[SystemSafety] Apple being sued for illegal use of Facetime

Thu Jan 5 11:45:22 CET 2017

> Operator training can be an issue.

Operator training isn’t the problem – the problem is that it’s detecting something other than “driver fatigue” when it issues the warning. Sometimes just a bit of  jerky driving to void the potholes or objects on the carriageway... sometimes I have no idea what its objecting too.

>  Isn't it called, "Reading the owner's manual"?

The owner’s manual for the2016  Mondeo is 446 pages.  The handbook for our  previous version (2006) was 192. For comparison I believe the primary fight manual for the F-15 is around 900 pages (from a conversation with a F15 pilot sometime back).

The current version is jam packed with information that doesn’t apply to our vehicle (e.g. automated parking) but doesn’t have information such as mounting locations  for roof bars (the previous version does) I suspect that’s because it doesn’t matter as much but I have zero information to confirm that view. It’s also wrong in several places saying right when it should say left but I think that’s because the manual was written for the left had drive version of the car and translated for the right hand drive. For example there are instances of different diagrams for the same controls that appear to show then on different sides of the steering wheel e.g. Cruise Control is shown on the right in one diagram and it’s actually on the left in on our vehicle. It also has useful cross references such as “See Fuel Filler Funnel Location (page ?)”. All in all it seems specifically designed to make you pull your face off in frustration.

In comparison the Tesla manual seems quite a pleasant read, i.e. it appears to use complete sentences collected together in something that at least to a first approximation is apparently a paragraph. It also appears (on a quick read) to avoid mixing instructions and warnings. 

I could conceivably read the Tesla manual (I did read some) – the Mondeo manual makes me want to slit my wrists AND blow my brains out. However I have only thrown it at the car once so far.

From: Brent Kimberley [mailto:brent_kimberley at rogers.com] 
Sent: 04 January 2017 22:59
To: Mike Ellims; 'GRAZEBROOK, Alvery N'; 'The System Safety List'
Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] Apple being sued for illegal use of Facetime

Operator training can be an issue.

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 4:20 PM, Mike Ellims <michael.ellims at tesco.net> wrote:

I’m not so sure that’s a great idea. Our new Mondeo has a system to that is supposed to detect “driver fatigue”. The rate of false positives is positively maddening and it took ages to find the tiny little “OK” button on the steering wheel so I could get rid of the &^%$£ stupid message in the middle of the dashboard display (an LDC simulating analogue dials).

The number of little buttons (and I mean little as in small) is in itself is positively maddening...

From: systemsafety [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] On Behalf Of GRAZEBROOK, Alvery N
Sent: 04 January 2017 17:43
To: The System Safety List
Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] Apple being sued for illegal use of Facetime

If you are going to follow this line of thinking, it seems to me that the car manufacturers are more in line for criticism than the phone manufacturer. It is the car that is the “injuring device”, not the mobile phone, so it makes more sense to install protection in the car than it does to put protection functions in the phone. 

Going back to PBL’s original argument, the problem is the distraction of drivers from the primary activity of driving. I’d have thought there was a case to expect the car designers to monitor that the driver is paying attention to the road. This is at least somewhat analogous to putting kickback protection on the table-saw. 

There are already designs for systems to monitor drivers by observing their direction of gaze and head-attitude. I came across it in systems designed to detect drunk driving. I’d be amazed if no-one has improved them to monitor drivers failing to pay attention to the road for other reasons. 

Cheers,

            Alvery

** these opinions are my own, not necessarily those of my employer.

From: systemsafety [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] On Behalf Of Chuck_Petras at selinc.com
Sent: 04 January 2017 4:58 PM
To: Peter Bernard Ladkin
Cc: The System Safety List
Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] Apple being sued for illegal use of Facetime

In regards to this 

> Are manufacturers responsible for inhibiting illegal use of their products? 

You may find this interesting. 

Table Saw Accident Victims May Qualify to File a Lawsuit and Seek Settlement Compensation 

"Despite safety technology that could prevent many of the most serious table saw injuries, the manufacturers of these tools have failed to equip them with their products. Table saw users who suffered amputations, lacerations, avulsions, or other injuries may be eligible to file a lawsuit against the table saw manufacturer and receive compensation." 

"Since 2003, manufacturers of table saws have had access to flesh-detection technology called SawStop, which would prevent amputations and injuries to human flesh. However, these companies have chosen not to add the technology to their machinery. The reason? Adding this vital safety feature might increase the expense of production – a cost they would ultimately pass on to the consumer. What manufacturers don’t seem to consider is that the cost of making safer tools might still be less than money spent in table saw injury lawsuits." 

 <https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=34083> https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=34083 

Chuck Petras, PE**
Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Inc
Pullman, WA  99163  USA
 <http://www.selinc.com/> http://www.selinc.com
Tel: +1.509.332.1890

SEL Synchrophasors - A New View of the Power System < <http://synchrophasor.selinc.com/> http://synchrophasor.selinc.com>

Making Electric Power Safer, More Reliable, and More Economical (R)

** Registered in Oregon.

This email and its attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information.  If you have received them in error you must not use, copy or disclose their content to any person.  Please notify the sender immediately and then delete this email from your system.  This e-mail has been scanned for viruses, but it is the responsibility of the recipient to conduct their own security measures. Airbus Operations Limited is not liable for any loss or damage arising from the receipt or use of this e-mail. 

Airbus Operations Limited, a company registered in England and Wales, registration number, 3468788.  Registered office:  Pegasus House, Aerospace Avenue, Filton, Bristol, BS34 7PA, UK.

  _____  

 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> Avast logo

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 

_______________________________________________
The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20170105/48c59fb2/attachment-0001.html>