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 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.

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.

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.

Because hopefully we've learned our lesson from the release of those products?