4 ms·

Why is it the cars job to even decide if I should be allowed to use the GPS? I have GPS in my car, but I use an external one because the internal one is so ann

by ars 3y ago

Why is it the cars job to even decide if I should be allowed to use the GPS? I have GPS in my car, but I use an external one because the internal one is so annoying this way - the first time I got lost because my passenger could not interact with the GPS was also the last time I used it.

avar 3y ago
Sure, but that's tangential to this sub-thread. The GP is taking the nanny-ware as a given, and narrowly asking why the passenger isn't allowed to bypass it. I'm pointing out that cars don't have a is_occupied_by_human(), just car_seat_weight() and seat_belt_in_use(). That it works this way isn't obvious to anyone who hasn't looked into it.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > I’m pointing out that cars don’t have a is_occupied_by_human(), just car_seat_weight() and seat_belt_in_use(). Um, except they actually do, and its used to control safety-related equipment (passenger=side airbag), safety notifications (passenger airbag and seatbelt lights), and alarms (passenger seatbelt not in use when seat occupied alarm). It may not be wired into the infotainment system, though.
WWLink 3y ago
> Why is it the cars job to even decide if I should be allowed to use the GPS? "I'm a good multitasker! I can do this perfectly safely! Why shouldn't I? Cops do it all the time!" Every time I've seen this sorta subject come up on car-related forums there's a non-negligible amount of people who carry an opinion like that.
- ars 3y ago
  But I guess my phone doesn't have a nanny? Are we planning to nanny the entire world? Putting a nanny on a car is just stupid. Especially because, surprise, surprise, passengers actually do sometimes ride in cars! This is simply not the job of the car.
  - WWLink 3y ago
    Then let the passenger do that shit on their own phone. Why do you need them entering stuff into the car's nav unit? That shit is distracting anyway. Don't half-ass shit. Besides, we all know you want to fucking watch TV while you drive.
- messe 3y ago
  Not just car related forums, those people are everywhere. I've seen someone on this site call for the abolition of drunk driving laws, arguing that the punishable act should be driving recklessly rather than the factors that led to the reckless driving; because of course, if you think you can drive drunk safely, then why shouldn't you be allowed to (/s)?
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    I'd be more inclined to agree with their arguments if the driving test tested more than just having a pulse. Sure if you can demonstrate that you can do X activity safely it seems reasonable to allow you to do so. However, that hasn't been demonstrated.
  - avar 3y ago
    That's idiotic, but current drunk driving laws in most places are overzealous in punishing responsible behavior. E.g. sleeping off your drunkenness while sitting in the front seat with the keys within reach. Starting the car to run the heater or AC might get you additional punishment.
    - lmm 3y ago
      Is that really "most places"? I only ever heard of such weird laws happening in one country.
  - patrick451 3y ago
    I think you should be able to take a driving test while intoxicated. You'd get an endorsement on your license that your permitted to drive up the BAC level you tested at.
    - HarryHirsch 3y ago
      It's really not funny because it doesn't stop there. Two or three years ago a completely habituated faculty member at UMass Amherst hit a pedestrian in a mall parking lot with something like 0.25 % BAC. Ordinary people would cycle between bed and bathroom at that level of intoxication and feel very sorry for themselves, but terminal addicts go out to the mall and exceed the limits of even their tolerance. Woman fell up the ladder and is now a named chair at a different institution. It's bizarre - it ought to occur to such people that ordinary folks cannot function with six or eight beers in the head, and that they ought to seek treatment for their condition but it just doesn't. No tolerance for alcohol behind the wheel.
- Turskarama 3y ago
  The problem is that these people will find a way to "multitask" no matter how hard the car makes it. Often by just doing it with their phone instead.
jdietrich 3y ago
Because if someone crashes and dies while fiddling about with the GPS, their family might sue. Two lines of code to prevent a potential slew of multi-million dollar lawsuits is an easy risk-benefit decision for the manufacturer. They don't have to bear the cost of being slightly annoyed by the GPS and they know that customers don't check that sort of thing before they buy.
- amluto 3y ago
  Maybe a solution is for someone to sue the next time a car is navigating to the wrong place or otherwise misconfigured, there’s a passenger in the car, and the car won’t let the passenger fix it. (Almost every modern car knows when there is a passenger in the front passenger seat — they could feed this knowledge to the infotainment system.)

by ars 3y ago

avar 3y ago

Sure, but that's tangential to this sub-thread. The GP is taking the nanny-ware as a given, and narrowly asking why the passenger isn't allowed to bypass it. I'm pointing out that cars don't have a is_occupied_by_human(), just car_seat_weight() and seat_belt_in_use(). That it works this way isn't obvious to anyone who hasn't looked into it.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> I’m pointing out that cars don’t have a is_occupied_by_human(), just car_seat_weight() and seat_belt_in_use(). Um, except they actually do, and its used to control safety-related equipment (passenger=side airbag), safety notifications (passenger airbag and seatbelt lights), and alarms (passenger seatbelt not in use when seat occupied alarm). It may not be wired into the infotainment system, though.

WWLink 3y ago

> Why is it the cars job to even decide if I should be allowed to use the GPS? "I'm a good multitasker! I can do this perfectly safely! Why shouldn't I? Cops do it all the time!" Every time I've seen this sorta subject come up on car-related forums there's a non-negligible amount of people who carry an opinion like that.

ars 3y ago
But I guess my phone doesn't have a nanny? Are we planning to nanny the entire world? Putting a nanny on a car is just stupid. Especially because, surprise, surprise, passengers actually do sometimes ride in cars! This is simply not the job of the car.
- WWLink 3y ago
  Then let the passenger do that shit on their own phone. Why do you need them entering stuff into the car's nav unit? That shit is distracting anyway. Don't half-ass shit. Besides, we all know you want to fucking watch TV while you drive.
messe 3y ago
Not just car related forums, those people are everywhere. I've seen someone on this site call for the abolition of drunk driving laws, arguing that the punishable act should be driving recklessly rather than the factors that led to the reckless driving; because of course, if you think you can drive drunk safely, then why shouldn't you be allowed to (/s)?
- lesuorac 3y ago
  I'd be more inclined to agree with their arguments if the driving test tested more than just having a pulse. Sure if you can demonstrate that you can do X activity safely it seems reasonable to allow you to do so. However, that hasn't been demonstrated.
- avar 3y ago
  That's idiotic, but current drunk driving laws in most places are overzealous in punishing responsible behavior. E.g. sleeping off your drunkenness while sitting in the front seat with the keys within reach. Starting the car to run the heater or AC might get you additional punishment.
  - lmm 3y ago
    Is that really "most places"? I only ever heard of such weird laws happening in one country.
- patrick451 3y ago
  I think you should be able to take a driving test while intoxicated. You'd get an endorsement on your license that your permitted to drive up the BAC level you tested at.
  - HarryHirsch 3y ago
    It's really not funny because it doesn't stop there. Two or three years ago a completely habituated faculty member at UMass Amherst hit a pedestrian in a mall parking lot with something like 0.25 % BAC. Ordinary people would cycle between bed and bathroom at that level of intoxication and feel very sorry for themselves, but terminal addicts go out to the mall and exceed the limits of even their tolerance. Woman fell up the ladder and is now a named chair at a different institution. It's bizarre - it ought to occur to such people that ordinary folks cannot function with six or eight beers in the head, and that they ought to seek treatment for their condition but it just doesn't. No tolerance for alcohol behind the wheel.
Turskarama 3y ago
The problem is that these people will find a way to "multitask" no matter how hard the car makes it. Often by just doing it with their phone instead.

jdietrich 3y ago

Because if someone crashes and dies while fiddling about with the GPS, their family might sue. Two lines of code to prevent a potential slew of multi-million dollar lawsuits is an easy risk-benefit decision for the manufacturer. They don't have to bear the cost of being slightly annoyed by the GPS and they know that customers don't check that sort of thing before they buy.

amluto 3y ago
Maybe a solution is for someone to sue the next time a car is navigating to the wrong place or otherwise misconfigured, there’s a passenger in the car, and the car won’t let the passenger fix it. (Almost every modern car knows when there is a passenger in the front passenger seat — they could feed this knowledge to the infotainment system.)