5 ms·

1. Smartphones allow video games while driving. 2. Isn't the intention to allow passengers to use the screen? 3. Idiots who don't pay attention to the road al

1. Smartphones allow video games while driving. 2. Isn't the intention to allow passengers to use the screen? 3. Idiots who don't pay attention to the road already don't pay attention to the road. They are text messaging, checking notifications, putting on makeup, playing candy crush on their phone, watching netflix on their phone, scrolling twitter, reading email, looking for podcasts and on and on.

rootusrootus 5y ago
> 2. Isn't the intention to allow passengers to use the screen? If it were a separate screen in front of the passenger, this would be a good argument. But since it is the screen the driver is supposed to look at for driving-related information...
- hunterb123 5y ago
  > supposed to look at for driving-related information... You should be looking at your instrument cluster, not the middle screen for essential driving related information. - edit - I stand corrected, there is no instrument cluster (only aftermarket ones I mistook for stock). So does this split the screen or take over the whole screen? If it splits it, I'm still okay with it, if it's the whole screen I'm not.
  - buffington 5y ago
    There is no instrument cluster in a Model 3.
givemeethekeys 5y ago
If, while driving, the car gets into a wreck and it is found that the driver was playing video games while driving, then the car maker should be held at least partially liable. On the other hand, if the driver decided to install their own game system so that they can drive and game at the same time - that would make it solely the driver's responsibility.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  If you're fiddling with the radio dial or anything else and not looking at the road should the car maker also be held accountable? No. Adults should be held accountable for their actions. It's not hard to pay attention to the road. - edit - To below, please don't quote out of context and put words into my mouth. Answer the question whether or not a manufacturer should be held accountable if a driver is fiddling with the radio dial and strikes another car or pedestrian. Maybe it's just HN, but everyone seems to want an authoritarian lawsuit-happy nanny-state these days. Sad times.
  - nosianu 5y ago
    > Adults should be held accountable for their actions. Great, we agree! Tesla and its managers and owners should be held liable then for adding distractions. Because humans are not being rational computers, but biological beings that very much react to incentives. Also see "dark patterns" and "marketing", all the many ways to trick human brains often into doing things against their own rational interest (like spending money they don't have for things they don't need). That only the final person doing something is 100% responsible for all their actions only works for humans with no history and living in an isolation chamber. I know that that could raise the made-up counter-argument "nobody is accountable for their actions", but acknowledging what is does not prevent society from judging actions. You can do both, judge individual actions but also recognize that incentives and the bigger picture matters. You can punish individual actions such as murderer (random example) and still do something to lower the rate at which they occur. So anyone getting distracted sure can be held accountable - but we can also do something in advance that the number of such cases is lowered.
  - givemeethekeys 5y ago
    One can adjust a radio before they start driving. After that, there are volume controls and other physical controls available for adjustments without taking one's eyes off the road. Videogames on the other hand require the driver's complete attention while the car is still moving. If a manufacturer installs video games for the driver to be able to play while they're driving, then yes, they should be held liable for any accidents caused due to playing video games while driving. You don't need a "nanny state" law to specifically outlaw something to find someone liable. Existing laws are sufficient and a civil lawsuit will do plenty of damage. I bet if someone dies because of distracted driving due to playing a Tesla videogame, a software update will roll out the very next day.
eldaisfish 5y ago
exactly what is the logic behind your comparison with smartphones? AFAIK, they are not a giant screen bolted to the centre of your car. Playing games on a system that's integral to the car is a benefit for passengers how exactly? Laws exist to protect said idiots from themselves and others from them. The existence of idiots and bad behaviour does not mean that you further enable dangerous behaviour.
spicybright 5y ago
Of course, but it doesn't mean we have to be ok adding even more temptations.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  That's subjective and I disagree. There are near unlimited temptations already, adding another one does nothing. The onus is on the individual. How about we all just live in a bubble? That'll solve everything. - edit - Reaching for a cookie and violating your diet is not the same as forgetting to look at the fricken road. Either way though, it's your personal responsibility. You can't sue the cookie company because you're a fat ass.
  - spicybright 5y ago
    Ease of access actually has a huge effect on how likely someone will reach for it. Taking out the phone, mounting it to the dash, unlocking the screen, etc. vs tapping a few times on the big touchscreen already there are different levels of effort. If you're on a diet, you're less likely to eat cookies if you have to go down the street to the store than if they're already in your cupboard. Doesn't mean you're being oppressed by some cookie-proof bubble.
  - manicdee 5y ago
    Games being played on the screen in front of the driver is not a good idea, it’s just another distraction with motion and blinking lights that even the most disciplined driver can’t ignore.
    - hunterb123 5y ago
      It's not in front of the driver and if you can't keep your eyes on the road then you shouldn't be driving anyway. I hope many people in this thread aren't driving.
      - manicdee 5y ago
        Human vision is the problem here, not bad drivers. Are you going to accuse pilots of being bad at their jobs when they can't fly a plane while a laser is pointed in their eyes?

rootusrootus 5y ago

> 2. Isn't the intention to allow passengers to use the screen? If it were a separate screen in front of the passenger, this would be a good argument. But since it is the screen the driver is supposed to look at for driving-related information...

hunterb123 5y ago
> supposed to look at for driving-related information... You should be looking at your instrument cluster, not the middle screen for essential driving related information. - edit - I stand corrected, there is no instrument cluster (only aftermarket ones I mistook for stock). So does this split the screen or take over the whole screen? If it splits it, I'm still okay with it, if it's the whole screen I'm not.
- buffington 5y ago
  There is no instrument cluster in a Model 3.

givemeethekeys 5y ago

If, while driving, the car gets into a wreck and it is found that the driver was playing video games while driving, then the car maker should be held at least partially liable. On the other hand, if the driver decided to install their own game system so that they can drive and game at the same time - that would make it solely the driver's responsibility.

hunterb123 5y ago
If you're fiddling with the radio dial or anything else and not looking at the road should the car maker also be held accountable? No. Adults should be held accountable for their actions. It's not hard to pay attention to the road. - edit - To below, please don't quote out of context and put words into my mouth. Answer the question whether or not a manufacturer should be held accountable if a driver is fiddling with the radio dial and strikes another car or pedestrian. Maybe it's just HN, but everyone seems to want an authoritarian lawsuit-happy nanny-state these days. Sad times.
- nosianu 5y ago
  > Adults should be held accountable for their actions. Great, we agree! Tesla and its managers and owners should be held liable then for adding distractions. Because humans are not being rational computers, but biological beings that very much react to incentives. Also see "dark patterns" and "marketing", all the many ways to trick human brains often into doing things against their own rational interest (like spending money they don't have for things they don't need). That only the final person doing something is 100% responsible for all their actions only works for humans with no history and living in an isolation chamber. I know that that could raise the made-up counter-argument "nobody is accountable for their actions", but acknowledging what is does not prevent society from judging actions. You can do both, judge individual actions but also recognize that incentives and the bigger picture matters. You can punish individual actions such as murderer (random example) and still do something to lower the rate at which they occur. So anyone getting distracted sure can be held accountable - but we can also do something in advance that the number of such cases is lowered.
- givemeethekeys 5y ago
  One can adjust a radio before they start driving. After that, there are volume controls and other physical controls available for adjustments without taking one's eyes off the road. Videogames on the other hand require the driver's complete attention while the car is still moving. If a manufacturer installs video games for the driver to be able to play while they're driving, then yes, they should be held liable for any accidents caused due to playing video games while driving. You don't need a "nanny state" law to specifically outlaw something to find someone liable. Existing laws are sufficient and a civil lawsuit will do plenty of damage. I bet if someone dies because of distracted driving due to playing a Tesla videogame, a software update will roll out the very next day.

eldaisfish 5y ago

exactly what is the logic behind your comparison with smartphones? AFAIK, they are not a giant screen bolted to the centre of your car. Playing games on a system that's integral to the car is a benefit for passengers how exactly? Laws exist to protect said idiots from themselves and others from them. The existence of idiots and bad behaviour does not mean that you further enable dangerous behaviour.

spicybright 5y ago

Of course, but it doesn't mean we have to be ok adding even more temptations.

hunterb123 5y ago
That's subjective and I disagree. There are near unlimited temptations already, adding another one does nothing. The onus is on the individual. How about we all just live in a bubble? That'll solve everything. - edit - Reaching for a cookie and violating your diet is not the same as forgetting to look at the fricken road. Either way though, it's your personal responsibility. You can't sue the cookie company because you're a fat ass.
- spicybright 5y ago
  Ease of access actually has a huge effect on how likely someone will reach for it. Taking out the phone, mounting it to the dash, unlocking the screen, etc. vs tapping a few times on the big touchscreen already there are different levels of effort. If you're on a diet, you're less likely to eat cookies if you have to go down the street to the store than if they're already in your cupboard. Doesn't mean you're being oppressed by some cookie-proof bubble.
- manicdee 5y ago
  Games being played on the screen in front of the driver is not a good idea, it’s just another distraction with motion and blinking lights that even the most disciplined driver can’t ignore.
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    It's not in front of the driver and if you can't keep your eyes on the road then you shouldn't be driving anyway. I hope many people in this thread aren't driving.
    - manicdee 5y ago
      Human vision is the problem here, not bad drivers. Are you going to accuse pilots of being bad at their jobs when they can't fly a plane while a laser is pointed in their eyes?