I agree Jacob, it is one of the most important critical point even for several industries (aerospatial for instance) good results in terms of stability and minimun risks have been achieved. That said, issue could be raised on costs: how much does it cost? Hence, could be convenient for Car Makers, put in production that technology, considering (maybe) high costs for certification to transfer on the market?
In the case of cell phone use while driving I agree on not using the phone if you have to hold it while talking on it. On the other hand, I see no danger in hands-free use. Why? Because there is absolutely no difference between the driver talking with someone in the car or someone on the phone.
Your right dave, Ford might have taken a big step in car gadget technology but from a customers point of view, safety, fuel consumption and style is what i feel should be of great importance, other things should build on these basic platform. i know its a big competition for car companies but ford needs to consider a customers view of an ideal car.
You have to at least hand it to Ford for taking the initiative of being a technology leader in the automotive space.I do agree that more testing should have taken place as it seems the issues that are arising are not obscure ones, but obvious ones.I also agree that there should be a combination of touchscreen and manual buttons in vehicles and not all or nothing.
Ford needs to focus on styling, reliability, safety and fuel consumption. Yes, having the latest gadgets in your car is a great thing and makes some people envious that they don't have the set up in their car. The issue is when these new electronics have serious faults and failures. When key vital operations can't be run due to system errors, consumers have a big issue. When key features fail, the view of the entire car becomes garbage and troublesome.
Ford needs to focus on the majority of consumers concerns; fuel consumption and safety. Work on those two factors and Ford will be successful. That is unless they try and sell a box on wheels.
I think, Ford has not tested the software thoroughly. For software exceptions can be happens at any time, whenever they encounter any interrupts, so they have to make sure that the software is capable to handle all types of interrupts and exceptions. Verification and Validation has to be done during Alpha and Beta releasing phase.
It is ok to introduce new technology to gate edge in market. However, many a time, new concept is pushed too hard and testing and quality gets secondary treatment. In this case, products gets tested on field and it becomes very costly for company. Product designer should get proper time for design. All other department should help them for this new implementation.
Thanx Ariella, I agree and definitely drowsy driving is indipendent of tech evolution. It could be very interesting to know for example correlation between number of cell phones on the market (sold to end users I mean) and car incidents happened during same timeframe. I don't if anyone, for instance, has ever launched that kind of investigation.
Sure, distractions of any kind can compromise safety. That's why some point out that drivers should not speak on the cell phones even if they are hands free. The conversation itself can divert the driver's attentions. Another thing that studies find is that, though people acknowledge the dangers of drowsy driving, many still admit to doing it.
Often, while I am hearing about tech for introducing entertainment media inside cars, attitude in welcoming innovations, becomes concerns on risks. No to say driver needs full silence around him to avoid 100% incidents, but any source of possible deviation of driver's focus, even for only a bit, could be evaluated in depth. Maybe in case of long travel, right way should be public transportation, but sometimes it is not doable due to lack of connections.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
While no one really can accurately predict the future, we can take guidance from another Drucker saying which is the best way to predict the future is to create it.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.