Finally, California drivers can read a cell phone map (iPad too?)

On 2014-02-28, Alan Baker > wrote:
> On 2014-02-28 14:51:24 +0000, Davoud said:
>
>> Davoud:
>>>> Joe Simitian deserves an award for his concern for public safety.
>>
>> Liam O'Connor:
>>> They said the same thing about Senator Joe McCarthy.
>>> Until people came to their senses.
>>
>> Ridiculous, and a non sequitur. Not the same subject, not the same
>> league.
>>
>>>> I don't care if Satan supports it.
>>> He does. His name is Senator Joe Mcc... I mean Simitian.
>>
>> Also ridiculous.
>>
>>>> You are unlikely to convince me that
>>>> it is safe to drive while attempting to read a complex map display.
>>
>>> You're joking right? At this very moment, Simitian's office is preparing a
>>> bill to outlaw anything in a driver's hands other than the steering wheel.
>>> That means no cigarettes, no coffee, no portable GPS, not even a pair of
>>> sunglasses. (http://www.senatorsimitian.com)
>>
>>> You think that's sane?
>>
>> Quite sane. Anything that takes a driver's attention away from the task
>> at hand is a threat to public safety.
>>
>>> It even includes paper maps, I might add.
>>
>> Paper maps--clumsy to use, difficult to read--should be near the very
>> top of the list of items forbidden to use while driving.
>
> What should be against the law is driving without due care and attention...
>
> ...and it already is.

Unfortunately, it's not working very well.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

In the last episode of >, Arif Khokar
> said:

>On 02/27/2014 11:55 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Too many people are too distracted by things in their cars while driving
>> as it is - a problem that seems to get worse year after year. Every
>> single time I drive, I see people talking on their phone, drinking,
>> eating, digging for things on the passenger floor or glove box, putting
>> on makeup *and* eating or drinking at the same time, scolding their
>> brats in the back seat, and all sorts of other things that are decidedly
>> *not* driving
>
>So why not make this simple and get rid of all laws that define
>victimless crimes such as using a hand held GPS while driving, Simply
>put, if a particular driver ends up crashing an injuring or killing
>someone, then charge him based on the results of the crash (property
>damage, injury, death, etc.). I don't care whether he was drunk,
>reaching for something on the passenger floor, using a hand held GPS,
>fell asleep or whatever else might of happened. If he ends up killing
>someone in a crash, then charge him with vehicular manslaughter.

Unfortunately this doesn't work. The only difference between someone who
drives with distractions and gets into an accident vs the guy who does
the same and doesn't is luck, so it's better to regulate based on wilful
actions rather than results.

Due to some psychological tricks our brains play on us, we can't
accurately assess the danger because driving is so routine and virtually
an automatic process for most drivers, combined with the fact that
nearly everyone thinks they are the "better" driver, and crashing while
texting is something that happens to others, not them.

--
Going to church doesn't make you a christian any more than
standing in a garage makes you a car.

On 2/28/2014 2:56 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2014-02-28, Alan Baker > wrote:
>> On 2014-02-28 16:56:31 +0000, Jolly Roger said:
>>
>>> On 2014-02-28, nospam > wrote:
>>>> In article >, Davoud >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> You are unlikely to convince me that
>>>>>>> it is safe to drive while attempting to read a complex map display.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You're joking right? At this very moment, Simitian's office is preparing a
>>>>>> bill to outlaw anything in a driver's hands other than the steering wheel.
>>>>>> That means no cigarettes, no coffee, no portable GPS, not even a pair of
>>>>>> sunglasses. (http://www.senatorsimitian.com)
>>>>>
>>>>>> You think that's sane?
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite sane.
>>>>
>>>> not even close to sane. it's ludicrous.
>>>
>>> Maybe in your black & white world. Or perhaps you are one of the
>>> assholes we see gripping their phones blabbing to who-know-who while
>>> recklessly speeding in the fast lane.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but before I can formulate a reply I need to gauge your biases.
>>
>> Are you saying that anyone who is exceeding the posted limit (i.e.
>> "speeding") is behaving "recklessly"?
>
> I'm saying that anyone babbling to their phones while exceeding the
> speed limit is putting themselves and all other drivers in the vicinity
> in danger.
>


(Note: self-styled boy racer will now attempt to justify a carve out and
exception for hisownself.)

On Thursday, February 27, 2014 10:57:46 PM UTC-8, nospam wrote:
> In article >,
> Harry K wrote:

> > Odd, we got by jus fine with paper maps and enough brains to remember a few
> > route changes for over 100 years, now the moronic drivers can't get to the
> > local drive-in without something to tell him when to turn.

> we got by with typewriters, phones attached to walls and quite a bit
> more. who wants to go back to that?

And how much of that pertains to driving. One can drive just fine withoug an electronic gizmo glued to you. Try it sometime.

> how many paper maps must one carry? for a major area like los angeles,
> san francisco or new york city, that could be a *lot* of maps.

So no one was able to find their way around big cities 20 years ago?

> for a road trip, even more so.

I drove every state in the union minus Hawaii including many coast to coast.. Usually one map per state. If you feel you need to be looking at a map while on a trip, do it the way sensible people do and look at whatever version of a map (paper or electronic) when the vehicle is not moving, like while fueling up, eating or, wonder of wonders, before you get in the car. It ain't rocket science.

Harry K
> and where exactly is the local drive-in anyway? they've pretty much all
>
> been demolished.

On Friday, February 28, 2014 4:17:31 AM UTC-8, Arif Khokar wrote:
> On 02/27/2014 11:55 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> > Too many people are too distracted by things in their cars while driving
> > as it is - a problem that seems to get worse year after year. Every
> > single time I drive, I see people talking on their phone, drinking,
> > eating, digging for things on the passenger floor or glove box, putting
> > on makeup *and* eating or drinking at the same time, scolding their
> > brats in the back seat, and all sorts of other things that are decidedly
> > *not* driving

> So why not make this simple and get rid of all laws that define
> victimless crimes such as using a hand held GPS while driving, Simply
> put, if a particular driver ends up crashing an injuring or killing
> someone, then charge him based on the results of the crash (property
> damage, injury, death, etc.). I don't care whether he was drunk,
> reaching for something on the passenger floor, using a hand held GPS,
> fell asleep or whatever else might of happened. If he ends up killing
> someone in a crash, then charge him with vehicular manslaughter.

Becauise bans on handheld and toys with screens are aimed at REDUCING the number of crashes caused by stupid bahaviour. Is it working? Dunno but by the people who don't want their right to be stupid curtailed I doubt it.

You can't cure stupid.

Harry K

On 2014-02-28 19:58:24 +0000, Jolly Roger said:

> On 2014-02-28, Alan Baker > wrote:
>> On 2014-02-28 14:51:24 +0000, Davoud said:
>>
>>> Davoud:
>>>>> Joe Simitian deserves an award for his concern for public safety.
>>>
>>> Liam O'Connor:
>>>> They said the same thing about Senator Joe McCarthy.
>>>> Until people came to their senses.
>>>
>>> Ridiculous, and a non sequitur. Not the same subject, not the same
>>> league.
>>>
>>>>> I don't care if Satan supports it.
>>>> He does. His name is Senator Joe Mcc... I mean Simitian.
>>>
>>> Also ridiculous.
>>>
>>>>> You are unlikely to convince me that
>>>>> it is safe to drive while attempting to read a complex map display.
>>>
>>>> You're joking right? At this very moment, Simitian's office is preparing a
>>>> bill to outlaw anything in a driver's hands other than the steering wheel.
>>>> That means no cigarettes, no coffee, no portable GPS, not even a pair of
>>>> sunglasses. (http://www.senatorsimitian.com)
>>>
>>>> You think that's sane?
>>>
>>> Quite sane. Anything that takes a driver's attention away from the task
>>> at hand is a threat to public safety.
>>>
>>>> It even includes paper maps, I might add.
>>>
>>> Paper maps--clumsy to use, difficult to read--should be near the very
>>> top of the list of items forbidden to use while driving.
>>
>> What should be against the law is driving without due care and attention...
>>
>> ...and it already is.
>
> Unfortunately, it's not working very well.

So, then let's try and fix that...

....not introduce a system of micro-management of activities in which a
driver can and cannot engage.

On 2014-02-28 19:56:19 +0000, Jolly Roger said:

> On 2014-02-28, Alan Baker > wrote:
>> On 2014-02-28 16:56:31 +0000, Jolly Roger said:
>>
>>> On 2014-02-28, nospam > wrote:
>>>> In article >, Davoud >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> You are unlikely to convince me that
>>>>>>> it is safe to drive while attempting to read a complex map display.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You're joking right? At this very moment, Simitian's office is preparing a
>>>>>> bill to outlaw anything in a driver's hands other than the steering wheel.
>>>>>> That means no cigarettes, no coffee, no portable GPS, not even a pair of
>>>>>> sunglasses. (http://www.senatorsimitian.com)
>>>>>
>>>>>> You think that's sane?
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite sane.
>>>>
>>>> not even close to sane. it's ludicrous.
>>>
>>> Maybe in your black & white world. Or perhaps you are one of the
>>> assholes we see gripping their phones blabbing to who-know-who while
>>> recklessly speeding in the fast lane.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but before I can formulate a reply I need to gauge your biases.
>>
>> Are you saying that anyone who is exceeding the posted limit (i.e.
>> "speeding") is behaving "recklessly"?
>
> I'm saying that anyone babbling to their phones while exceeding the
> speed limit is putting themselves and all other drivers in the vicinity
> in danger.

OK.

Utter emotionally loaded bull****.

Thanks for playing.

On 2014-02-28 20:20:00 +0000, News said:

> On 2/28/2014 2:56 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2014-02-28, Alan Baker > wrote:
>>> On 2014-02-28 16:56:31 +0000, Jolly Roger said:
>>>
>>>> On 2014-02-28, nospam > wrote:
>>>>> In article >, Davoud >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are unlikely to convince me that
>>>>>>>> it is safe to drive while attempting to read a complex map display.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're joking right? At this very moment, Simitian's office is preparing a
>>>>>>> bill to outlaw anything in a driver's hands other than the steering wheel.
>>>>>>> That means no cigarettes, no coffee, no portable GPS, not even a pair of
>>>>>>> sunglasses. (http://www.senatorsimitian.com)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You think that's sane?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quite sane.
>>>>>
>>>>> not even close to sane. it's ludicrous.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe in your black & white world. Or perhaps you are one of the
>>>> assholes we see gripping their phones blabbing to who-know-who while
>>>> recklessly speeding in the fast lane.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, but before I can formulate a reply I need to gauge your biases.
>>>
>>> Are you saying that anyone who is exceeding the posted limit (i.e.
>>> "speeding") is behaving "recklessly"?
>>
>> I'm saying that anyone babbling to their phones while exceeding the
>> speed limit is putting themselves and all other drivers in the vicinity
>> in danger.
>>
>
>
> (Note: self-styled boy racer will now attempt to justify a carve out
> and exception for hisownself.)

To whom are you referring, little doggy: me?

Fact: I've been deemed qualified to drive a racing car in competition.

Fact: that has very little to do with what I can do and nothing at all
to do with what I should be ALLOWED to do on public roads.

In article >, Michelle Steiner
> wrote:

> > So why not make this simple and get rid of all laws that define
> > victimless crimes such as using a hand held GPS while driving, Simply
> > put, if a particular driver ends up crashing an injuring or killing
> > someone, then charge him based on the results of the crash (property
> > damage, injury, death, etc.). I don't care whether he was drunk,
> > reaching for something on the passenger floor, using a hand held GPS,
> > fell asleep or whatever else might of happened. If he ends up killing
> > someone in a crash, then charge him with vehicular manslaughter.
>
> I would rather prevent crime than punish criminals.
> I'd rather have no
> one killed by a bad driver than punish a bad driver after he kills
> someone.

who wouldn't want that?

unfortunately, it's not possible.

> That said, I don't think that a law prohibiting looking at a map on a
> mobile device will prevent many, if any, traffic accidents. Should GPS
> built into the car also be prohibited? Should looking at paper maps be
> prohibited? Paper maps are more dangerous than maps on mobile devices
> because of their size and the intricacies of folding and unfolding
> them.

yep.

In article >, Jolly Roger
> wrote:

> The problem with existing laws is they aren't reliably enforced. In many
> states in the U.S., for instance, it's common to see many drivers
> exceeding the speed limit (sometimes in excess of 10+ miles over the
> limit), and even when a police officer is driving amongst them, no stops
> are made.

exceeding the speed limit is not in itself dangerous.

in fact, in many situations, driving faster than the number on the sign
can be safer if that number was not based on a valid speed survey and
is underposted, rather than determined by political pressures, and that
happens more than many people realize.

speeding is basically revenue enhancement.

every single driver has driven faster than the posted speed limit at
one time or another. they're not necessarily driving unsafely, it's
just faster than a number on a sign, which may itself be invalid for a
given road.

there are also well known speed traps where the speed limit drops
quickly (many times for good reason) and a cop sits just past the sign
to nab people. it's not because they're driving unsafely, it's for
revenue. most of the time, those drivers are already slowing down.

what's actually dangerous is driving too fast for conditions, which is
something very different than driving above the number on the signpost.

driving 60 in a 65 in fog or snow is not safe, while driving 75 in a 65
on a clear sunny day with little to traffic is very safe, and
considered to be slow in some states.

when the speed limits were raised from 55 mph, 65 mph was 'unsafe' and
could get you a ticket, while the very next day, 65 mph was perfectly
safe and completely legal.