>No, it's not the vehicles, it's the people driving them.
people being distracted isn't a new feature; people being given distractions in the cabin is.
I'm not sure exactly what your argument is, to be quite frank.
Are you insinuating that less visibility isn't hindering the ability to drive safely?
There are additional devices commonplace in vehicles to make up for the lack of visibility -- pedestrian detection/auto-braking/switching cameras for example -- but surely a car would be safer to both pedestrians and the passengers if it had those types of features along with increased visibility..
>No, it's not the vehicles, it's the people driving them.
As a former auto mechanic, maybe i'm over-exposed.. but :
1) car interior design changes yearly, and it's usually to sate consumer desires rather than for safety/usability/efficiency.
2) mechanical failures aren't rare. mechanical failures that may end in injury or loss-of-life aren't rare, either.
The DoD has done tons of usability studies with regards to UI/UX. If auto manufacturers wanted a safe/repeatable/efficient environment then the interiors would probably share a lot of features with fighter jets; tactile buttons, audio cues, correct information density, etc.
They don't look anything like this -- this is a clue to the consumer that there are different priorities in mind at the manufactures' HQ, namely lately ICE (in-car entertainment, not internal combustion engine; sorry for possible confusion) and technological glitz like RGB lighting.
people being distracted isn't a new feature; people being given distractions in the cabin is.
I'm not sure exactly what your argument is, to be quite frank.
Are you insinuating that less visibility isn't hindering the ability to drive safely?
There are additional devices commonplace in vehicles to make up for the lack of visibility -- pedestrian detection/auto-braking/switching cameras for example -- but surely a car would be safer to both pedestrians and the passengers if it had those types of features along with increased visibility..
>No, it's not the vehicles, it's the people driving them.
As a former auto mechanic, maybe i'm over-exposed.. but :
1) car interior design changes yearly, and it's usually to sate consumer desires rather than for safety/usability/efficiency.
2) mechanical failures aren't rare. mechanical failures that may end in injury or loss-of-life aren't rare, either.
The DoD has done tons of usability studies with regards to UI/UX. If auto manufacturers wanted a safe/repeatable/efficient environment then the interiors would probably share a lot of features with fighter jets; tactile buttons, audio cues, correct information density, etc.
They don't look anything like this -- this is a clue to the consumer that there are different priorities in mind at the manufactures' HQ, namely lately ICE (in-car entertainment, not internal combustion engine; sorry for possible confusion) and technological glitz like RGB lighting.