Autonomous braking system to be required

Page 2 of 5  
wrote:

You really are a dumbshit, DumbShit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

LOL!....
Too true. And this long before cellphones and their ilk. I've seen ppl reading books while driving. Not like the guy reading the morning paper, with the newspaper propped up on the stearing wheel where he could maintain some semblance of line-of-sight with the road, but a book lying open on the seat beside the reader, the reader having to take his eyes off the road and look over and down. Scary stuff.
nb
--
"Do you recognize me? No!
...cuz I don't work here"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, in fact I clearly said I'll allow the distractions to go beyond those specific 6. And I still say there is no evidence that *most* drivers are driving distracted. A significant number, yes. If it were *most* we'd be seeing accidents one after the other.

Then why did you just ask the question about limiting distraction to just the six on the list?

From the context of the discussion, it's clear we're talking about distraction that is serious enough to have a significant impairment in the driver's ability. All the things on that list qualify. Now, if for purposes of digging yoursefl out of your self-created hole, you want to try to expand your definition of distracted to the driver thinking about what the weather may be where they are going, or similar nonsense, then I call BS.

Try it this way. YOU are making the claim. It's up to YOU to prove it, not for someone else to disprove it. That's the way things work in my world. This has been studied quite a bit and I have never seen a study that suggests what you claim. So, link please?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

There's no evidence they aren't.

Single cause fallacy.

Clarification, because I had not gotten this far in your post.

No. It's significant enough that they often fail to recognize developing circumstances that lead to crashing.

Fine. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to describe the methods you use to take and maintain "conscious control of the attentional spotlight".

This isn't your world. In the real world there is a word in use you should learn: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute

I commend you for using the word "seen" rather than "read", but there is nothing to suggest the vast majority of motorists are not distracted.

All you need is to note your own internal monologue the next time you drive. -----
- gpsman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Again, that is NOT how it works. YOU made the claim. YOU provide the proof. It would be a very strange and impossible world for the burden of proof to be on others to disprove every ridiculous claim made. Your obvious problem is that you've dug yourself a hole and have no referencel.

Let's look at the specific list again of distracted driving examples you gave that started this:
"texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup"
Those are serious distractons. All with the possible exception of chatting involve physical activities too. Now you want to make it include a driver just thinking about anything at all that is not their immeadiate driving task? Like what time they may arrive where they are going? How nuts is that? By that definition, as KRW pointed out, 100% of drivers are distracted.
I call BS on you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 08:59:40 -0700 (PDT), gpsman

You won't ever change it either. Many people talk on cells, hold conversations with passengers, etc. They don't think anything of it, and probably won't recognize their inattention to driving caused an accident. Some people do multi-task better than others, but you really can't take your eyes off the road. I let a BIL drive my van on a trip back from a family event once, and I sat on the bench seat behind him. He actually kept turning and looking at me as we talked. At 75mph, and he followed too close. Made him pull into a rest area so I could drive. I do long trips with my wife, and we converse. But often I just say "wait' and turn her off. It's situational. She's drives pretty much the same way. Diving is a bit of work for me, but I use methods to make it more enjoyable. Mostly figuring traffic patterns to stay as far away from other vehicles as possible. It's kind of fun to know exactly what somebody will do before they even do it. Can't count the times I've said, "He'll switch lanes, then switch right back." Then he does it. I'm sure my wife is bored with it, but she does like my driving style.
--
Vic



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It certainly appears that way. The emphasis has long been on making vehicles and roads more safe for crashing.
The average motorist is so stupid they wouldn't wear a seat belt until laws were passed requiring it, and it seems to have peaked at 86% and is dropping. (PDF 1.3MB) http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811544.pdf .

That's because every crash is widely considered "accidental", regardless of "willful misconduct" as the FHWA calls it. Crashes by drunks and those fleeing police are reported as accidents. In one instance not too long ago the NYT reported a guy who deliberately and with malice aforethought "accidentally" ran over (or into) a guy (or his gf, I forget, I should have saved that link).

Figuratively. Gauges, mirrors, signs. Keeping your eyes moving is central to situational awareness.

We help drive most of the time, as does just about everyone I know.
One of my relationship requirements is a defensive driver. I couldn't respect her if she drove like every other nitwit, and I couldn't stand the worry when she was driving by herself.

Whatever you do to keep your head in the game is a good thing. Driving is widely considered by the unconsciously incompetent to be a matter of reaction times and assumed infallibility while the highly skilled avoid the circumstances that lead to using their higher skills.

As long as you're not distracted. The funny thing about driving distractions is they can be and often are driving-related; 1 nitwit can distract from the more dangerous, or vulnerable nitwit. Human attention and visual perception are very funny and complicated things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_blindness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness
We've all experienced failing to see what is right in front of our noses, but few consider applying those experiences to driving.
The more confidence a driver exhibits, the less knowledge and skill they possess, rarely varies.

Sounds like you probably have a pretty good record and chance of escaping becoming victims of the mayhem. -----
- gpsman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Another foolish exaggeration presented as fact. Following that theory, the professional truck driver with 20 years experience, no accidents who's confident that he knows what he's doing has less knowledge and skill than the scared tentative driver behind the wheel for the first time.
But I'm sure you'll argue to the death that this too is established as fact, regardless. And next you'll be demanding that unless someone else can prove it false, it's true.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:52:07 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

Professional race drivers.

The moon really is made of green cheese. NASA has been covering it up for over forty years.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/7/2012 10:35 PM, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Hah! You want a link?
And FWIW, don't eat the cheese cuz it expired in 2006
Here you go: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060401.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

...and that proves exactly what, HomoGay?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The best evidence is the low rate of accidents. If most drivers were driving distracted by the likes of putting on makeup and texting there would be wrecks every minute.

Strawman.
Sure, I see some people who don't signal some times. But is it most people that I encounter every day? No way. And of course it really is another diversion, because it doesn't say anything about whether they are distracted or not. I would think that most people who don't signal do it because they are poorly trained, lousy drivers, and they do it all the time, not because they are distracted by texting, etc.

Again strawman and you're wandering off here. Sure people speed but I would say in the vast majority of cases it's not because they are distracted. It's because they deliberately are choosing to speed. Can you find someone once in a while that happens to go over the speed limit because they went from a 55 to a 40 and were distracted so they didnt realize it? Sure, but it's not most drivers who speed.

Which again has nothing to do with being distracted.

Which again has nothing to do with being distracted.

Finally you have something that very likely is due to being distracted. Now, I don't know where you live. But I live in NJ where I think we have some of the worst drivers. Do I see someone drifting into my lane? Sure, once in a while. Maybe a couple times a month. Now if MOST drivers on the road were driving distracted, I would expect to see it many times an hour.

Which again has nothing to do with being distracted.

What you're doing is setting up strawmen, one after the other most of which have nothing to do with being distracted.

But surely you realize that has nothing to do with your claim that most drivers are driving distracted by texting, putting on makeup, etc. It's like saying smoking in bed is the leading cause of house fires and then saying that means most people smoke in bed.

In your attempt to justify MOST people driving while distracted it would have to include ordinary things like thinking about what you have to do when you get where you're going. Or what's for dinner tonight. And as KRW said, if you go there, then 100% of drivers are distracted.

You may believe that, but I disagree. And you're waffling here by now including the modifier "not all the time". If you said, most drivers are distracted at one time or another while driving, I would agree with that. But again, what you said was:
"Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe this is actually a good idea. "

Not that I even agree with that, but again that isn't even close to what you first said.
>The

The relatively low number of accidents that happen per thousands and thousands of miles driven suggest to me that *most* people out there are not distracted by the likes of the serious distractions on your list. If they were, accidents would be happening at 100 times the rate they are.
Sure, once in a while someone is texting, putting on makeup and winds up causing an accident. But if that were most drivers cars would be crashing on the roads everywhere.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You're too stupid to add to my collection of nitwits, if I still collected nitwits. -----
- gpsman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You forgot how after you found yourself.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Idiot. You're making the outrageous claims. I'ts *your* task to back them up.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Wrong. Isn't refers back to "logic". Even a moron can understand that.

No, it was a response to a stupid strawman argument. You're good at them.

^^^^ utter nonsense

Do read what's written.

You're an idiot. You were trying to shift the argument. That *is* a strawman in itself.

You really are an idiot. If it took 100% concentration to drive, you couldn't GET EVEN THAT FAR, moron.

You have no brain. The issue has nothing to do with *anything* in that paragraph. It is a total strawman.

No, moron, you're the illiterate one.

It is *not* the "vast majority" who are grossly incompetent. If it were, there would be *far* more accidents.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Clearly, you need an English lesson. It *is* a complete sentence, with "logic" implied. Rather like "Eat shit!"; "you" is implied.

You're an idiot. It was an argument set up for the sole purpose of knocking down; a strawman.

*YOU* made the absurd claim, moron. It's up to *you* to provide the evidence. That's just the way it works.

You clearly didn't understand it. Try starting again at first grade. This time maybe in a private school.

No, dufus. A strawman is an argument set up for the specific purpose of knocking down. You shifted the goal posts, precisely for that purpose.

You obviously can't read. No one can give 100% concentration to *anything* for long periods. It's physically impossible.

Wrong. A strawman argument can be a perfectly valid argument. It doesn't address the point, however. It is specifically set up to win an argument, even if it isn't the same argument.
Are you really another of DumbShit's nyms? You're about that smart.

Well, we agree.

It's the only one that matters.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Cite!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Your cite seems to be missing...

Said the guy who wouldn't know a straw man if hit over the head with it.

There's a small matter of causing others to crash.

Consider yourself the winner of Least Observant Self-certified Usenet Driving Expert, August 2012. -----
- gpsman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Funny that the guy who 10 posts later still has no reference at all to support his claim, now demands a reference for this? First, in the context of the discussion where you claimed most drivers are driving distracted, the distractions listed were serious ones:
"texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup"
Now if you want to shift the discussion not from those specific ones or similar SERIOUS distractions, to ANY situation where a driver is not 100% focused only on driving, then KRW is right. No one could drive for say 5 miles, giving 100% attention, unless perhaps it were some experiment where they knew that was their specific task. And even then, it likely wouldn't work, because, well they would also be thinking about the experiment, what they were told to do, etc.
Let's say I'm thinking about which route to take 10 miles ahead. Ergo, I'm no longer focused 100% on the immediate task of driving. Or say I'm wondering what the weather will be like where I'm going. My attention is now split between that and driving and no longer 100% focused on driving.
So, yeah, if in an attempt to dig yourself out of your hole you want to try to expand the definition of distracted to that level, then I agree with KRW, nobody could drive for more than extremely short periods with 100% concentration. But then the claim taken in context was never about that, It was about serious distractions while driving.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 06:52:59 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

It's just his childish comeback because I demanded a citation for his absurd claim.

Synopsis: His argument was that *most* drivers are distracted. If "distracted" includes only that list (even other *serious* distractions), claiming that most drivers are distracted is silly. If "distracted" means that one is not using 100% of his mental abilities on the task of driving, then everyone is always distracted. Sure, that meets the "most" criteria but is hardly a useful definition; no harm done. Using either definition, gps is nuts.

Right.
He's squirming from one definition to the other, with side trips down strawman lane to try to win the point. The argument, either way, (narrow or all-encompassing definition of "distracted") makes no sense.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.