Quote:
Originally Posted by jcp123
Aren’t the “objects may be closer...” mirrors an analog version of changing the field of view?
|
I wouldn't know. At different times I am confused as to which objects are closer and which are further away:
Is it
"Objects [that you see in your mirror] are closer than they appear [behind you]"
or is it
"Objects [behind you] are closer than they appear [in your mirror]"
Are they talking about the actual objects, or the reflection of the objects in the mirror?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcp123
I just have tech issues. Digital things let me down far too often for me to have any sufficient degree of trust in them. A lot of that comes from growing up in Silicon Valley and seeing the rush to get the competitive edge at the expense of...actually making things work.
I haven’t driven anything with driver “assist” features except for my big rig, but if others are like those systems, no freaking thank you. They create hazards I have a hard time predicting.
Still, should automakers be allowed to do this? My principles still say yeah, I don’t want it required to be in or out of my life. People will probably love it the way they love all that infotainment stuff.
|
Weird thing though, I love the idea of designing and implementing all sorts of weird electrical gadgets in cars, so this thing would be perfect for me. Yet I hate owning/driving a car with all those gadgets. Bare bones and manual transmission for me. I like being directly connected to the driving experience without gadgets in my way.
But for the average person these gadgets do help people drive safer. Except for the fact that for some reason people think additional safety features means they can pay less attention to driving, which cancels out any benefit of the safety features, then they add more safety features and the cycle continues.