Autonomous braking system to be required

[krw]

idea."

>

Idiot. You're making the outrageous claims. I'ts *your* task to back them up.

[krw]

You're an idiot. It's impossible for a human to concentrate on one thing for even ten minutes. The brain doesn't function that way.

Good Lord, you're an idiot.

Are you *really* that stupid? A crash is a crash. If the problem were as bad as you say, there would be crashes everywhere.

Consider yourself the stupidest person on the Usenet, August 2012. ...and that's some honor.

[gpsman]

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:

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

[trader4]

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.

[Vic Smith]

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.

[trader4]

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.

=A0>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.

[krw]

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.

[krw]

Probably not many. Driving tests are a joke. ...and it's pretty much by necessity. Make them difficult and the voters get restless. The answer to much of this nonsense isn't more laws but better enforcement (I don't mean speed traps).

[gpsman]

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)

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.

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

[gpsman]

You're too stupid to add to my collection of nitwits, if I still collected nitwits. -----

- gpsman

[krw]

You forgot how after you found yourself.

[trader4]

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.

[Duesenberg]

I spend $75 a week for commuting in gas and about $250 a month for toll hiways. Yes the income earned is worth it but in about 2 or 2 1/2 years, I'll take the $30 000 a year pay cut and work in my hometown. Factoring in insurance and wear and tear plus maintenance on the automobile then the gas and toll hiway charges, it's about $10 000 a year for transportation, maybe more just for that larger salary gain of say $30 000.

When I was in my 20s and single it was great doing all that driving for extra income. Now with kids and wife and home, it's not appealing anymore.

[Duesenberg]

How do you mean better enforcement? Meaning more cops looking for problem drivers, or the courts punishing more or licenses getting taken away sooner?

I'd like to see more enforcement of traffic laws but I don't know if this is what you mean by "better enforcement"

[krw]

Professional race drivers.

The moon really is made of green cheese. NASA has been covering it up for over forty years.

[krw]

Cops looking for more problem drivers. Texting is already against the law, under the distracted driving laws. Other issues are a little harder sell but the idea is the same. Turning or lane-change without a signal is already an infraction. There are tons...

No, I'm not advocating the yanking of licenses, except as a last resort (the points system already takes care of that).

More is probably a more precise word (fewer meanings).

[krw]

Sure but my solution is to move where the job is. I'm commuting now, for various reasons but that'll stop Oct 1 when I finally get my wife moved here. We may be traveling back and forth on the weekends after that until we can get that house on the market.

Agreed. Driving for a job just isn't worth it. It is a PITA.

[The Daring Dufas]

I wear myself out driving around to do service calls but folks need things fixed or installed. The heat is killing me this Summer. O_o

TDD

[Domicile Dude]

Hah! You want a link?

And FWIW, don't eat the cheese cuz it expired in 2006

Here you go:

[bob haller]

its great in good weather but the pits in snow.....

but I have been on the road my entire life fixing office machines.

If someone gave me a office and required me to be there I would go stir crazy.....

everday is different i never know what I will be doing