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
  #1  
Old March 2nd 14, 08:20 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
harry k
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 148
Default The official view on distracted driving

Bob Love writes a weekly column in the Spokane Wa Spokesmanreview newspaper on the subject of driving. This weeks was titled "another take on distraction"
A couple of quotes from the article:

Sen. Jay Rockerfeller, Chairman of the Senate Commerce committee is charged with making and monitoring federal laws to keep the roads safe recently voiced some interesting takes on the topic as did Gabe Neslon, Automotieve News writer .
"Yet many still die on the roads, as Nelson put it "because we won't stop looking down from the road to check messages and play with the high tech gizmos built into cars""

Just this month Rockerfeller spoke to spokie to business executives from GM, Toyota, Apple, Google, AT&T and Verison on Capital Hill warning them to do a better job of curbing distracted driving or Congres will act. For example Congress, fia the National Traffic Highwy Safety Administration could require CP makers to render them inactive while vehicles are in motion or order manufacturers to limit disstacting technology in cars and trucks.

Rockerfeller said, "Know me to very unhappy, very nervouse. Not just about deaths but about close to death injuries - all for the sake of outdoing each other and making more money" (referring to manufactures outdoing others by including every more gizmos)

---------------------

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.

Harry K
Ads
  #2  
Old March 2nd 14, 09:04 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:

> Just this month Rockerfeller spoke to spokie to business executives from GM,
> Toyota, Apple, Google, AT&T and Verison on Capital Hill warning them to do a
> better job of curbing distracted driving or Congres will act. For example
> Congress, fia the National Traffic Highwy Safety Administration could require
> 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.

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

rendering a phone inactive because the vehicle is in motion is stupid,
especially since there are a lot of very useful apps that help make for
safer driving, including gps navigation apps and many more.
  #3  
Old March 2nd 14, 04:58 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
T0m $herman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 348
Default The official view on distracted driving

On 3/2/2014 1:20 AM, 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.

And instead of concentrating on speeding tickets for revenue generation,
the police could use scanners and ticket for mobile device usage in
older vehicles without the blocking technology.

--
T0m $herm@n
  #4  
Old March 2nd 14, 06:31 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
harry k
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 148
Default The official view on distracted driving

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 12:04:47 AM UTC-8, nospam wrote:
> In article >,
> Harry K wrote:


> > Just this month Rockerfeller spoke to spokie to business executives from GM,

> Toyota, Apple, Google, AT&T and Verison on Capital Hill warning them to do a
> > better job of curbing distracted driving or Congres will act. For example
> > Congress, fia the National Traffic Highwy Safety Administration could require


> > 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.

> 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.


> 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.


> 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.

Harry K
  #5  
Old March 2nd 14, 06:35 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
harry k
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 148
Default The official view on distracted driving

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 7:58:42 AM UTC-8, T0m $herman wrote:
> On 3/2/2014 1:20 AM, 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.


> And instead of concentrating on speeding tickets for revenue generation,
> the police could use scanners and ticket for mobile device usage in
> older vehicles without the blocking technology.


Or develop a device that jams any electronic signals while in motion then require them to be retrofitted.

Harry K
  #6  
Old March 2nd 14, 07:43 PM 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.

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

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

> > 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****.

> > 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.

> > 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.

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

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?
  #7  
Old March 2nd 14, 07:43 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
nospam[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 149
Default The official view on distracted driving

In article >, T0m $herman
> 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.

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.

> And instead of concentrating on speeding tickets for revenue generation,
> the police could use scanners and ticket for mobile device usage in
> older vehicles without the blocking technology.


you must be kidding.

and even if such a thing were to happen, it will be *quickly* disabled
by customers.
  #8  
Old March 3rd 14, 06:10 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
harry k
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 148
Default The official view on distracted driving

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 10:43:15 AM UTC-8, nospam wrote:
> In article >, T0m $herman

> 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.

> 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

> > And instead of concentrating on speeding tickets for revenue generation,
> > the police could use scanners and ticket for mobile device usage in
> > older vehicles without the blocking technology.


> you must be kidding.
> and even if such a thing were to happen, it will be *quickly* disabled
> by customers.


Uhuh, sure they would. That sarcasm by the way.

Harry K
  #9  
Old March 3rd 14, 06:26 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
harry k
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 148
Default The official view on distracted driving

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 10:43:13 AM UTC-8, nospam wrote:
> 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 ****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' And most of the other things you mention take only a few seconds.

> 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.

> > > 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?

> > > 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.

> > > 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. Just looking at a dashboard screen takes you attention and 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?
And after it "does its thing" you just ignore it, sure you do.

> 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.

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

'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.

Harry K
  #10  
Old March 3rd 14, 07:28 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:
> 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. Government wants power to
treat people like children.

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.


 




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 11:15 AM.


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