Autonomous braking system to be required

[Mark Lloyd]

I remember a $79 fillup a few years ago when gas prices were at thier highest of($4.00 / gal).

[gpsman]

Statistically, the average motorist is involved in a crash every 10 years...

So I got that goin' for me... which is nice.

Always the other guy's fault, huh?

It didn't seem that much of a rant to me. I think your panties are all wadded up over nothing more than an omitted ", etc."... maybe...

I slid the goal post to "not fully engaged in the driving task" yesterday.

This includes those platooning at 77 in a 55 maintaining 1 car length between themselves while intermittently changing lanes each time the bumper of the forward vehicle in the next lane inches ahead of the bumper to the front... until the inexplicable! braking wave brings them all to screeching halts.

I would never argue those motorists aren't mostly "fully engaged", but what they are engaged in does not very much resemble "the driving task". -----

- gpsman

[krw]

Exactly my point. The "average motorist isn't crashing".

Most people don't consider the lack of logic anything to brag about. In your case...

More of your famous "logic".

More of your famous "logic". Try "most". If the moron had said "too many", or even "many", I'd agree. As it was written it's just another "big brother come save me" rant.

I noticed the attempted 100 mile goal post shift. So what? Driving doesn't, indeed can't, require 100% concentration. You'd never get to work.

More strawmen. Set 'em up and knock 'em down. Nice technique.

So you admit that your argument is irrelevant.

[krw]

I had a 65$ "fillup" recently. I had my 2-1/2 gallon mower can with me, but still... Gas here has jumped $.50 in the last month ($.25 in the last week).

[Harry K]

ave to ram anyone or perform the PIT maneuver. They just need to box the pe= rp in, and slow down. The perp's car will stop itself, so as to avoid hitti= ng the police vehicle in front of it.

They'll be banned from re-registering or required to get the new technology installed of course. :(

Harry K

[Harry K]

In the trunks of the car ahead of them. Happened here yesterday, two motorcycles impacted a car on highway that slowed down for unknown reasons. Bikers "tried to evade"...gee, ya think a few seconds of spacing would have allowed that?

Las time I rode with my wife she scared the hell out of me. Got her lic pulled a couple weeks later. Couldn't figure out why she kept varying speed, I watched. Following too close and eyes locked on the bumper ahead.

Harry K

[HeyBub]

That statement could be misleading:

Assume 1000 drivers.

In ten years (3650 days), that's 1000 crashes.

It could be that the SAME driver is having a crash ever 3.5 days, while the other 999 drivers are enjoying a crash-free life style.

[gpsman]

"Not crashing" =E2=89=A0 "driving".

"Your logic isn't" isn't even a complete sentence. In context you could only have meant to imply my logic isn't crashing.

Nice dodge.

Reading doesn't appear to be your strong suit. Here is the comment in its entirety:

"Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe this is actually a good idea."

So your rebuttal is irrelevant, a straw man.

How would concentrating on driving prevent arrival at a destination... ?

There are no straw men in that paragraph. A straw man is an fallacious argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

I admit you seem to understand little of what you read.

If the gross incompetence of ***the vast majority*** of motorists escapes your detection you haven't even noticed how infrequently they can be bothered to signal their turns and lane changes. -----

- gpsman

[trader4]

aid "too many",

It's hard for me to understand how as written it's another "big brother come save me rant". But if instead of "most" the poster had said "too many", then it drastically changes it into something else.

The statement as written is an exageration, but I got their point and I don't think substituting "too many" changes the essential point. I see an unaceptable number of people driving distracted on a regular basis. And those are just the ones I see. It also gets down at some point to your definition of distracted.

Here's some data from an actual poll:

"Whether it's talking on cellphones, fiddling with food and drink or doing some last-minute grooming, a large majority of adult drivers in the United States admit to being dangerously distracted while behind the wheel, a new poll shows.

Bob Riha, Jr., USA TODAY Most adults who drive on a regular basis admitted to having at some point engaged in distracting behaviors, be it eating/drinking, talking on a non-hands-free cellphone, texting or applying makeup. EnlargeClose Bob Riha, Jr., USA TODAY Most adults who drive on a regular basis admitted to having at some point engaged in distracting behaviors, be it eating/drinking, talking on a non-hands-free cellphone, texting or applying makeup.

Sponsored LinksAccording to the new Harris Interactive/HealthDay poll, most adults who drive on a regular basis admitted to having at some point engaged in distracting behaviors, be it eating/drinking (86 percent), talking on a non-hands-free cellphone (59 percent), setting their GPS device (41 percent), texting (37 percent) or applying makeup (14 percent)."

Now that is some actual data. So, whether you take the poster's exageration or some actual data, it's still pretty bad and I don't think materially changes a thing.

[krw]

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.

[gpsman]

It isn't exaggeration.

"Not fully engaged in the driving task".

The subject of driver distraction is almost entirely misunderstood because it is invariably limited to intentional distractions when simply being distracted by one's internal monologue is also a major factor in driver inattention.

Motorists learn themselves the wrong things. Operating a motor vehicle w/o full attention rarely results in a crash. The obviously wrong conclusion is it doesn't take full attention. The problem is, when the moment arrives that it does too many motorists are way behind; the proverbial "100 kt. pilots in 200 kt. airplanes".

I wonder how the average motorist would feel if their pilot ignored FAA rules and operated the aircraft in accordance with what they think their experience learned them were their limits...

It's data, but mostly related to what people are willing to admit. Only 86% were willing to admit they ate/drank and I think we can reasonably assume the real number would be much closer to 100%.

Driving is widely considered "safe". The evidence is overwhelming and includes pedestrians waiting to cross the street with their toes (and/ or occupied stroller) sticking out over the curb.

I don't want to count the number of people I know whose lives were ended, shortened or made miserable and/or have been rendered unable to work by easily predictable and preventable vehicle crashes, but it's a dozen, at least, not including myself. -----

- gpsman

[krw]

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!

[trader4]

Well then I'm gonna have to join krw on this one. What specific evidence do you have that the majority of drivers are busy texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup? Sure every driver has been distracted by something at some point. But that isn't what that statement says. It says that if we went out there right now we'd find that 51%+ of those driving are engaged in those activities. I'll even allow the leeway of just being distracted period. And I say if the majority of drivers on the road this minute were distracted there would be wrecks all over the place.

So, link please?

[homme de la maison]

No link required... Drive around for a while, hopefully you'll run in to one. ;-)

[krw]

You really are a dumbshit, DumbShit.

[John Gilmer]

My my observation, the slight decline in reflexes in the 60s is more than compensated for by the "experience" factor. I have flown with a pilot who was in his 70s.

Most folks I know are still quite good drivers up to at least 75.

If you want to "generalize," I would set the "test often" age to 75. Most would still qualify, IMO.

[gpsman]

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.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Consider yourself the winner of Least Observant Self-certified Usenet Driving Expert, August 2012. -----

- gpsman

[notbob]

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

[trader4]

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?

[trader4]

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.