-June 2024 Special Lease Deals-
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
Options
Comments
The point I was making was there is nothing external that is explicitly necessary while one is driving. However, there are a bunch of activities that occur in a vehicle extraneous to driving that are considered "safe."
If using presets only mounted on the steering wheel, perhaps that is true.
Why do you have to eat a cheeseburger while driving? Because I don't have to take my eyes or mind off the road to do it and I am hungry?
I would like to see you eat a Big Mac, Whopper, or $6 burger from Carls Jr while blindfolded (since you don't need to take your eyes off the road, you wouldn't need them to eat the cheeseburger, right?) and see how your shirt and trousers survive the experience.
And for those with an integrated hands free system, we can add phone tasks. No eyes off road time, excepting maybe the 500 msec glance to hit the "voice" button or "accept" buttons.
I was in a rental last week and mostly let my wife handle the portable navigation gizmo. But I found myself reading the scroll a lot on the Sirius-XM radio. The AM/FM in my van has an RDS feed but I rarely notice it since the stations don't do song and artist on it around here.
Yeah, right.
Which is very, very different from this thing they had in the previous millenium called maps. This was actually printed, no wait, stop laughing, on this thing called paper. No really. And the best part is they were usually about 3' x 3' and to find the street you wanted, you had to look at this long list of names that gave you a "quadrant" to look at on the 3'x 3' poster to find it. Then you had to "navigate" to that point using the "map" to create a "route." Yes, its amazing, people, obviously far more daring and dangerous than you or I, would do this, WHILE DRIVING.
Now we have "navigation systems" that will automatically route me to an address or my choosing, providing that data is entered prior to the trip being underway.
You need to look at that screen to read it, correct? The maps should black out when the vehicle is moving, and should have only voice prompts.
Given the AAM guidlines for in-vehicle navigation systems, I get the sense that you don't use one very often. Once a destination is set, it does provide voice prompts and simplified turn by turn directions.
Shut up and drive: The menace that is mobile technology (Betanews.com)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Ontario is like the England of Canada...they will probably try to install a grid of cameras, 10 per block, to watch every driver at all times. If the law simply relies on a LEO's word, there's a lot to worry about there.
It's funny...in NA, as far as I know, nav systems don't allow input while the vehicle is in motion (maybe in gear). In Europe, you can enter info while the vehicle is moving. Why is this? Phones are banned there too, but it is a huge social stigma to be seen driving and yapping, and it simply isn't done and likely wouldn't be done no matter the law. Driving is serious business there. If driver training was more serious here, maybe all of this would be different.
Piece of cake. (pun intended) In the garage in park, engine off. As far as the shirt and trousers, that's what dry cleaners are for.
3 of 3 of my vehicles have GPS, and 2 of 3 are factory built-in.
My point which you failed to realize is that with a map ALSO displayed along with voice prompts, the display must be there for a reason. The screen is displayed so you can read it. It distracts the driver. Using the logic of a radio being distracting when tuning channels, certainly a nav map showing compass direction, 3-D view, speed, etc. is more distracting than a radio. So if you argue that only radios should be allowed with steering wheel controls because they are otherwise too distracting, then you should also have GPS displays auto blackout when the vehicle is moving.
BTW, I don't believe any of that, I'm just making the point based upon radios.
If we can't have any distractions while driving then we should not have seats for other passengers, as they will talk or cry while we drive. And no cupholders, either. :P
Actually I've been driving for about 35 years and have frequently eaten in the car the entire time. I'm pretty good at containing burger spills, but a few accidents (food accidents) have happened. I've never had an accident while eating and have never rear-ended anybody.
Wish I could say that nobody has ever rear-ended *ME*!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I see what you are saying, it is a valid point. Anytime you add in more information, you are likely going to increase the time to process that info. I think the "more distracting" might be a bit of a stretch as the info there doesn't change so much, its just a map. If you are actively using it to navigate then its probably still better than a paper map. If you are just staring at it because you are bored while driving, then you definitely understand the discussion point about a lower threshold for driving workload to maintain diligence to the driving task. Perhaps if you were conversing with someone, your workload level allow improved driving performance.
So if you argue that only radios should be allowed with steering wheel controls because they are otherwise too distracting, then you should also have GPS displays auto blackout when the vehicle is moving
It wasn't my argument one way or the other. I think that was another poster. My data is all based on eyes-off-road-time.
Sorry about that, just too many posts to track!
My hypothesis is that it is not how many distractions a driver has, it is their attitude. Here I've been eating while driving for 35 years (most of that time with a manual transmission, too(!), and talked on the cell phone in a manual transmission car for 6 years before I got a bluetooth equipped car. I also live in southern CA where there is a ton of traffic. Yet I've never had a distraction accident, and have never had any at fault accident. I'm also a private pilot. Safety is of top importance and it is all about taking it seriously. When I eat in the car, I stay in a right lane of the freeway, I increase my following distance, and I'm ready to drop the food and make a mess if a road priority appears. And that's the same attitude I have when it is raining, when there is a lot of traffic, etc.
The problem with distractions like cell phones is that many people are cavalier and careless; they don't take great care and they don't change their behavior when they are working with potential distractions. Those people are always going to exist, and due to those people we get lots of new laws so we can be protected. Those people tend to be careless idiots even when NOT on the cell phone, and they are a hazard to everybody.
Cellphone users become engrossed in the conversation, listening to the nuances of the words from the other end and calculating how to react for the emotional content of the conversation. I have watched drivers, primarily women, sit at a 4-way stop and not move because they had the phone to their ear. Some even were looking toward the side of the head with the phone against the ear because that was the focus of their brain at the time. I finally got tired of one and just started across the intersection ahead of her; don't think she ever knew she's waited past her turn. What's more concerning is that the women often have children in the van or car with them.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Unfortunately it is much easier to pass laws to ban holding the phone to your ear than it is to have a law to ban inattentive drivers. Easy to measure the first, not easy to measure the second. Yet it is the second that is the biggest risk. And a lot of those people are inattentive even when they are NOT talking on the cell phone.
My daughter who is 17 and has been driving for four months with her license was rear ended by a lady a couple months ago. My daughter strongly suspects the lady was on a cell phone. Traffic was slowing down, my daughter slowed down, and then BANG!
My hypothesis is that it is not how many distractions a driver has, it is their attitude. Here I've been eating while driving for 35 years (most of that time with a manual transmission, too(!), and talked on the cell phone in a manual transmission car for 6 years before I got a bluetooth equipped car. I also live in southern CA where there is a ton of traffic. Yet I've never had a distraction accident, and have never had any at fault accident. I'm also a private pilot. Safety is of top importance and it is all about taking it seriously. When I eat in the car, I stay in a right lane of the freeway, I increase my following distance, and I'm ready to drop the food and make a mess if a road priority appears. And that's the same attitude I have when it is raining, when there is a lot of traffic, etc.
So you mean you actually make a decision on when you have available bandwidth to perform an in-vehicle task and when you don't? And when you do add additional workload, you compensate. Hmm sounds something like personal responsibility. Crazy
The problem with distractions like cell phones is that many people are cavalier and careless; they don't take great care and they don't change their behavior when they are working with potential distractions. Those people are always going to exist, and due to those people we get lots of new laws so we can be protected. Those people tend to be careless idiots even when NOT on the cell phone, and
they are a hazard to everybody.
This is actually one of the theories being used to explain that phenomena I keep harping about where cell phone market penetration has gone up 1000% in the last decade while crash rates are dropping to historic lows. The theory is something along the lines of early adopters of cell phone technology had a higher risk tolerance than other drivers. The thought is that higher percentage of early adopters of cell phone technology were already more likely to be risk takers in driving or less likely to be attentive. I have plenty of anecdotal evidence to support that one, but I think the UMTRI paper on cell phone use patterns and the Virginia Tech study might have more.
My hypthesis is that cell phones have replaced other driver behaviors. The fatality rate and the crash rate could probably be reduced if people drove in a cooperative manner. If one takes out mechanical failure and acts of God, all other fatalities and crashes are avoidable.
I do agree personal responsibility is the real key. Knowing when and where your attention can be diverted from driving is key to not getting into a crash or worse. That was my point a few posts ago. I do believe there are situations it is safe to eat and be on a handsfree moving at 65. In my neck of the woods, a "safe" situation is almost non-existent.
What percentage of left lane bandits (you know, the morons doing 10 mph under the limit in the left lane in perfect driving conditions) are talking on their cell phone or texting when you finally have to pass them on the right?
Now eliminate Prius and Subaru drivers who maintain that it is their God-given (ok, Mother Nature-granted) right to go as slow as they want in the left lane to save precious fuel as well as our lives?
Now eliminate anyone with a "Save the Manatees" or "Free Tibet" or some other such nonsensical bumper sticker that marks them as part of the holier-than-thou set that can't afford a Prius.
Now eliminate the 80-year-old Buick drivers (who don't have cell phones and don't really know where they are).
By my own observations, that leaves about 75% of left lane bandits with cell phones pasted to their ears. Yup, it's purely anecdotal, but try it the next time you're on a nice 400-mile highway jaunt.
So, while these people may not actually be involved in an accident, they certainly make the lives of others miserable so that they can have their important conversations about whether or not Brittney Spears looked fat or Eminem really grew up poor.
Hands-free devices are cheap and easy to use. If you can afford a monthly cell phone bill, then you can afford $50 for a bluetooth. There's no excuse for allowing inconsiderate cell phone users to clog up traffic unnecessarily. Texters should be ticketed for distracted driving every time (just like morons who read newspapers or books). In the case of texting, it's simple to prove your innocence: just present your monthly bill showing that you were not texting at the time the officer pulled you over. CA could easily balance their budget!
But if they're not that bright anyway, they wouldn't know how to pair the devices. :P
This refers to either use of the handset or hands-free. But the handset users assume one of three positions:
1. Both hands on the wheel and head tilted to stabilize cell phone. This of course is an extremely safe way to drive.
2. One hand on the wheel and center of head aligned with center of mirror.
3. Right hand on the wheel. Left elbow propped up on window sill holding phone to left ear.
These drivers multi-task and devote every other 30 seconds to driving and it shows. These are the drivers who slow down inexplicably, speed up and tailgate or don't follow lane boundaries. Fortunately there are drivers who are these peoples guardian angels. Unfortunately the FARS database can't compute the blood pressure rate per mile.
OK, hold on here....
I resent being stereotyped. I drive a Subaru, have for about 10 years. Not aggressively, but, shall we say, in a spirited fashion when circumstances allow. Never a left lane bandit, either.
I believe that most of the Subaru Crew members on this website would resent the inference about the way they drive as well.
Mobile phone radiation 'protects' against Alzheimer's (BBC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/technology/07distracted.html?em
Oh my gawd the humanity of it all, please no stop. These big mean people are being terrible by making it so much easier to do what I was already doing on my Droid or iPhone...
The NYT has gone the way of Fox.
It's funny...in Europe nav systems allow in-motion inputs, and every Euro spec factory nav unit I have seen also has a TV tuner. Why are they able to handle it and we aren't?
Now, you can buy a Ford and listen to my pearls. :shades:
Ford cars to read your Twitter feed (CNN)
Bunch of other stuff is getting tied in with Sync.
Ford Debuts New MyFord Touch Interface and Upcoming Sync Features (Edmunds Daily)
Of course they will say that drivers are mature and responsible, have common sense and will do nothing stupid and will park safely if they want to spend INORDINATE amount of time looking at screens. Yeah, right!! ANY amount of time is distracting. There should be no distraction on instrument panel that takes more time than to push a button, such as ac, for something. And, buttons/knobs should be so shaped, designed, unique that they can be found by touch, not sight. Would be great if functions such as ac, temp, radio station, etc were available as voice commands and buttons, knobs were merely backup. Now, that would be a great safety feature.
Now this is an issue for the Obama Administration and his Secretary LaHood to get Congress to do an overall federal law banning this tv screen navi nonsense. This would do more good than the misdirected Health monstrocity that Congress has been involved with last year.
Maybe that's the real problem here, going all the way back to the first day of driver's ed. People here just don't take driving seriously enough. It's a mindset that must be taught from day one.
Does any NA market car with factory nav have a TV tuner built in? Perfectly legal and accepted in more responsible areas.
But I take it the answer to a pilot using an internet device while landing would be a no?
Yes, a pilot landing an aircraft while sending a tweet on his smartphone or built in mobile internet unit would be foolish. He should be trained to have the discipline to avoid such distractions.
True. Overshooting an airport by 150 miles shows what can happen when your mind is not on the operation of the machinery. Or in the case of a car texting, tweeting, calling, or looking at your internet device or not having your mind on driving, even when you are looking straight ahead can lead to catastrophy.
My car already has a great 17 display I can use for browsing and typing and tweeing while driving. I tether my laptop to my phone and leave the laptop on the passenger seat. Viola...instant gratification.
I still wonder what really happened on that plane...I think it was more than someone sending texts.
Particularly fascinating, Mr. Hyman said, is that people walking in pairs were more than twice as likely to see the clown as were people talking on a cellphone, suggesting that the act of simply having a conversation is not the cause of inattention blindness."
Forget gum. Walking and using phone is risky (MSNBC)
Perhaps some future accident victim caused by an errant driver cell phone user causing the crash will successfully sue the wireless carrier. Then, with more suits in the pipeline, carriers will themselves put in technology/software to not allow any cell calls in moving vehicles except 911 calls.
What is so hard about planning one's life to make calls either before or after a trip in a vehicle? If one suddenly has the urge or need to make a call, they can find a legal and safe place to park and then make the call. Is that so difficult? That is still infinitely simpler to do than in days past, prior to cell phones, when you had to find a phone booth to make a call. People just "incredibly" spoiled and selfish today.
Guess you need to tune it today:
“The Oprah Winfrey Show” will dedicate its Monday, January 18 broadcast to people who have lost family and friends to crashes as a result of distracted driving."
Oprah Challenges Viewers to Stop Texting and Driving (Forbes)
-Frank
No doubt it is dangerous, but I think there's some exaggeration at play too.
What, they wouldn't do something like that on TV. Everything on TV is real and honest.
Dateline
Of course there were a dozen tear-jerker first person accounts of someone losing a loved one due to cell phone usage. They also had a researcher on to explain why using a hands-free device isn't any safer. He used the phrase "inattentional blindness" (you can google it) to describe the limitations in how the brain processes information.
-Frank