5 ms·

Do you yourself drive? It's easy to make these demands when you're not affected by the resulting inefficiency.

by quotemstr 7y ago

ticmasta 7y ago
heaven for bid we impact "driving efficiency" for something as low-priority as public safety...
- quotemstr 7y ago
  Why is "safety" the most important consideration? A world that values safety above everything else is a pretty dismal world --- and it's a world without cars at all.
  - hombre_fatal 7y ago
    A single distracted person in a vehicle can inflict an incredible amount of death and damage upon those around them. This isn't just the government making you wear a straitjacket to protect you from yourself. Also, I'm on board with a world that minimizes ape-driven cars. I can't even imagine how much more amazing my city would be in that utopia. I don't understand why pulling over before fiddling with your gadgets is so much to ask of you, though.
  - jjulius 7y ago
    >Why is "safety" the most important consideration? Because driving is an inherently dangerous act, and we should be doing as much as we can to minimize said danger. We wake up and leave the house understanding that there are a litany of risks in the world that could bring harm to us. Many of these risks, such as driving, are accepted because we put restrictions on drivers to minimize the risk of harm that they would otherwise pose. Driving requires a significant amount of focus and attention from the driver. What you're arguing for is to allow drivers to remove their attention and focus from the situation entirely. Should they use their GPS while operating their car, they then become unaware of what is happening around them and are unable to respond quickly and safely. Do you really think that is OK?
  - megablast 7y ago
    > and it's a world without cars at all. And a wonderful world that would be.
jjulius 7y ago
I drive 2+ hours round-trip for work every weekday, and my work often has me visiting client sites during the week. I find nothing difficult about setting my destination via GPS before I begin my drive, and I find that my attention to what's going on around me is significantly diminished should I attempt to modify my route while driving. An inconvenience of, say, 5-10 minutes to find a place to pull over and input new coordinates is absolutely worth it to prevent an expensive collision or running into, say, a motorcyclist I haven't seen because I'm staring at my phone. I cannot believe people are arguing for "efficiency" over traffic safety.
- quotemstr 7y ago
  > absolutely worth it Can you demonstrate, using numbers, that the tradeoff is positive? > I cannot believe people are arguing for "efficiency" over traffic safety. People prioritize efficiency over safety all the time. It's a good thing. So do you, if you support non-zero speed limits. The current animus against cell phone use while driving is the result of a moral panic, not a rational cost-benefit tradeoff. > If I pull over to a safe place to use my phone, nobody is harmed. Untrue. The act of pulling is itself is a complex maneuver that practically invites accidents. Most accidents occur at low speed, and often, when you pull over, you pull over into an area where pedestrians are active. It might be the case that pulling over instead of using a phone at a red light results in more people being injured or killed. https://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/lytx-fleet-accidents-low-speed https://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/lytx-fleet-accidents-... > My wife was rear-ended while waiting Anecdotal personal misfortune is not an argument for society-wide policy.
  - jjulius 7y ago
    Gonna respond with this separate post, since OP edited their post to respond to mine. >Untrue. The act of pulling is itself is a complex maneuver that practically invites accidents. Most accidents occur at low speed, and often, when you pull over, you pull over into an area where pedestrians are active. It might be the case that pulling over instead of using a phone at a red light results in more people being injured or killed. As I've said before, driving is always an inherently dangerous act, and I'm not disputing that point. It seems to me as though you don't believe risks should be mitigated; that you're saying, "Well, pulling over could be pretty dangerous, so I think you should still be allowed to distract yourself with your phone while driving". Is that correct? Driving in an area with a lot of pedestrians is certainly dangerous, but to my point, it's far more dangerous if the driver is staring at their phone rather than consciously looking for people walking around in an effort to avoid them. >Anecdotal personal misfortune is not an argument for society-wide policy. Again - how is not getting into an accident "not a rational cost-benefit tradeoff"? Can you provide any sort of valid argument in support of taking your eyes off of the road? Do you have any kind of data that shows that not looking at the road is safer, or for that matter safe at all?

Do you yourself drive? It's easy to make these demands when you're not affected by the resulting inefficiency.

ticmasta 7y ago

heaven for bid we impact "driving efficiency" for something as low-priority as public safety...

quotemstr 7y ago
Why is "safety" the most important consideration? A world that values safety above everything else is a pretty dismal world --- and it's a world without cars at all.
- hombre_fatal 7y ago
  A single distracted person in a vehicle can inflict an incredible amount of death and damage upon those around them. This isn't just the government making you wear a straitjacket to protect you from yourself. Also, I'm on board with a world that minimizes ape-driven cars. I can't even imagine how much more amazing my city would be in that utopia. I don't understand why pulling over before fiddling with your gadgets is so much to ask of you, though.
- jjulius 7y ago
  >Why is "safety" the most important consideration? Because driving is an inherently dangerous act, and we should be doing as much as we can to minimize said danger. We wake up and leave the house understanding that there are a litany of risks in the world that could bring harm to us. Many of these risks, such as driving, are accepted because we put restrictions on drivers to minimize the risk of harm that they would otherwise pose. Driving requires a significant amount of focus and attention from the driver. What you're arguing for is to allow drivers to remove their attention and focus from the situation entirely. Should they use their GPS while operating their car, they then become unaware of what is happening around them and are unable to respond quickly and safely. Do you really think that is OK?
- megablast 7y ago
  > and it's a world without cars at all. And a wonderful world that would be.

jjulius 7y ago

I drive 2+ hours round-trip for work every weekday, and my work often has me visiting client sites during the week. I find nothing difficult about setting my destination via GPS before I begin my drive, and I find that my attention to what's going on around me is significantly diminished should I attempt to modify my route while driving. An inconvenience of, say, 5-10 minutes to find a place to pull over and input new coordinates is absolutely worth it to prevent an expensive collision or running into, say, a motorcyclist I haven't seen because I'm staring at my phone. I cannot believe people are arguing for "efficiency" over traffic safety.

quotemstr 7y ago
> absolutely worth it Can you demonstrate, using numbers, that the tradeoff is positive? > I cannot believe people are arguing for "efficiency" over traffic safety. People prioritize efficiency over safety all the time. It's a good thing. So do you, if you support non-zero speed limits. The current animus against cell phone use while driving is the result of a moral panic, not a rational cost-benefit tradeoff. > If I pull over to a safe place to use my phone, nobody is harmed. Untrue. The act of pulling is itself is a complex maneuver that practically invites accidents. Most accidents occur at low speed, and often, when you pull over, you pull over into an area where pedestrians are active. It might be the case that pulling over instead of using a phone at a red light results in more people being injured or killed. https://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/lytx-fleet-accidents-low-speed https://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/lytx-fleet-accidents-... > My wife was rear-ended while waiting Anecdotal personal misfortune is not an argument for society-wide policy.
- jjulius 7y ago
  Gonna respond with this separate post, since OP edited their post to respond to mine. >Untrue. The act of pulling is itself is a complex maneuver that practically invites accidents. Most accidents occur at low speed, and often, when you pull over, you pull over into an area where pedestrians are active. It might be the case that pulling over instead of using a phone at a red light results in more people being injured or killed. As I've said before, driving is always an inherently dangerous act, and I'm not disputing that point. It seems to me as though you don't believe risks should be mitigated; that you're saying, "Well, pulling over could be pretty dangerous, so I think you should still be allowed to distract yourself with your phone while driving". Is that correct? Driving in an area with a lot of pedestrians is certainly dangerous, but to my point, it's far more dangerous if the driver is staring at their phone rather than consciously looking for people walking around in an effort to avoid them. >Anecdotal personal misfortune is not an argument for society-wide policy. Again - how is not getting into an accident "not a rational cost-benefit tradeoff"? Can you provide any sort of valid argument in support of taking your eyes off of the road? Do you have any kind of data that shows that not looking at the road is safer, or for that matter safe at all?