Teen Texting Driving PSA. Somewhat graphic.

Replied in red below.

Sad Max said:
And removing a source of stupid distraction from the driver's hands will decrease the number of accidents we see. An unqualified good.
Yes, but just making it a law doesn't make it so. Just listen to what people are saying in states where it is against the law. Still going on.


'Safe' cars are like 'safe' cigarettes: no such thing. Sure, you can make a car technically safer, a desirable thing. But it still comes down to operator skill and attention, as to whether or not the safety systems even come into play.
So you're saying that accidents will cease to exist??



Don't you think it's luck that you were hit where you were hit?
Yah, bad luck. :) My point is... give the people who get T-boned a chance. Just ask a local firefighter if you doubt what I'm saying.



Outlawing the use of the devices has to be coupled with draconian enforcement of the law. Otherwise, yes, it's not going to be as effective as it should.
laws are meant to be broken. Just look around.
Making safer cars that allow more people to walk away from is a good thing. More effective than telling people to pay attention, or else!
Click to expand...
 
You place too much emphasis upon technology as a solution.

But I probably place too much emphasis upon terrifying people into behaving themselves, as a solution.
 
Sad Max said:
You place too much emphasis upon technology as a solution.

But I probably place too much emphasis upon terrifying people into behaving themselves, as a solution.
Click to expand...
LOL! Alright, I agree with that. I just think we've given humans the benefit of the doubt for too long now. :)

Hopefully a happy medium can be found.

Cheers,

MAH
 
Mattykins said:
Oh yeah - they are amazing. But I only wanted to point out even computers crash.
Click to expand...
Of course they do, but 99% of my argument is that cars are not built as well as they could be. Nascar being a prime example. Or are you saying that a car that cant take a T-bone hit at highspeeds without the driver or passenger dying is safe? Because that is what most of us drive. Food for thought.

The line about cars that drive themselves was followed by a smiley. :)
We're not there yet.

Again... why are people against safer cars?
Stock in GM maybe?

:)

PS- As you put and I pointed out earlier, accidents happen. Therefore, improve the safety of what we're driving in. I don't care if it's a robot or a drunk kid hitting me, make me safer.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I am totally with you. I was attempting to be funny with my computer car post.

I can't even tell you how many accidents I've narrowly avoided (that weren't my fault) in the relative few years I've been driving. Most of those, the other driver wasn't on a cell (that I could see).

By nature we aren't supposed to be driving 2 ton vehicles that are moving at 60 MPH. Planes crash, cars crash, computer controlled cars crash, computers crash. Everything is susceptible to an accident. Mostly user error, but the computer cars (in development) still make computer errors and crash.

I agree with more safety in cars. I don't agree with banning cell phones from cars. That's about all I got for this one.
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
Nope. My argument is that accidents will always happen, that's why they are called accidents.

I would rather be in the safe car that provides a much higher chance of walking away from an accident then rely on the person in the other car to do the right thing.
Click to expand...

Most officials and agencies (and myself) stopped using the word "accident" because 8-9 out of 10 collisions are not actually true accidents. The vast majority of collisions can be traced to some cause or other. Mechanical malfunction, user distractions, sloppy traffic engineering, signal malfunction, etc.

And you can blame the government and environmentalists for less safe cars. C.A.F.E. standards have caused lighter, weaker cars to be produced in the name of fuel efficency and lower emmisions. And even the safest cars don't prevent the "third collision", which is internal injuries from decelertion forces.

People need to pay attention to what the hell they're doing behind the wheel. Period.
 
mobhb said:
And you can blame the government and environmentalists for less safe cars. C.A.F.E. standards have caused lighter, weaker cars to be produced in the name of fuel efficency and lower emmisions. And even the safest cars don't prevent the "third collision", which is internal injuries from decelertion forces.

People need to pay attention to what the hell they're doing behind the wheel. Period.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to point fingers at who's to blame. Just pointing out that safety in vehicles is lacking, obviously we agree on that, you've said so yourself. As for people, good luck changing peoples driving habits.

Anyway, it's been fun.

MAH
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
As for people, good luck changing peoples driving habits.
Click to expand...

It doesn't take luck. It takes enforcement. I get pretty mad when I see someone texting while driving, but what gets me furious is a cop on the phone. And no, it's not a work related call either... that's what the radio is for. If the cops can't obey the law they're supposed to enforce, how will it ever make any difference?

I won't get into other driving pet peeves of mine like no headlights in rain... another time.
 
Mattykins said:
I don't agree with banning cell phones from cars. That's about all I got for this one.
Click to expand...

Why? What advantage is there to people who can barely drive safely to begin with, being further distracted and made even more dangerous by a non-essential distraction that is demonstrably a cause of fatalities?

Look someone who lost a loved one to a chattering idiot on the road in the eye, tell them that people being able to yap at will while driving is so desirable that the loss was worth it, and let me know what they have to say, in response.
 
Sad Max said:
Why? What advantage is there to people who can barely drive safely to begin with, being further distracted and made even more dangerous by a non-essential distraction that is demonstrably a cause of fatalities?
Click to expand...


I think it would be an infringement on personal freedom and a byproduct of too much intervention. That's about all I can say about it here since I suppose it's a political matter.

Radio is a distraction. Eating is a distraction. Makeup is a distraction. GPS is a distraction. Maps are a distraction.

There are multiple activities that are on par with cell phones. You can't eliminate every distraction that exists in a car without crossing a line of infringing on personal sovereignty. You can put laws against it (a la: drunk driving) but that doesn't stop anyone.

Singing and rocking out to music is easily a distraction - should we then ban radio?

Looking at a GPS, consulting it for directions, it takes your eyes off the road, and forces you to lose your focus by placing a video screen within the sight of the driver. Should those then be banned as well? I don't think so. Maybe you do.

But I respect your opinion. And there really isn't much we can do other than enforce our own personal set of ethics whilst on the road.
 
Mattykins said:
I think it would be an infringement on personal freedom and a byproduct of too much intervention. That's about all I can say about it here since I suppose it's a political matter.
Click to expand...

Is your personal freedom infringed by laws requiring you to drive on one side of the road? What about laws prohibiting falsely shouting 'fire' in a crowded auditorium?

There is nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights to support an un-restricable "right" to speak on a cell phone; what's more safety regulations have been long-accepted as trumping unrestricted 'everything goes' behavior.

Mattykins said:
Radio is a distraction. Eating is a distraction. Makeup is a distraction. GPS is a distraction. Maps are a distraction.
Click to expand...

And not one of those distractions has been found to be as dangerous as yapping on a cell while driving. This is a matter of record; the formal study suppressed by Congress for the benefit of their telcomm contributors, a couple years ago.

It's a bizarre argument, even if you ignore that study. You seem to be saying that the more dangerous distractions available, the better.

Mattykins said:
There are multiple activities that are on par with cell phones.
Click to expand...

Not according to that study. The behavior that most closely approximates cell use (in terms of hazard) is driving drunk. Do you feel that laws banning drunk driving are unduly infringing upon your Constitutionally-protected freedoms?

Mattykins said:
You can't eliminate every distraction that exists in a car without crossing a line of infringing on personal sovereignty.
Click to expand...

I am not suggesting eliminating every distraction. I'm suggesting doing what is eminently possible and practical, to ameliorate one of the very worst behaviors people indulge in, while driving. Please don't strawman me. It's pointless.


Mattykins said:
You can put laws against it (a la: drunk driving) but that doesn't stop anyone.
Click to expand...

Why do we have laws, at all? Since - according to you - laws don't affect anyone's behavior at all?

Mattykins said:
Singing and rocking out to music is easily a distraction - should we then ban radio?
Click to expand...

Not as distracting, and not in the same way, and not to the same detriment of safety, as cell phone yapping. Once again, this is a matter of research. I know that cell-phone users like to equate phone conversations with other activities, but it's a falsehood.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top