5 ms·

I know you just want to keep your family safe, me too. But consider my case. I have NO traffic tickets on my record, but I recently started taking a medicatio

I know you just want to keep your family safe, me too. But consider my case. I have NO traffic tickets on my record, but I recently started taking a medication that could cause sudden blackouts. I am still allowed to drive. I also have an ADDICTION to mobile games. I try to limit my playing to stop lights, but if traffic seems light, I will try to get away with crushing a few candies while driving. Studies have shown this is MORE dangerous than drunk driving, but I don't feel like it is because again, I don't even have any tickets on my record. Yes, I have had a few close calls, and hit a few curbs, but I'm not stopping what I'm doing anytime soon. In fact I just got a mount for my dashboard so I can watch Youtube videos while I drive, so the problem is getting worse. I consider myself a good person, and a responsible person in general, but I will probably be responsible for a horrible accident at some point before I actually change my behavior. I'm hoping the self driving cars get here before that happens, because my attention holding skills and driving ability are on a serious downward trajectory. EDIT: To the people who got upset by this. I am sorry. This was Trollish behavior. I took patterns that I am seeing, and tried to personify them to make it more effective. You can see from some of my past posts, I have real concern about where smart phones are taking us, and I took my argument too far. I really did lose someone close to me because they were hit by a driver that was looking at a dick pic and not paying attention to the road. This has permanently effected my perspective on this issue. Also... the medication I was referring to was a normal SSRI Anti-depressant. These don't have any warnings about "operating heavy machinery", and are totally legal to take while driving. They don't cause black outs, but actual seizures in some people.

berberous 9y ago
I appreciate the honesty, and apologies if I am missing some sarcasm, but please do the world a favor and at least throw out the mount. You are aware of how negligent that behavior is. If you kill someone, it is inexcusable.
- triplesec 9y ago
  GP comment is likely writing fictionally, as a hypothetical counter to the GGP.
DTrejo 9y ago
Stop it already. How much do you want to kill someone?
sillysaurus3 9y ago
If you'd like someone to chat with, my email is in my profile.
sangnoir 9y ago
> I am still allowed to drive. Are you certain about that? Most jurisdictions I know have laws that make it illegal to drive in when your ability to drive is impaired - even if it's cough medicine that could make you drowsy - let alone blackout. edit: you are most likely breaking the law, that you haven't been caught yet isn't being "allowed to drive". Since we share the road with you, I'll repeat parent's appeal but directed to you: "help me, big government!"
- user5994461 9y ago
  It's likely that a blackout drug would have a provision in the paper saying "you are not allowed to drive while under this medication". It's quite common.
beep_boop_beep 9y ago
What I see here is someone who is advocating for the government to further regulate who can and can't operate a vehicle. Correct?
focusgroup0 9y ago
>yfw this comment is unearthed during discovery and you are f*ed in court
swinglock 9y ago
Get your act together, do you even realize that you’re a criminal?
- vlunkr 9y ago
  Read it again, they aren't being serious. Just illustrating different ways humans are dangerous drivers.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
xr4ti 9y ago
A big difference is accountability. If you get into an accident and kill someone while playing a mobile game or taking a medication that says, "do not operate heavy machinery while taking this," it's clear who is at fault, and it is relatively easy for the state and injured parties seek sanction and redress through the justice system. So what about an algorithm that has been given the regulatory green light and fails under some edge case or adversarial attack? How about something like the Tesla situation, where they advertise "self-driving" capabilities while tucking in some liability limiting fine print about how the driver should be alert and ready to take over control at all times?
- eru 9y ago
  Google says they want to be on the hook for their self-driving cars. (And they don't want humans to be able to take over in the first place.)
  - xr4ti 9y ago
    Sure. That way they can partner with insurers to offer lower rates to people who buy their tech. Pretty sound business strategy. I understand that this is a pretty cynical view, and to be fair all the Googlers I've spoken with are true believers in their tech (perhaps a little too much). But don't underestimate the power of ego and financial incentives to constrain ethical/moral calculus.
    - eru 9y ago
      Oh, it makes perfect business sense for Google to ask to be on the hook: less hassle for the customers means a bigger market for the product.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  This is an inaccurate description of the Tesla system. When you use it, the car repeatedly tells you that you have to stay alert, and it forces you to have your hands on the wheel most of the time.
emptyfile 9y ago
What's supposed to be the point of your post? That police can't catch every criminal?
iainmerrick 9y ago
I think this is mostly a regional problem. In some parts of the world, you'd be arrested for using your phone while driving -- and quite right too! This danger can be largely (unfortunately not totally) mitigated just by passing laws to prohibit dangerous driving, and enforcing them sensibly. It also helps if people agree that the rules are sensible and self-police them -- as happens in many countries with seat belts, for example. I agree that self-driving cars should improve safety, but the idea that they're the only way to improve safety is just wrong.

berberous 9y ago

I appreciate the honesty, and apologies if I am missing some sarcasm, but please do the world a favor and at least throw out the mount. You are aware of how negligent that behavior is. If you kill someone, it is inexcusable.

triplesec 9y ago
GP comment is likely writing fictionally, as a hypothetical counter to the GGP.

DTrejo 9y ago

Stop it already. How much do you want to kill someone?

sillysaurus3 9y ago

If you'd like someone to chat with, my email is in my profile.

sangnoir 9y ago

> I am still allowed to drive. Are you certain about that? Most jurisdictions I know have laws that make it illegal to drive in when your ability to drive is impaired - even if it's cough medicine that could make you drowsy - let alone blackout. edit: you are most likely breaking the law, that you haven't been caught yet isn't being "allowed to drive". Since we share the road with you, I'll repeat parent's appeal but directed to you: "help me, big government!"

user5994461 9y ago
It's likely that a blackout drug would have a provision in the paper saying "you are not allowed to drive while under this medication". It's quite common.

beep_boop_beep 9y ago

What I see here is someone who is advocating for the government to further regulate who can and can't operate a vehicle. Correct?

focusgroup0 9y ago

>yfw this comment is unearthed during discovery and you are f*ed in court

swinglock 9y ago

Get your act together, do you even realize that you’re a criminal?

vlunkr 9y ago
Read it again, they aren't being serious. Just illustrating different ways humans are dangerous drivers.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

xr4ti 9y ago

A big difference is accountability. If you get into an accident and kill someone while playing a mobile game or taking a medication that says, "do not operate heavy machinery while taking this," it's clear who is at fault, and it is relatively easy for the state and injured parties seek sanction and redress through the justice system. So what about an algorithm that has been given the regulatory green light and fails under some edge case or adversarial attack? How about something like the Tesla situation, where they advertise "self-driving" capabilities while tucking in some liability limiting fine print about how the driver should be alert and ready to take over control at all times?

eru 9y ago
Google says they want to be on the hook for their self-driving cars. (And they don't want humans to be able to take over in the first place.)
- xr4ti 9y ago
  Sure. That way they can partner with insurers to offer lower rates to people who buy their tech. Pretty sound business strategy. I understand that this is a pretty cynical view, and to be fair all the Googlers I've spoken with are true believers in their tech (perhaps a little too much). But don't underestimate the power of ego and financial incentives to constrain ethical/moral calculus.
  - eru 9y ago
    Oh, it makes perfect business sense for Google to ask to be on the hook: less hassle for the customers means a bigger market for the product.
greglindahl 9y ago
This is an inaccurate description of the Tesla system. When you use it, the car repeatedly tells you that you have to stay alert, and it forces you to have your hands on the wheel most of the time.

emptyfile 9y ago

What's supposed to be the point of your post? That police can't catch every criminal?

iainmerrick 9y ago

I think this is mostly a regional problem. In some parts of the world, you'd be arrested for using your phone while driving -- and quite right too! This danger can be largely (unfortunately not totally) mitigated just by passing laws to prohibit dangerous driving, and enforcing them sensibly. It also helps if people agree that the rules are sensible and self-police them -- as happens in many countries with seat belts, for example. I agree that self-driving cars should improve safety, but the idea that they're the only way to improve safety is just wrong.