Navdy: HUD for your car

He did not say all people. He said "people". You are saying the same thing he did, except you said "no" in front of it. My own anecdotal evidence is that I don't know a single person that won't use their cellphone while driving.

> It's illegal and I'm all for increasing policing and penalties to stop them.

That's a blanket statement that isn't true. Certain activities on the cell may be illegal in certain states, but hands-free talking generally isn't—as far as I know isn't illegal in mine.

I use my cell phone for maps and music while I drive, and will continue to do so even if people like you get laws passed to make it illegal. As far as I'm concerned, the cat is out of that particular bag (and it's undeniably safer than maps and music in the days before cell phones).

For example, what the meta-analysis paper actually says is:

"From our analyses, in-vehicle (passenger) conversations were just as costly to driving performance as were remote (cell phone) conversations. This suggests that passengers, at least in those studies explored here, did not moderate their conversation in such a way as to alleviate the costs (as compared with remote conversers). These results must be interpreted with caution, however, given that relatively few studies directly examined the impact of passenger conversations."

If you look at their table of the original research they are working from, you can clearly see why they included that cautionary note.

Alternatively, a few minutes with Google Scholar will get you numerous primary sources that show a clear distinction between the effects of remote conversation and the effects of passenger interaction. Some studies suggest that passengers who don't moderate their conversation still have a negative effect, but hardly anyone has data that implies an effect as bad as cell phone conversations. Other studies found evidence that passengers can also be a benefit, for example warning an insufficiently attentive driver of a hazard they had failed to recognise themselves.

There is unfortunately not very much research into more specific conditions when passengers may prove to be a particularly serious distraction. For example, we know that young and inexperienced drivers are disproportionately likely to have accidents, but we don't yet know for sure whether passengers of a similar age are disproportionately likely to be a significant distraction. There is some evidence to suggest that this is at least a plausible theory, and in some places young and inexperienced drivers are now limited in the passengers they can take when they first start driving unsupervised.

I can see the speed of traffic Im merging into, pedestrians, change of speed/flow of traffic ahead of me, and if a pedestrian appears to be willing to cross infront of me.

Without even having to think about it, I can just notice when there is emergency vehicles around or construction vehicles or any other danger-sign on the road. I can be talking to my passangers, listening to music or day-dreaming but would not miss any signs - its in the automated system already.

For me, having those kind of HUD stuff would just be even more redundant information to learn to automatically filter out/make judgements on.

In fact, I think such a heads-up-displays everywhere with color information, would just confuse drivers more and lead to more accidents - now you not only have to keep eyes on the road/let brain handle the information and do its thing - but also interpret and learn the various displays and what they mean, but also to confirm what they display to the sorrounding. More info to process - more error prone decisions.