A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The official view on distracted driving



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 3rd 14, 07:37 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
Brent[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,430
Default The official view on distracted driving

On 2014-03-02, Harry K > wrote:

> Tough ****. Anyone who _really needs_ to use the phone, gps play toy, etc. can pull over and stop. Passengers can request the driver do so.


Mean while reading the newspaper, using a map, playing with CB radio,
etc still legal.

Making a few specific things illegal because some people get distracted
using them is the way government schools, prisons, occupied towns, etc
are run. Johnny did something wrong so now everyone is restricted.... Or
perhaps it's a bunch of people who think that making what they don't do
illegal but not what they do is the way to go. But the way to go is to
deal with the bad driving, not possible contributing factors. The
possible contributing factors are infinite and picking a few is simply
arbitrary.




Ads
  #12  
Old March 3rd 14, 10:05 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
nospam[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 149
Default The official view on distracted driving

In article >,
Harry K > wrote:

> > > > > CP makers to render them inactive while vehicles are in motion or
> > > > > order
> > > > > manufacturers to limit disstacting technology in cars and trucks.

>
> > > > yet another dumb idea that doesn't address the actual problem, stupid
> > > > irresponsible drivers.

>
> > > But you conveniently ignore the stone cold FACT that it removes a whole
> > > bunch of distracting things for the idiots to play with.

>
> > it doesn't do anything of the sort.

>
> Perhaps you could try rereading what you just replid to and dthis time try to
> understand it. Nothing there says anything about removing ALL distractiosn,
> just the the ones involving playing iwht your toys.


a radio is not vital to travel, nor is a cd player, therefore they too
are toys. if you want to ban toys, then you must also want to ban
radios and cd players.

you also need to get over this playing with toys nonsense. smartphones
are not toys and drivers do not fiddle with them as if they were.

in fact, it's quite the opposite. many of the driving related apps will
increase driver safety.

> > a ****ty driver is going to be distracted no matter what anyone does.
> > if you disable their phone, they'll do something *else*, like use an
> > ipod, fiddle with cds and the cd player, drink coffee, eat a sandwich,

>
> Odd, I thought that an Ipod is included in 'electronic play toys' '


how do you propose to disable an ipod remotely? or maybe the person has
a portable cd player.

this ought to be good.

> And most of
> the other things you mention take only a few seconds.


a few seconds is enough to travel almost the length of a football field
at 60 mph. a lot can happen in that distance.

if you are ok with a few seconds to fiddle with the cd player or drink
coffee, but not ok with a gps which needs no time at all because it has
voice prompts, then your entire rant falls flat.

you don't get to pick and choose to ban only certain devices.

distractions are distractions.

> > read paper maps or a newspaper or many other things.

>
> > the problem is ****ty drivers. fix *that* (which is not simple).

>
> And who said anything different.


you did by saying the devices are unsafe.

it's the drivers that are the problem.

using the devices when inappropriate is a symptom.

> > > > having a phone render itself inactive means *passengers* will be
> > > > affected because *their* phones won't work.

>
> > > Tough ****. Anyone who _really needs_ to use the phone, gps play toy,
> > > etc. can pull over and stop. Passengers can request the driver do so.

>
> > that's absolute bull****.

>
> Oh? Care to explain why the driver can't pull over?


once you explain how a passenger using a device is going to affect the
driver.

this ought to be good too.

> > > > rendering a phone inactive because the vehicle is in motion is stupid,

>
> > > Says a guy who sees nothing wrong with playing with electronic toys while
> > > he's supposed to be paying attention to the road.

>
> > nowhere did i say any such thing.

>
> Your post clearly lead to that conclusion.


nonsense.

> > > > especially since there are a lot of very useful apps that help make for
> > > > safer driving, including gps navigation apps and many more.

>
> > > I refer you to PAYING ATTENTION TO DRIVING and stopping if you want to
> > > use your toys.

>
> > what you don't get and likely never will is the devices (not toys) do
> > not require the user to fiddle with them.

>
> Odd, tell me how you can text, talk on a phone, look at a gps or other
> mapping device, etc. WITHOUT fooling with them.


looking at a gps requires no fiddling.

it announces in a clear voice "take the next exit" or "upcoming right
turn, 1/2 mile". you don't even have to look at it, let alone fiddle.
it's as if you had a person sitting next to you who knows where to go.

having a gps is much safer than trying to figure out where to go based
on street signs, which in some places may not be behind trees or
otherwise obscured and in some places, not there at all.

> Just looking at a dashboard
> screen takes you attention and eyes off the driving.


then let's ban dashboards too.

after all, we can't have anything take one's eyes off the driving.

> > the driver can pay attention to driving while the device does its thing
> > on its own.

>
> So who just who told it to 'do its thing' to begin with?


it's done *before* embarking on a trip. not during.

> And after it "does its thing" you just ignore it, sure you do.


obviously you've never used a gps or you wouldn't say such stupid
things.

> > another thing you don't get and likely never will is that a lot of cars
> > already have distracting devices built into them, including radio/cd
> > player, gps navigation system and more.
> > are you going to require that *those* be disabled too?

>
> Perhaps you should reread Rockerfeller's comment about manufacturers reducing
> the number of such items?
>
> You might also note that the suggestion or disabling the play toys is
> ROCKERFELLER'S.


they aren't play toys and it's a colossally stupid and totally
impractical suggestion.

> Bottom line you are the poster child for people who think playing with things
> not associated with the driving task is not a problem.


nonsense.

i'm interested in solutions based on facts, not let's ban everything
because someone doesn't like it.

> 'I'm a good driver and can text, talk, adjust a gps, etc. just fine, it is the other divers
> who can't' seems to be the group you are in.


i never said anything about texting or adjusting a gps while driving.

as for talking, that can happen without a phone. it's called passengers.
  #13  
Old March 3rd 14, 10:05 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
nospam[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 149
Default The official view on distracted driving

In article >,
Harry K > wrote:

> > > > Disabling the phones and other electronic media in motion is in the
> > > > wind and it will come since drivers will not curb their use while driving.

>
> > > We can only hope that this glorious day soon arrives.

>
> > absolutely not. disabling anything is a denial of service.

>
> It would be legal under the law.


how?

denial of service is illegal.

> > the first person who can't use their phone in an emergency because it
> > was disabled is going to have a field day in court and be awarded huge
> > sums of money.

>
> The usual proposal is to disable the phones EXCEPT FOR 911


that would require taking your eyes off the road and fiddling with the
phone.
  #14  
Old March 3rd 14, 10:05 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
nospam[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 149
Default The official view on distracted driving

In article >, Brent
> wrote:

> > Disabling the phones and other electronic media in motion is in the wind
> > and it will come since drivers will not curb their use while driving.

>
> People want to be treated like children.


no they don't, and nobody is going to tolerate a denial of service of
their personal devices anyway.

> Government wants power to
> treat people like children.


that they do.

> Many forms of distraction remain legal and socially acceptable. If this
> were about driving the poor driving would be dealt with, not just a few
> arbitrary possible causes.


exactly.
  #15  
Old March 3rd 14, 04:10 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
Brent[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,430
Default The official view on distracted driving

On 2014-03-03, nospam > wrote:
> In article >, Brent
> wrote:
>
>> > Disabling the phones and other electronic media in motion is in the wind
>> > and it will come since drivers will not curb their use while driving.

>>
>> People want to be treated like children.

>
> no they don't, and nobody is going to tolerate a denial of service of
> their personal devices anyway.


I think I should be more detailed so we can agree.

People keep asking for more government. They want government to take
care of things for them. Also they accept the principle of 'if one
person can't handle it, ban it for everyone' that we grow up with in the
government schools. Basically what Harry wants here. It usually takes
the form of going after something other people do but not what they do.
This is why only certain things are targeted for distracted driving but
not other things. Another reason the specific gets pushed is because
some childish people decide that if there is no specific law on
something to punish them, they'll cause problems for everyone around
them by doing it.

In the end there is a huge hunk of the population that wants to be
treated like children, behave like children, and/or wants other people
treated like children. There's a rather small minority of people who say
'do what you want so long as it doesn't bother me'. Those people are
portrayed as uncaring kooks.


>> Government wants power to
>> treat people like children.


> that they do.


>> Many forms of distraction remain legal and socially acceptable. If this
>> were about driving the poor driving would be dealt with, not just a few
>> arbitrary possible causes.


> exactly.

  #16  
Old March 3rd 14, 10:01 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
harry k
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 148
Default The official view on distracted driving

On Monday, March 3, 2014 1:05:12 AM UTC-8, nospam wrote:
> In article >,
> Harry K > wrote:


<snip>

> > Perhaps you could try rereading what you just replid to and dthis time try to
> > understand it. Nothing there says anything about removing ALL distractiosn,

>
> > just the the ones involving playing iwht your toys.


> a radio is not vital to travel, nor is a cd player, therefore they too
> are toys. if you want to ban toys, then you must also want to ban
> radios and cd players.


And of course you are ready to point out where I said I didn't??


> you also need to get over this playing with toys nonsense. smartphones
> are not toys and drivers do not fiddle with them as if they were.


Suurreee they don't! (more sarcasm)

> in fact, it's quite the opposite. many of the driving related apps will
> increase driver safety.


Not if they take attention away from the road...which they do every time you look at one. Perhaps you can explain how looking at an app instead of the road "increases driver safety".

> > > a ****ty driver is going to be distracted no matter what anyone does.
> > > if you disable their phone, they'll do something *else*, like use an
> > > ipod, fiddle with cds and the cd player, drink coffee, eat a sandwich,


> > Odd, I thought that an Ipod is included in 'electronic play toys' '


> how do you propose to disable an ipod remotely? or maybe the person has
> a portable cd player.



> this ought to be good.


Only in your imagination. Who said _I_ was going to do it? Perhaps if you would stick to what is written instaed of what you wish had been?

> > And most of
> > the other things you mention take only a few seconds.


> a few seconds is enough to travel almost the length of a football field
> at 60 mph. a lot can happen in that distance.


Well, you finally seem to have gotten the point of why looking at an electronic gizmo is not "increasing driver safety"

> if you are ok with a few seconds to fiddle with the cd player or drink
> coffee, but not ok with a gps which needs no time at all because it has
> voice prompts, then your entire rant falls flat.


Again (and this is getting old) Point out anywhere I said I was okay with those things.


> you don't get to pick and choose to ban only certain devices.
> distractions are distractions.


Perhaps if you read the OP and see that it is ROCKERFELLER, you know, that guy running the big gun that rules what safety equipment must be in a car and also what cannot be, who has put it out there OFFICIALLY now. Kick and scream all you want, it will probably come.

> > > read paper maps or a newspaper or many other things.

>
> >

>
> > > the problem is ****ty drivers. fix *that* (which is not simple).

>
> >

>
> > And who said anything different.


> you did by saying the devices are unsafe.


The devices are not unsafe, anyone using WHILE DRIVING is unsafe. By now you should have gotten that simple point.

> it's the drivers that are the problem.
> using the devices when inappropriate is a symptom.


Yep, a symptom that can be cured by banning or disabling them.


> > > > > having a phone render itself inactive means *passengers* will be
> > > > > affected because *their* phones won't work.


> > > > Tough ****. Anyone who _really needs_ to use the phone, gps play toy,
> > > > etc. can pull over and stop. Passengers can request the driver do so.


> > > that's absolute bull****.


> > Oh? Care to explain why the driver can't pull over?


> once you explain how a passenger using a device is going to affect the
> driver.


WTF? where did anyone say anything like that? You are getting desperate pulling something like that out of the nether regions.

Waiting for you to show how a driver pulling over is BS.

> this ought to be good too.


If you think that is a "good one", you are in poor mental shape.

> > > > > rendering a phone inactive because the vehicle is in motion is stupid,


> > > > Says a guy who sees nothing wrong with playing with electronic
> > > > he's supposed to be paying attention to the road.


> > > nowhere did i say any such thing.


> > Your post clearly lead to that conclusion.


> nonsense.


> > > > > especially since there are a lot of very useful apps that help make for
> > > > > safer driving, including gps navigation apps and many more.


> > > > I refer you to PAYING ATTENTION TO DRIVING and stopping if you want to
> > > > use your toys.


> > > what you don't get and likely never will is the devices (not toys) do
> > > not require the user to fiddle with them.


> > Odd, tell me how you can text, talk on a phone, look at a gps or other
> > mapping device, etc. WITHOUT fooling with them.


> looking at a gps requires no fiddling.


Of course it does. You have to set it up, makes changes, etc. as you go (or pull over to do it.

> it announces in a clear voice "take the next exit" or "upcoming right
> turn, 1/2 mile". you don't even have to look at it, let alone fiddle.
> it's as if you had a person sitting next to you who knows where to go.
> having a gps is much safer than trying to figure out where to go based
> on street signs, which in some places may not be behind trees or
> otherwise obscured and in some places, not there at all.


> > Just looking at a dashboard
> > screen takes you attention and eyes off the driving.


> then let's ban dashboards too.


Notice the little "screen" in there? quite difference from a simple guage. Some things are necessary, some are not needed WHILE IN MOTION. If you can't get where you are going without and electronic gizmo, quite driving.

> after all, we can't have anything take one's eyes off the driving.


> > > the driver can pay attention to driving while the device does its thing
> > > on its own.


> > So who just who told it to 'do its thing' to begin with?


> it's done *before* embarking on a trip. not during.


Uhuh. And your phone rings you ignore it, the gps gives you a wrong turn (yes it happens) you blindly follow it, etc.

> > And after it "does its thing" you just ignore it, sure you do.


> obviously you've never used a gps or you wouldn't say such stupid
> things.


> > > another thing you don't get and likely never will is that a lot of cars


> > > already have distracting devices built into them, including radio/cd

>
> > > player, gps navigation system and more.
> > > are you going to require that *those* be disabled too?


> > Perhaps you should reread Rockerfeller's comment about manufacturers reducing
> > the number of such items?

>
> > You might also note that the suggestion or disabling the play toys is
> > ROCKERFELLER'S.


> they aren't play toys and it's a colossally stupid and totally
> impractical suggestion.


Sp te;; Rockerfeller that.

> > Bottom line you are the poster child for people who think playing with things
> > not associated with the driving task is not a problem.


> nonsense.


> i'm interested in solutions based on facts, not let's ban everything
> because someone doesn't like it.


> > 'I'm a good driver and can text, talk, adjust a gps, etc. just fine, it is the other divers
> > who can't' seems to be the group you are in.


> i never said anything about texting or adjusting a gps while driving.
> as for talking, that can happen without a phone. it's called passengers.


Harry K
  #17  
Old March 4th 14, 01:53 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
Joy Beeson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default The official view on distracted driving

On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 09:31:01 -0800 (PST), Harry K >
wrote:

> But you conveniently ignore the stone cold FACT that it removes a whole bunch of distracting things for the idiots to play with.


And you are conveniently ignoring the stone cold FACT that taking toys
away from a person who finds not running over me boring leaves a bored
person looking everywhere but at the road for something to do.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
  #18  
Old March 4th 14, 05:44 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
harry k
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 148
Default The official view on distracted driving

On Monday, March 3, 2014 4:53:33 PM UTC-8, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 09:31:01 -0800 (PST), Harry K >
> wrote:


> > But you conveniently ignore the stone cold FACT that it removes a whole bunch of distracting things for the idiots to play with.


> And you are conveniently ignoring the stone cold FACT that taking toys
> away from a person who finds not running over me boring leaves a bored
> person looking everywhere but at the road for something to do.


> Joy Beeson


True that. Not sure but I certainly hope you are not one of those who think you need something to amuse yourself with while driving.

As has said many times in this thread "you can't fix stupid" and no law will force anyone to keep their mind and eyes on the road while driving. All that can be done is ban or disable some of he play toys.

Harry K
  #19  
Old March 4th 14, 10:07 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
Brent[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,430
Default The official view on distracted driving

On 2014-03-04, Joy Beeson > wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 09:31:01 -0800 (PST), Harry K >
> wrote:
>
>> But you conveniently ignore the stone cold FACT that it removes a whole bunch of distracting things for the idiots to play with.

>
> And you are conveniently ignoring the stone cold FACT that taking toys
> away from a person who finds not running over me boring leaves a bored
> person looking everywhere but at the road for something to do.


Which reminds me, by dumbing down driving and making it boring, people
are driven to distraction. Instead of driving being what one is out
there to do, it becomes a side line and people want to be entertained by
something else.


  #20  
Old March 5th 14, 03:15 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
nospam[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 149
Default The official view on distracted driving

In article >,
Harry K > wrote:

>
> > > But you conveniently ignore the stone cold FACT that it removes a whole
> > > bunch of distracting things for the idiots to play with.

>
> > And you are conveniently ignoring the stone cold FACT that taking toys
> > away from a person who finds not running over me boring leaves a bored
> > person looking everywhere but at the road for something to do.

>
> True that. Not sure but I certainly hope you are not one of those who think
> you need something to amuse yourself with while driving.


nobody said one should amuse themselves when driving.

> As has said many times in this thread "you can't fix stupid" and no law will
> force anyone to keep their mind and eyes on the road while driving. All that
> can be done is ban or disable some of he play toys.


wrong.

what can be done is requiring better driver training. that will be far
more effective without affecting those who already know how to drive
responsibly.

to you anyone with a phone is a bad driver, that's a rather sweeping
and completely bull**** generalization.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Distracted driving: money and power talked, science walked? Ad absurdum per aspera[_2_] Driving 11 July 25th 09 12:23 AM
Ford Researcher Says Teen Drivers are Easily Distracted From Driving James C. Reeves Driving 9 May 11th 05 08:31 PM
GT4 Driving view Driver Simulators 40 March 17th 05 06:01 AM
Audi A4 TV module - view whilst driving? Russell Fray Audi 7 May 14th 04 08:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.