4 ms·
This comment is not the way to win that culture war. Agree that using phones while driving is generally bad, but implying that it is irresponsible to use turn-
by RC_ITR 5y ago
This comment is not the way to win that culture war.
Agree that using phones while driving is generally bad, but implying that it is irresponsible to use turn-by-turn (and suggesting the alternative of just knowing where you are) is just more likely to make people ignore the problem all together.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- detaro 5y ago> but implying that it is irresponsible to use turn-by-turn It isn't irresponsible to use turn-by-turn navigation (and I don't think GP is implying that). It's irresponsible to fiddle with the phone you are using for that purpose while driving.
- perl4ever 5y ago>It isn't irresponsible to use turn-by-turn navigation (and I don't think GP is implying that) They wrote: "...intentional decision making processes that lead up to a crash (for instance, using an app to navigate..." They straight out stated that using navigation predictably leads to crashes and must be regarded as intentional. So I don't see any way to avoid the conclusion that they think navigation is ethically and practically the same as DUI/DWI.
- version_five 5y agoI've seen this "accident" redefinition around before, it looks to me like some silly armchair pedantry, combining the sports of redefining words and judging others. We have courts that can judge culpability / responsibility and decide if a collision was a no fault accident or something negligent, deliberate, whatever. But we also have these neo-political thugs that want to try and use language to manipulate and define what we are allowed to do, so you get these childish redefinitions.
- riffic 5y agoIt's not a redefinition- it's an acknowledgment of the actual definition of the word.