5 ms·
Or we could have the phone makers fix it directly. There. Problem solved. And we didn't even need to get thousands of local government agencies involved in e
by mozumder 10y ago
Or we could have the phone makers fix it directly.
There. Problem solved.
And we didn't even need to get thousands of local government agencies involved in enforcement! We just fixed the problem at the source: the cell phone manufacturers.
Would you rather fix a million separate problems - the millions of texting drivers - or one problem at the cell phone manufacturer?
How much would your solution cost vs my solution?
Systematic solutions that remove human judgement from the solution will always be better than any solution that's dependent on human judgement to work.
The nanny state exists because people are dangerous idiots. And they need to be nannied.
- mjevans 10y agoThe correct point to remove people from the equation because they're idiots is operating the car. Fully automated driving, without human supervision being necessary.
- mozumder 10y agoOr better yet - a rail system.
- ars 10y agoYou didn't solve anything. You did the equivalent of yelling and crying and saying "you fix it". Unless you also have a suggestion of how to do it?
- mozumder 10y agoThe solution is to force phone manufacturers to disable phones in moving cars.
- __david__ 10y agoSo passengers phones are disabled, too?? No thanks.
- dredmorbius 10y agoHow many dead souls per passenger phone call are you willing to trade off?
- dasil003 10y agoYou say that in a shocked tone as if we don't already accept a huge number of motor vehicle deaths for the convenience of driving.
- dredmorbius 10y agoThat doesn't exactly answer the question now, does it? Tu quoque fallacy. It also presumes my lack of awareness of the additional problems. As I'd commented and cited in this thread: mobile-device distracted driving is a factor in 25% of motor vehicle accidents.
- __david__ 10y agoAll of them. Making the world 100% safe is a fools errand. There are always risks. I think the current state of risk is just fine, and I'm not willing to lessen my convenience just to reduce a risk that I don't perceive to be very high.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- DanBC 10y agoHow do they tell the difference between passengers and drivers? How do they tell the difference between cars and buses?
- mozumder 10y ago> How do they tell the difference between passengers and drivers? > How do they tell the difference between cars and buses? You don't. You disable it for all people in moving vehicles.
- tempestn 10y agoThe Apple patent mentioned in the article describes how it could be done. It wouldn't be as simplistic as disabling phones in moving cars, but would also sense whether the operator was sitting in the driver's seat, among other things. That said, I would still rather police my own behaviour than have my phone do it for me. (I also would prefer phones have an official rooting procedure, for that matter.)