Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: S-99 on March 25, 2014, 01:48:14 am
-
These are some damn ignorant dangerous mother****ers, or damn stupid dangerous mother****ers (http://www.twitspotting.com/). It's either ignorance or stupidity for people who do this. I have yet to see when sending a text while doing something that requires a lot of focus and attention will actually matter in a life or death scenario other than killing other people because of negligence.
As much as i denounce the practice of texting while driving, few actually agree with me through actually not texting while driving. A lot of people simply agree that texting while driving is bad, but continue to do so. Or others selfishly get passionately angry when they disagree, defending their practice to be a dangerous asshole on the road because they can't fathom being disconnected from their gadget and would rather have the preference of continuing to be stupid or ignorant. All for the sake of the perceived conveniences of texting while driving (I bet a lot of this has to do with self entitlement with the continued practice for passionately angry and wrong idiots).
The great thing is now people are taking pictures of it :lol:
As far as needing to always respond to a phone call and text 24/7. What's the point, i've always thought. I don't let devices that are designed to bother me, bother me so much by not staying connected to them. Some of my old buddies have lost me as a friend because of this. I always loved how these people always made it seem like i go home to enter a room where there's nothing but me and the hypersleep chamber. And that i always wake up from hypersleep just to respond to a text or phone call, and then immediately go back to hyper sleep until i get another text message. These people got angry when i mentioned that i'm a busy guy, and there's more important things than being tied to my phone and letting it control me (let alone them controlling me). The animosity of my noncompliance really hit the wall when these people continued to insist i was never busy so much so that i moved out of state (**** alaska). That's right, the stress free life of not worrying about if my best friend just brushed his teeth via phone, traded itself in for stress in real life by those demanding teeth brushers (we all brush our teeth every night, who cares; if you don't, have fun with dentures and i still don't care).
These old friends use to be people who respected my wishes to all who became co-dependent on my strength as an individual and not respecting my wishes (i don't know why they chose to eventually have no ambition, goals, and eliminate high standards from their lives; when they had none of theirs, they sure wanted mine in lack of themselves, never did they improve). The only wish i had was leave me alone when i want to be left alone, which eventually turned into a leave me alone and never talk to me again whether you like it or not.
What does my little story have to do with anything here at the end? If you can't not be away from devices like your phone, computer, tablet...internet for more than 5 minutes, then you are addicted to them, and will most likely participate with these devices on the road. If people panic because their phone is lot, it should be because they were expecting an important call or text message. An important call or text message is not finding out that app you have to find out if scruffy is ok on your home cameras every 2 seconds, getting a text message about an egg going bad if you have a smart egg tray in your fridge, finding out that your ex is going out with a new guy, or constantly ignoring the fact that surfing the net on a 2x3 inch screen is inefficient as all hell (i know, there's bigger screens now, usability didn't change much). Perhaps these people don't understand what bull**** it is to punish a friend over not replying or not even wanting to reply to a text (yeah, get your head tore off because you didn't text back "k").
If people are potentially certifiably crazy and in other cases insane because of their portable devices. Then a lot don't realize it, and i certainly don't want you on the road with me since you can't separate bull**** from the important stuff. This leads many unable to separate their phone from their driving, let alone other activities. If someone gets me into a wreck because they were bull****ting with their phone, if i am able and uninjured, i will kick their ass for their piss poor example of what is important and what is not. I'm pretty sure that would be the only thing to get it through their head on not how they wronged me, and possibly other people, and how much they cost me money and possibly others with something so easily preventable (then maybe then, that person won't be thinking about themselves; i do doubt that this person would be unable to realize that i can't pick cars off trees). I probably sound a bit extreme, but with possibly being seen as having a lack of sympathy and empathy, i would call the person who kills people unintentionally while driving on their phone just as cold.
To put it in a weird great way. Whenever you take a driving test to qualify for a drivers license, part of the test is not bring your cell phone with you and try to manage it while driving. It's not part of the test, you'd fail if you brought out your cell phone with the driving instructor in the vehicle while driving. The most the instructor should see you do is toss it in the trunk or glove box, or just leave it in your pocket. If you want to have your head torn off for not replying to your buddy brushing their teeth, do it after you get your license when you're never driving :yes:
-
http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html
It's not only insanely stupid but illegal in most states (and good grief why isn't it that way everywhere yet?). Good on those who photograph offenders.
-
Heck, I already find taking phone calls on hands-free sets to be rather egrious (as it diverts attention from the road). However, I can understand that it is in some cases neccesary (if, for example, your kid calls you because his bicycle has broken down/has been stolen and needs a pickup). But texting? That should be classed as reckless driving.
-
I admit I am guilty of this.
-
I admit I am guilty of this.
:headz:
-
I've always thought that instead of a fine, we should force people caught breaking the rules like this to enter a race while forced to do the same actions that they were arrested for. Drunk drivers would be loaded up to the same blood alcohol level they were arrested at. Texting drivers would be given a phone that explodes unless a certain amount of text is entered every minute, etc.
I'm sure the resulting carnage would pay for itself in TV rights. :p
-
http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html
It's not only insanely stupid but illegal in most states (and good grief why isn't it that way everywhere yet?). Good on those who photograph offenders.
While it's true that texting while driving is illegal in most places, enforcement is woeful. They'd rather go after speeders for whatever reason, even though "speed kills" is blatant horse****. As a motorcyclist, I've had to cultivate nearly superhuman observation skills and reflexes to avoid these worthless ****wits who treat a microwave oven as more dangerous than their 3000 pound death cage.
-
I am of the opinion that texting while driving should carry double the demerits of speeding and lead to revocation of license after two offences. Want to talk about detterrence, there would be a good one.
I am also of the opinion that those who kill someone while driving under the influence of drugs/alcohol, texting, or talking on a non-hands-free device should spend at minimum two years in prison and be banned from driving for life afterward.
Frankly, driving drunk, texting while driving, or talking on a phone are all voluntary behaviours. A vehicle is a massive, lethal weapon when used improperly, and, IMHO, these behaviours are no different than repeatedly firing a gun into a crowd of people without aiming. Sure, most of the time you won't kill someone, but sooner or later...
-
Thing is, speeding can be detected and controlled quite easily. Texting while driving, not so much, unless you happen to have an appropriate vantage point.
-
But Copernicus was wrong! I'm the center of the solar system. Updating my twitter feed overrides everyone else's expectation that I conduct myself and this quarter ton hunk of speedy death in a safe manner.
This is why everyone should be forced to drive manual transmission. As much as I would miss not being a snobby elite looking down at all the auto plebes HOWAS really makes doing anything other than driving extremely difficult.
-
This is why everyone should be forced to drive manual transmission.
I am also of the opinion that, to obtain a DL in North America, you should at least be able to demonstrate the ability to start, shift, and stop in a car with a manual transmission. The massive shift to automatics has correlated strongly with increased driver distraction and stupidity. It's actually funny - one of the best ways of ensuring your car won't be stolen in the US and Canada is to buy one with a manual transmission. (And it goes without saying that I will have a manual as long as I can still buy one).
-
The insane thing is car manufacturers being allowed to shovel garbage like entertainment systems, touch screens, hands-free Bluetooth crap, etc., into cars. Distracted driving is a plague; we should be making it HARDER to take your focus off of driving, not easier. Not to mention the fact that cars are becoming too expensive for the average person to afford and this is making the problem worse. Strip all of that crap out of cars, give them three pedals and a gated shifter, give them short gear ratios. I wish we could give them Faraday cages, but that won't fly with the PC safety Nazis.
-
If you want safe driving, you have to eliminate the drivers. No more human control over the vehicle. No matter how much stuff you do to make someone pay attention to the road, there's always going to be people capable of ignoring it all.
-
This is why everyone should be forced to drive manual transmission.
(And it goes without saying that I will have a manual as long as I can still buy one).
I have a fear that manuals will eventually vanish... I love my manual, it's the only thing that makes driving bearable.
I tried to use my phone and drive several times before, each time on a quiet road, by myself. I find it hard enough to hold it let alone use it, I just can't fathom how people can use their devices with such attention devoted to it while their vehicle is on autopilot, or lack of for that matter. :/
-
I simply can't figure out HOW to use my phone and drive at the same time. How do these guys pull it off?
e: That's right, they do it by crashing. :sigh:
Once, I almost got knocked off the highway by a guy who was on his phone while driving an 18 wheeler. Just think about that for a second.
-
I have to admit, that as much as I hate it, I am guilty of - a very few times and not ever anymore - texting. With my blackberry with physical keys, it was easy to blind type and just blink over to make sure it was correct. After switching to touchscreen typing, it is literally impossible to focus on the road.
-
oh i never text while driving. when i must, i stop the car (it's easy if you try it). my big sin here is sometimes (rarely) i do look at twitter.
-
Frankly, driving drunk, texting while driving, or talking on a phone are all voluntary behaviours.
Gotta argue, on a technicality: drinking is a voluntary behavior; what you do once you're drunk... less so.
-
Frankly, driving drunk, texting while driving, or talking on a phone are all voluntary behaviours.
Gotta argue, on a technicality: drinking is a voluntary behavior; what you do once you're drunk... less so.
I disagree. You intended to get home by car. You intended to get drunk before you got home. Therefore, you intended to drive whilst drunk.
-
If you get **** faced, get into a car and murder someone you should be charged with highest penalties possible, I'd personally prefer First Degree Murder. There is no magic mystery that your ability to drive an automobile is impaired. If you DUI you made a premeditated choice to put your personal indulgence over other peoples' lives.
-
I'm sure every once in a while someone gets drunk at home and goes on an impromptu errand in their car, etc.
You intended to get home by car. You intended to get drunk before you got home. Therefore, you intended to drive whilst drunk.
When you play the last mission of FS2 and you destroy any of the cruisers, do you intend to cause the Capella supernova? No, you intended to protect the convoy. The fact that the supernova won't happen if you don't destroy those cruisers has no bearing on what your intentions were. Even if you were thinking about it as you played the mission, and you made a conscious decision to go ahead and destroy the cruisers anyway, your intent is still "play the mission the way it was meant to be played", not "cause a supernova".
You want to blame them for their negligence, or willful negligence. That's fine. But "intent" is about what their objectives were, not what the reasonably foreseeable consequences are.
-
I'm sure every once in a while someone gets drunk at home and goes on an impromptu errand in their car, etc.
I'm sure they shouldn't, because its dangerous, irresponsible, and ILLEGAL. I would hope none of our members do, but I may be wrong.
You want to blame them for their negligence, or willful negligence. That's fine. But "intent" is about what their objectives were, not what the reasonably foreseeable consequences are.
Correct. Which is why impaired driving causing death cases are not treated as first degree murder, but rather more akin to criminal negligence causing death... except with lighter sentences.
The discrepancy is that some people think driving under the influence is perfectly fine, and the justice system does not treat it all that harshly, which makes the probability of them in turn killing someone while driving impaired that much higher, except it isn't treated all that seriously either... which brings me back to my earlier point: penalties for driving under the influence, particularly where serious injury or death occurs, are nowhere near harsh enough. It is a subset of criminal negligence causing death, yet it is not treated nearly so harshly.
-
Like this little gem of legal stupidity? (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/12/affluenza-dwi-dui-texas/3999487/)
-
I'm sure every once in a while someone gets drunk at home and goes on an impromptu errand in their car, etc.
I don't.
Regardless, if I did and caused someone harm, I would not forgive myself.
You intended to get home by car. You intended to get drunk before you got home. Therefore, you intended to drive whilst drunk.
When you play the last mission of FS2 and you destroy any of the cruisers, do you intend to cause the Capella supernova? No, you intended to protect the convoy. The fact that the supernova won't happen if you don't destroy those cruisers has no bearing on what your intentions were. Even if you were thinking about it as you played the mission, and you made a conscious decision to go ahead and destroy the cruisers anyway, your intent is still "play the mission the way it was meant to be played", not "cause a supernova".
Are you being told the first time you start FS2 that destroying the cruisers causes a supernova, like there are consistent advertisement campaigns about drunken driving and that knowing the effects of alcohol on driving is something you need to know in order to pass your licence? Is advancing FS2's storyline illegal? Is it me that causes the 'Nova to happen, or is the designers intent that it happens? Is anyone harmed by it?
This metaphor is rather inept.
-
I did it a few times, then one time I almost crashed with a truck.
Now I just ignore my cellphone when driving. I've learned from that soiled pants feeling.
-
I'm kind of surprised at the "not here, not me" reactions to a "sometimes X happens" proposition. Anyway, since I guess it was unclear, that small text was a specific response to "You intended to get home by car".
Are you being told the first time you start FS2 that destroying the cruisers causes a supernova, like there are consistent advertisement campaigns about drunken driving and that knowing the effects of alcohol on driving is something you need to know in order to pass your licence? Is advancing FS2's storyline illegal? Is it me that causes the 'Nova to happen, or is the designers intent that it happens? Is anyone harmed by it?
This metaphor is rather inept.
You're assuming what I said is a metaphor for drunk driving. It isn't. In fact it's not a metaphor at all. Anyway the crux of that post is the part you omitted in your reply. To whit: intent does not work that way.
-
I never text while driving, though sometimes I talk on a non hands-free phone if I'm on a reasonably empty road and going straight at a set speed, or stuck in a traffic jam without perspectives for leaving it anytime soon. I try to keep that snappy, too, and it's never idle chit-chat, but really important stuff (often directly related to where exactly I'm supposed to drive to). And never when there's someone else on board (in that case, the phone always goes to him/her).
Also, I hate people who drive under influence. It's a general rule around my house - it's either wine or the car. Given that I don't drink, so I'm usually the one that gets the latter. :) Indeed, sometimes I drive precisely so I can't drink, because in Poland, it's literally the only acceptable excuse not to drink. And even then, not everyone is willing to take it, and would rather get sloshed with friends (since generally, people in Poland can't fathom that it's possible to have fun sober...) than, you know, act like a responsible adult. I've once seen a huge truck (might've been an 18-wheeler, but I've only seen it's rear) weaving around, on a highway, going around 80mph! Good thing my father was driving at the time, he managed to stay clear of it. Needless to say, drunk driving is the real leading cause of accidents, not speeding.
-
I'm kind of surprised at the "not here, not me" reactions to a "sometimes X happens" proposition. Anyway, since I guess it was unclear, that small text was a specific response to "You intended to get home by car".
X simply should not happen. I don't care whether or not it happens, it shouldn't.
To whit: intent does not work that way.
So how does it work then?
-
Shower your designated drivers with gifts and praise!
(not gifts of alcohol, that's just being a dick)
-
I want to take a picture of this guy taking pictures of people texting while driving while driving while driving.
-
I want to take a picture of this guy taking pictures of people texting while driving while driving while driving.
Yo dawg, I heard you like documenting hazardous driving practices...
-
If you want safe driving, you have to eliminate the drivers. No more human control over the vehicle. No matter how much stuff you do to make someone pay attention to the road, there's always going to be people capable of ignoring it all.
You're absolutely right, but the current laws in most places are about risk mitigation, not elimination. People make mistakes, but there's no excuse for willfully ignorant and potentially destructive behavior like texting while driving or DUI/DWI. Not to mention that since computers are programmed, operated, and serviced by humans, self-driving cars will still be theoretically able to crash and cause harm. There's also the massive legal can of worms that it opens. If you're in a self-driving car, and it crashes, who is responsible? The car manufacturer? The guys who programmed the software? The people who service it? The "operator" that is riding in it but has just as little to do with it as any of the former parties? I am sure these things will get hashed out, but the disgusting, slimy, amoral ambulance-chasers will have a feeding frenzy over it. Can't figure out who to sue? Sue everyone!
-
That's a pretty hyperbolic statement, if you ask me.
Driver error is driver error, no matter whether the driver is made of meat or algorithms. If a driving algorithm makes a mistake, then the manufacturers will be responsible.
-
I want to take a picture of this guy taking pictures of people texting while driving while driving while driving.
You should text him the picture.
huehuehue
-
I agree with The_E: let's have googlecars as fast as possible. I wanna text all the time while an internet terrorist virus causes all cars to smash between themselves. Hail to the Singularity!
-
This is why everyone should be forced to drive manual transmission.
I am also of the opinion that, to obtain a DL in North America, you should at least be able to demonstrate the ability to start, shift, and stop in a car with a manual transmission. The massive shift to automatics has correlated strongly with increased driver distraction and stupidity. It's actually funny - one of the best ways of ensuring your car won't be stolen in the US and Canada is to buy one with a manual transmission. (And it goes without saying that I will have a manual as long as I can still buy one).
I agree. And manuals are so much more fun. I don't think manuals are going to go away any time soon since i believe that would make car sales lower.
The next part that's great about manuals is that it's a real pain in the ass to receive and talk on your cell phone while you're driving. Answer the call, put the phone down, shift, pick the phone up again and say something, put the phone down, shift, etc. Some people i guess don't mind hurt their necks holding the cell phone that way (ouch). Some people are highly experienced with switching hands of the cell phone constantly between the shifter hand and the steering hand. I said screw that, what a pain in my ass, talking on the phone is supposed to be easy.
I'm too cheap for phone hands free devices, i'd rather get to my destination safely completely ignoring texts and calls (my car is a manual). The other thing that worries me is a lot of new cars and the commercials for them telling you how much you can do while you're driving. So now cars come with distractive crap if you have the extra money for it. Which leads to the hyping of touchscreens in cars for the dash controls like gps, sound system, etc. I like the normal radio dashes with buttons. You generally don't have to take your eyes off the road to turn down or up the volume, let alone hitting a preset, or seek button. You do take your eyes off the road if dash controls are completely buttonless. As far as gps goes, there's three awesome locations for non-built in ones.
Right along side the rear view mirror is awesome (makes you use your rear view mirror a lot more), or the same level as the rear view mirror on the top left corner of the windshield. The last good location was on the bottom left corner of the windshield. It's the best locations for gps guidance i could find that don't pan your eyes away from the windshield to other areas of the car, thus making a great attempt at the gps itself becoming as least intrusive and distracting as possible.
I agree with The_E: let's have googlecars as fast as possible. I wanna text all the time while an internet terrorist virus causes all cars to smash between themselves. Hail to the Singularity!
Google cars better be good. Programming errors can kill and injure. Reminds me of the uncontrollable acceleration problem found in a lot of toyotas of the last half of the last decade. I don't understand why toyota couldn't just make a software update for the computer in the car unless it was impossible, which i doubt the impossible part. All toyota did was take years of covering up their problem blaming it on driver error. Yes people with lots of money prefer to focus on sales over user fatality. Google had better make a perfect car in this case.
A fun thing to explore is if google did produce a car that drives itself. And that there was a software error at least causing accidents. How would google blame that on the occupant of the vehicle?
Most people would say that this is the perfect situation, that google wouldn't have anything to say but "my bad, here's reparations". That's much too short sighted in my own opinion. This is why i think the scenario would be fun to ponder :)