

                • by BobMcD (601576)

                  Did I leave you with the impression that my post was anything other than rhetorical?

                  Also, you left out sneezing. Where's your advocacy for a ban on sneezing?

                  Point is simple, but I'll spell it out for you - no one (and no I don't believe your claims) is capable of never taking their eyes off the road.

                  But even if that were a possibility, and it absolutely is not, it is already totally and completely fine that we take our eyes off the road. The government posts billboards themselves, do they not?

                  Again, rheto

                  • by Aighearach (97333)

                    This may be news to you, but "rhetorical" doesn't actually mean "false." Also, there is no rhetorical value there, because the examples don't illustrate a counter point, or raise questions with what I said. They are simply examples of situations, and considering them only supports my point.

                    Why cares if "the government posts billboards?" Are you saying that the Government assumes only drivers are in cars? No? So I guess being besides the point just makes that "rhetorical?" lol

                    And just because "no one (and no

                    • by BobMcD (601576)

                      Nobody is perfect, nobody will have their eyes on the road 100% of the time while driving... but they should be trying to! . That is how you do your best at something, you try to do it correctly, to minimize your mistakes.

                      Utter bullshit.

                      Plan for drivers to be distracted, because they will be. Never, ever, ever expect anyone to be trying to look at the road 100% of the time, because we absolutely know this will never be the case.

                      Your position is equivalent to making an abstinence argument against birth control - and you're trying to push that on others. It is absurd and harmful.

          • by dublin (31215)

            Wow, Slashdot sure is full of hand-wringing politically correct armchair lawyers these days!

            Seriously guys, HUDs are not new and they are quite likely the least intrusive way to present information to driver (or even front seat passengers wanting to avoid motion sickness, for that matter).

            Quite a few cars have had a HUD option from the factory - heck, some GM cars (Pontiacs mostly, but not exclusively) had factory HUD options more than 20 years ago.

            Nearly 100 years ago, the same kinds of busybodies were try

            • Nearly 100 years ago, the same kinds of busybodies were trying to outlaw radios in cars, since that was "obviously" a distraction for the driver. News flash - the vast majority of the time, people (yep, even the ones that don't live in your hipster high-rise) are more than capable of enough multitasking to deal with both driving and another task.

              Are you seriously arguing that anyone who thinks using a HUD to display tweets and text messages is dangerous must be a busybody?

              If you are then you are the guy those laws are written for, so the authorities can take you off the road before your arrogance kills someone.

        • by Aighearach (97333)

          Having your eyes "on" the road doesn't mean "in the direction of the road," it means actually having the focal point of your vision on the road. Moving your focus to words on a screen floating in your vision is exactly taking your eyes off the road .

          • by mark-t (151149)
            Only if you have to focus on words on the display. HUD's are entirely able to use largely iconographic presentations that do not require you to actually focus on the display in order to understand the information being communicated. The information density is much lower than text, but it can still be extremely informative and helpful in enhancing a driver's awareness of their surroundings.
            • by Aighearach (97333)

              You're missing the point. Please re-parse, and try again. There is no difference regarding text or iconography, and what the subject of your attention is in general has nothing to do with the question of what your eyes are "on" in the phrase, "keep your eyes on the road."

              • by mark-t (151149)
                No difference between text and iconography? Do you need to actually *read* a stop sign to realize what it says, for instance?
                • by Aighearach (97333)

                  No difference between text and iconography? Do you need to actually *read* a stop sign to realize what it says, for instance?

                  A stop sign is part of the "road" in the phrase, "keep your eyes on the road."

                  Good try, but it is more effective if you try to understand, instead of trying not to.

                  But it also misses because no, you're not supposed to read a stop sign. There are in fact other signs you're expected to read, like a speed limit sign, or (in some States) the small sign under a school zone sign that tells you when you have to obey the school speed. (in my location it is usually either 8am-5pm or else "when children are present")

                  • by mark-t (151149)
                    Your eyes don't actually have to be focused on any part of the window if the iconography is distinctive enough. I've seen cars with HUDs that present their information with icons or colored symbols and they are not remotely dangerous to drive... they are arguably safer because of the extra information that can be communicated to the driver.
                    • by Aighearach (97333)

                      You're just willfully ignoring the point though, and then instead of arguing against it, you do some "aww shucks it doesn't matter" hand-waving.

                      I don't care how "distinctive" the icon is. If you're looking at the icons, you're not looking at the road. That would be true even if the icons were superimposed so they looked like there were embedded in the road. You'd be looking at the icons not the road.

                      All the placement does is make it harder for others to tell that you're distracted.

                    • by mark-t (151149)

                      You don't actually have to focus on a HUD in order to see it, nor to understand the information it is communicating to you.

                      Use a car with an integrated HUD and you'll see what I mean.

                    • by Aighearach (97333)

                      If you didn't focus your attention on it, then you did not receive any information from it. You're claiming it doesn't work. But it does work; the drivers attention will focus on the screen, wherever you put that screen. It is part of the basic premise of displaying information.

              • What have you got against HUDs, man? From a post above you claim reading a road sign isn't "taking your eyes off the road" yet barely moving ones eye to read a floating message that appears to be floating right next to said road sign is. You make no sense. You're hating to be hating is all I can think of. You don't like them, so therefore they shouldn't exist and no one is allowed to like or want them. Also, maybe you should do some re-parsing. You are attempting to lock down a colloquial phrase which
              • In other words, I'm a danger to everybody on the road when I actually look at my dashboard instruments, such as speedometer (which is - gasp - a digital display) or temperature display or gas gauge?

        • by mjwx (966435)

          HUD's don't require you to take your eyes off the road. Also, really they aren't a distraction from driving when their purpose is to actually assist in operating the vehicle safely.

          I've bolded the critical part. When assisting the driver with operating the vehicle, HUDs are a very good idea. However having read Navdy's site, they seem to emphasise things people shouldn't be doing whilst operating a vehicle like texting or making a tweet. A driver focused on their text messages is not focused on the road regardless of where they're looking, their brain will be occupied with the task of texting and mutlitasking is doesn't really work [lifehacker.com]. Even though they've got their eyes right in front of

      • Integrating into the vehicle implies that the mfr puts it there--not that a really good installer did a beautiful install.
        It has to first pass a bunch of quality, safety, and regulatory gates before the mfr will put it in there.

        Those quality and regulatory gates may not be so high as some people would like, but at least you get some input as they're negotiated among mfr's, regulators, and users. It's (generally) going to be a lot safer than whatever Bubba & Earl's Car Audio and Bait Shop orders from am

      • by mspohr (589790)

        I think the point of a HUD is that you don't have to take your eyes off the road to gather information from the dashboard, GPS, etc.
        The fact that these were first developed for military and civilian pilots would seem to indicate that these are very safe displays... much safer than any other option. After all, they wouldn't be approved for aircraft use if they were distracting or unsafe.

        • by mark-t (151149)
          Although I agree that a well designed HUD could definitely be useful in automobiles, in all fairness, it requires substantially more training to be an aircraft pilot than it does to drive an automobile... so comparing their use in aircraft to using them in cars isn't necessarily the best way to illustrate their practicality for the latter.
    • by Sockatume (732728)

      Is this any different from a dash mount for a smartphone?

      • Is this any different from a dash mount for a smartphone?

        Did you watch the video?

        • by Zynder (2773551)
          Watching a video is even more unlikely than reading the article, and phenomenally improbable compared to even reading the damned summary. This is Slashdot after all.
    • Let me preface that I think lawyers are a terrible scourge and sap resources from the global economy and especially in the US from the GDP.

      That said, I really want to see a successful lawsuit against Kickstarter making them responsible for inherently bad / illegal products. This licensing / EULA / contracts crap that absolves the middle men of responsibility is complete garbage.
    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      If a display is not integrated into the car itself, and in particular where the *sole* purpose of a display should be to assist in driving the car safely, then it's going to be considered a distraction from driving, and therefore not going to be legal to use while driving.

      You can already buy HUDs from multiple manufacturers, and they are already legal to use while driving. OTOH, their example image on their website is an instant spam message suggesting you check out one of their videos. That's pretty horrendous.

      • by Aighearach (97333)

        Illegal for the intended use in most states, and illegal even to install in many.

        http://www.ce.org/Consumer-Inf... [ce.org]

        What *is* usually legal is one with a lock-out so that it can only do vehicle info and navigation while driving. Simply not using the other features doesn't help; it has to have a physical lockout in most states, or be mounted so that the screen is not visible to the driver.

        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          Illegal for the intended use in most states, and illegal even to install in many.

          You can't see the screen of a HUD device, that's part of the appeal. It's a reflected image. Also, in California (most vehicles, vehicle-miles traveled, and road-miles period) there's a law but no penalty.

          • by Aighearach (97333)

            Too cute by far. With a HUD you can see the part of the screen that is intended for viewing. Law is at times very technical, but it is not built on "gotchas" using literary English. It is the same as claiming if you set up a mirror to see the screen, you're not seeing the screen, you're seeing the mirror. No, you're seeing both.

            And in California it is illegal. That is indisputable, and there is no gotcha available with the meaning of "screen" in California. The language they use is, "a television receiver,

        • by BobMcD (601576)

          You keep posting this link. Have you actually read it?

          I just checked every state on the site and exactly three things are normally illegal:

          1) Minors using it (as if minors can afford it in the first place...)
          2) Watching TV on it (not a feature)
          3) Using it with your hands, specifically typing on it (the opposite of what it does)

          Of the 51 places on your link, ONLY FIFTEEN deviate from this, and typically only because their laws don't go down to the 'type on it' level. If we had the full statutes, instead of

        • by dublin (31215)

          The Nanny state has run amok. I think even sadder is that the hacker crowd at Slashdot even a decade ago would have reacted with a collective, "Cool, let's give this a try and see how it works and how we can make it better", rather than with a zillion arguments about how an obviously versatile technology must be banned under the force of law.

          We sure have a lot of totalitarians of fascist and other stripes here these days.

          In almost all cases, technology is morally neutral - nukes, biotech, radio waves, and

          • by Aighearach (97333)

            You sound like you're just about ready to murder somebody by intentionally driving distracted.

            There is nothing "nanny"-like about keeping you from killing me. Do whatever you want when you're not operating heavy equipment in proximity to others.

            The law doesn't try to force an outcome, it regulates and sets penalties for idiotic behavior that could kill others. Got it? We know you're still drive distracted or drunk and maybe kill somebody. But the law reduces that.

  • to project a 5.1-in transparent screen that appears to float six feet in front of the windshield.

    I only read TFS but... that's a bit small for that distance, isn't it? Maybe they can program it to display turn-by-turn directions one letter at a time.

    • by tomhath (637240)
      It'll be okay if you stare at it intently as you make random gestures and speak to it while driving.
    • Re:Um... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Sockatume (732728) on Thursday August 07, 2014 @10:45AM (#47622507)

      I assume they mean that it appears focussed at six feet away, but it subtends as much of your viewing angle as it currently does on the dashboard. So if it's five inches across and three feet away from your face, it looks like it's actually ten inches across and six feet away.

      • So if it's five inches across and three feet away from your face, it looks like it's actually ten inches across and six feet away.

        I see. And is this technology applicable in any other, uh, areas?

  • Hand Gestures? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07, 2014 @10:30AM (#47622399)

    Is this really the best way to control something in a car? Do we really want drivers taking their hands off the steering wheels to make silly motions in space while they're driving?

    I mean, maybe it'll work. Maybe it does make sense. But my initial reaction is skeptical.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      This will only work if the hand gesture for "emergency stop" is the motion of raising either hand to the matching ear. Similarly, any time the system can detect both of the driver's hands moving freely independent of the steering wheel, it should turn on the blinkers, shift into neutral, and call the police.
      Yes, this will allow long-armed troublemakers seated behind the driver to do some pretty mean pranking, but I think the net result will be safer roads for everyone.

      Late thought: Can they have it keep t

      • by Amtrak (2430376)

        Your prank idea sounds great... well until people figure out the old coke can for hands trick. [roadandtrack.com]

        But seriously I never understood this both my hands must be on the wheel at all time crap the safe driving nazi's think about driving these days. I mean have any of you people ever driven a car with a manual transmission? I think if I can handle driving a manual I can manage to take one hand off the wheel to make a quick gesture without killing myself.

      • by bswarm (2540294)
        So what if I program it to turn off the radio by flipping the bird? And what will the cop in front of me (at a stop sign) think when he sees me flipping him off, when all I wanted to do was turn off the radio?
    • by Immerman (2627577)

      It seems to me that a hand gesture immediately above the steering wheel is *far* preferable to reaching down to change the radio station. Your body posture doesn't change, and your hand only has to move a few inches to grab the wheel in an emergency. Let's just avoid any two-handed gestures, shall we?

  • Those cool features described in the TFA, like the HUD display for test messages, twitter, iTunes, etc. leads to something politely called 'distracted driving [distraction.gov]' and less politely called 'Being an Asshole' which last year killed 3,328 people and injured 421,000. As a long-time biker, I often see the drivers working their smartphone whilst swerving through traffic and chatting up their passengers and I've damn near become one of the 421,000 (or the 3,328) more than once. Rather than provide fancy new 'heads
    • by wbr1 (2538558) on Thursday August 07, 2014 @10:50AM (#47622559)

      Rather than provide fancy new 'heads up' displays for drivers or built-in smart phone driver docking stations for drivers with their 'heads up' their ass, we should be working on roadside electronic surveillance and longer prison sentences for the drivers who kill people while using their smartphone.

      While I agree that distraction is an issue, and solutions should be found, and I also agree that this device sounds like more distraction, longer prison terms solve nothing. Incarceration does not stop drug use, threat of life in prison does not deter murderers of bank robbers. No matter the differences in incarceration percentage or average length of incarceration, developed countries crime rates stay relatively stable. The few things being tougher on any crime does do well is break up families, provide jobs to the prison workers, and create a hated underclass that is likely to turn to crime again.

      This is not to say that there should be no punishment for crime, but to say the money would likely be much better spent on proper prevention. Not more police, swat toys, and police programs, but things like education, family planning , job training, addiction recovery, even driver training, etc. For the cost of putting 2-3 people in prison for a year, a town could hire a person to do distracted driver training and testing on a closed course. All you need is an empty parking lot and some cones.

      • threat of life in prison does not deter murderers

        Bet me! Unwillingness of others to go to prison is exactly what keeps certain people alive.

    • by Immerman (2627577)

      Agreed. On the other hand if plugged into the OBD-II port it should also be able to display dashboard and other useful info. I'm actually kind of surprised they didn't capitalize on that more - for example I kind of like the idea of a compact speed gauge floating over my front bumper - no need to look down to double-check my speed while driving through a school zone, and it could easily be overlayed on one corner of the map.

    • by pla (258480)
      As a long-time biker, I often see the drivers working their smartphone whilst swerving through traffic and chatting up their passengers

      Magnificent, 10/10! You will get many fish to bite.
  • by nimbius (983462) on Thursday August 07, 2014 @10:39AM (#47622457) Homepage
    As an american ive been using hand gestures and voice commands in traffic for years now.
  • Isn't 6 feet a little close for an HUD? If you're focussing your attention at the end of your car's nose I'm not sure that's ideal.

    • The trick is, although the focus point is near (nearby the car's nose), the region you're looking at is also the region where the other interesting things (like the car in front) also happen to be visible.
      In other words, you're much more likely to notice that car in front of you has slammed brakes when you're looking at a virtual display transparently floating between said car and you, than if you were looking away from the car down to your right at the "infotainment" display.

      That's why some cars already us

  • ...especially with law firms specializing in personal injury.

  • Ummm ...what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gstoddart (321705) on Thursday August 07, 2014 @10:46AM (#47622525) Homepage

    other applications can also be controlled with hand gestures enabled by an infrared camera

    So, instead of people taking their hands of the steering wheel to hold onto their phone, they're going to take them off the steering wheel to control their stuff with gestures???

    Seriously people, are you actually designing something for people who are driving cars?

    Here's a suggestion, save your damned text messages and social media updates for when you're not bloody well driving.

    • by Chrisq (894406)

      Here's a suggestion, save your damned text messages and social media updates for when you're not bloody well driving.

      Like!

    • Who drives with two hands? You only really need one to operate a steering wheel. Waving your hand left or right is significantly less distracting than typing on a keyboard. Not only that, but keeping your eyes on the road, as opposed to looking down, is much safer.

      Here's a suggestion, save your damned text messages and social media updates for when you're not bloody well driving.

      That worked out really well with prohibition. It is a great suggestion, but hoping people will not send texts/emails/answer phone calls while driving is simply naive. I think an invention like this that hopes to make it safer for people to use the

      • by gstoddart (321705)

        That worked out really well with prohibition. It is a great suggestion, but hoping people will not send texts/emails/answer phone calls while driving is simply naive.

        Don't know about you, but where I live, it's illegal to do this while driving.

        What really needs to happen is for the police to start enforcing it, because I can go to any intersection and watch a large chunk of drivers texting.

        Start fining people and taking away their licenses, and you'll see some change.

        If you're trying to use a gesture interf

        • by suutar (1860506)

          what _really_ needs to happen is someone needs to figure out how to actually get people to _understand_ "yes, this can in fact happen to you. You are not magical, you are not perfect, you are probably not even as good as you think you are, and if something does go wrong you can in fact be totally hosed."

          But at that point I think we're pushing the next stage of evolution, so I don't expect it to be soon.

      • Re:Ummm ...what? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Ziggitz (2637281) on Thursday August 07, 2014 @11:32AM (#47622971)
        There's a difference between the federal prohibition of all alcoholic beverages and telling someone to put their fucking phone away for 20 minutes while they operate a 2 ton weapon. One is an absolute ban and the other is requiring you by law to be a responsible adult and not partake in activities that have been proven to kill people while driving and to perform those activities at a safe time.
        • and the other is requiring you by law to be a responsible adult and not partake in activities that have been proven to kill people while driving and to perform those activities at a safe time

          Sounds like drinking and driving. True vehicular manslaughter.

          In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.1

          source: http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehicl... [cdc.gov]

          Back to my original point, Just having a law to tell people to stop doing something, even if it's enforced like DUI's, still won't prevent everyone from doing it. I think having a safer alternative, like this HUD display, is optimal to solve the problem. That's what technology is for, solving problems. Grumbling and complaing about people being on their phones won't solve anything.

          • by mjwx (966435)

            Back to my original point, Just having a law to tell people to stop doing something, even if it's enforced like DUI's, still won't prevent everyone from doing it. I think having a safer alternative, like this HUD display, is optimal to solve the problem. That's what technology is for, solving problems. Grumbling and complaing about people being on their phones won't solve anything.

            Just having the law is ineffective, you need to enforce the law and educate drivers as well.

            And yes, enforcement combined with education does work.

            Further more, there isn't a safe way to drive distracted. Our brains simply dont multitask. End of story. There is no safe way to tweet or text whilst driving. A person using a HUD to text or tweet will readily drive right up the tailpipe of the car in front of them because their brain is focused on the text or tweet and simply doesn't register that there i

  • by sinij (911942) on Thursday August 07, 2014 @10:47AM (#47622535) Journal
    I have a better idea, why not get a customized plate with your SSN? At least doing so has no potential of killing you in a high-speed crash.

    Your OBD II port has direct access to CANBUS, as such plugging anything with wireless connectivity puts a huge "remotely mess with my car" sign on it. Throw in Bluetooth and possibly unpatched Android into the mix and you are inviting every script kiddie out there to turn your car into a video game.
    • by dpilot (134227)

      Don't forget that your insurance company would really like to get their spy dongle onto your ODB II port, too. So this HUD is really the third usage for the ODB II port, the first of course being the diagnostics that it was designed for. How soon before we have ODB-splitters?

      I'm sure your insurance company would like their spy dongle to be the only thing plugged into your ODB II port while driving, especially if the only other available driving-time plugin was a HUD/distraction. But what if other more se

  • by plebeian (910665) on Thursday August 07, 2014 @10:49AM (#47622553)
    My brother was just rear ended by someone who was talking on the phone. People do not need more distractions while driving. A HUD should be limited to presenting information that helps people drive. Talking on the phone even hands free is still a distraction, visual navigation systems are also an unnecessary distraction. Honestly people put the phone down and pay attention to the road, your life and the lives of others depends on it.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      There are things that I do want to know that my phone and my car working together can figure out.

      • What's the current speed limit - it's easy to miss the speed signs, especially when you're turning onto a road from a sideroad where you might not see them! Can we have some sort of display that tells me I'm going too fast (too slow?) without me having to compare two numbers? A red warning symbol for going too fast?
      • Thundercall alerts. If there's weather enroute that means I need to get off the road coming in
      • What's the current speed limit - it's easy to miss the speed signs, especially when you're turning onto a road from a sideroad where you might not see them! Can we have some sort of display that tells me I'm going too fast (too slow?) without me having to compare two numbers? A red warning symbol for going too fast?

        Yup, it's possible. Basically two ways:
        - GPS that have databse of speedlimits (also useful when the GPS computes the fastest route). That's both available at some car manufacturer (as a random example, Volvo's nav does it) and available at 3rd parties (As an exemple, the openstreetmaps database has speed limits, and the opensource navit [navit-project.org] application does display them, along with color-code (green/red) to tell you if your within/beyond the limits).
        That would be rather easy to integrate into TFA's HUD. (as it

    • by pla (258480)
      A HUD should be limited to presenting information that helps people drive. Talking on the phone even hands free is still a distraction, visual navigation systems are also an unnecessary distraction.

      It distracts me far less to take a brief glance at the GPS map at a time of my choosing, than to have it yell at me every 30 seconds and I then have to figure out if it means turn here, or the next exit, or I missed my turn, or it wanted me to magically teleport to the road below the bridge I just went over,
    • by Zynder (2773551)
      Your UID is entirely too low for you to actually believe what you're saying, yet it is low enough for you to want to say it. In other words, you sound old and crotchety; those damned whippersnappers with their hula hoops and their pet rocks always messing up my earl grey time! Someone oughtta......
      Someone (you) oughtta realize that relying on people to just do the right thing is a pipe dream and about as likely as banning masturbation or drugs or alcohol. If there is a popular thing (like googlin yer in
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday August 07, 2014 @11:03AM (#47622679)

    But, you see, there was a fly in the car and as I tried to swat it...

  • by DigiShaman (671371) on Thursday August 07, 2014 @11:16AM (#47622817) Homepage

    Yeah, whatever. Alpine [alpine-usa.com] will soon be releasing a head unit that supports Apple CarPlay [apple.com]. That's what I'm waiting for. In fact, I haven't been this excited in aftermarket car audio in well over 20 years. =)

  • HUD is a reasonable tool to augment driving information. It makes sense for maps, directions, vehicle alerts. Does not make sense for "luxury" and distraction-causing activities like texting, videos, anything in that area.

    Opening up this can of worm is so directly linkable to liability for accidents, that I would be surprised if this company survives the first lawsuit.
  • "A loud clatter of gunk music flooded through the Heart of Gold cabin as Zaphod searched the sub-etha radio wave bands for news of himself. The machine was rather difficult to operate. For years radios had been operated by means of pressing buttons and turning dials; then as the technology became more sophisticated the controls were made touch-sensitive -- you merely had to brush the panels with your fingers; now all you had to do was wave your hand in the general direction of the components and hope. It s

  • So if i flip someone the bird i get a HUD targeting/fire control display?

  • My partner is a vision and attention researcher, so I've absorbed some fascinating information about how vision and attention are related.

    You can be looking at something but not actually paying any attention to it. Further, your attention works differently at different depth planes - so while you might be focused on the HUD thinking that you're still aware of what's happening on the road, you almost certainly are not.

    This sounds like an interesting device but - based on my partner's research and what she's

  • You can already get certain kinds of data from your dashboard and in-car infotainment systems designed for the driver to use. We presumably have laws that specify what's legit (speed, radio, etc.,) and what's not (watching tv shows). Can't we agree that if a HUD limits itself it what's already available, and is less distracting than the already approved alternative, then it's a win? If it tries to do things that are illegal, then it's bad? That assumes that the existing laws already do a reasonable job
  • I won't be happy until I get my LCARS display. Just imagine controlling a car like that.

    Heck, "car" is already included in the acronym!
    • by mjwx (966435)

      I won't be happy until I get my LCARS display. Just imagine controlling a car like that.

      Heck, "car" is already included in the acronym!

      Yep, it'll be brilliant.

      I make a sharp left and the console in the rear passenger seat explodes. Now if I could just get rear mounted phasers for the tailgaters.

The Universe is populated by stable things. -- Richard Dawkins

Working...