Car Tech: Are you for or against GPS and cell phones in cars?
- 5/22/07 5:29 PM
Hands Free and Eyes Free - No Problem
by suplepa - 5/31/07 7:03 AM In reply to: Are you for or against GPS and cell phones in cars? by wcunning
While many of the arguments here are compelling, I have to say that the ridiculous drivers I have run into are still taking risks with their hand-held devices. I've seen several people (and I'm ashamed to say, mostly women) carrying on conversations on the freeway with a tilted head, one hand on the wheel and the other hand (or shoulder) on a cell phone. These same drivers are the ones who make grave mistakes on the road..changing lanes without checking blind spots or using turning signals...driving too fast with kids in tow.
Come on folks...you are ruining the tech gadget experience for the rest of us...get a headset already and above all else, pay attention to the road!
Its People and not Technology Stupid
by James Kiernan - 5/31/07 7:05 AM In reply to: Are you for or against GPS and cell phones in cars? by wcunning
You've heard the old saying "Guns don't kill people - people kill people." The same holds true for Technology such as cell phones and GPS systems. In and of themselves they don't make driving unsafe whatsoever. Its how people use technology in their car that makes their driving less safe. A person using a GPS system should not be fiddling with it while driving. They should pull over to the side of the road or set their destination prior to starting out on a trip. As for cell phones, again its how people use them in their cars that makes driving less safe - not the cell phones themselves that made driving less safe. A person should use a little bit of common sense and not distract themselves with technology while driving. But common sense isn't so common.
Jim from New Jersey
Here we go again, let's pass yet another useless law...
by dickgoodwin2003 - 5/31/07 7:08 AM In reply to: Are you for or against GPS and cell phones in cars? by wcunning
If a driver makes a mistake, then it MUST be blamed on something other than driver ineptness, right? Let's blame it on the radio, or cell phone, or GPS, or medications, or alcohol, or depression, or anger, or tiredness, or ..., or something, anything but the driver's lack of skills and abilities to drive without making mistakes!
If I get killed by another driver's mistake, I'm not going to be any less dead if the driver was clear-headed, sober and healthy, and had no cellphone, GPS, radio, or other device. It is the driver's driving mistake that killed me, not the cell-phone, alcohol, or anything else.
Drivers who frequently make driving mistakes (let's call them what they are: mistakes, not accidents) need to be off the road, and there needs to be alternate transportation available everywhere for them, and for the rest of us when we don't choose to drive, if we are going to make any headway at all in reducing the number of highway deaths in this country. All other efforts are simply whining about lifestyle differences, and have made, and will make, no difference in the highway death toll.
You can't legislate against stupidity. I have seen people driving while trying to read huge unfolded maps (isn't a GPS system with voice guidance MUCH safer than this???), talking to and looking at people next to them or in the back seat (isn't a cell phone that doesn't make you want to look at the other person MUCH safer than that???), and doing things I couldn't believe, like reading a book, notebook, magazine, newspaper, doing a crossword puzzle, eating food with a fork or spoon from a plate or bowl, holding coffee and a cigarette in one hand and brushing her hair with the other, and all manner of other things that made me wonder how they managed to drive at all!
The bottom line is: If you mess up on the road, you have to be held responsible for the results, and if you mess up too often, then you should be off the road. I don't care why you messed up, whether you were talking on a phone or not, whether you were sober or not, or any other reason for your mistake.
And by the same token, I'm all FOR technology that brings convenience to our lives, inside cars and out, and I do NOT believe that such technology CAUSES accidents. Stupid inept drivers cause "accidents" because they make mistakes.
If we really want to reduce or eliminate highway deaths and injuries and property damage, the only way to do it is to remove the human from the car's controls altogether. Until then we will have to put up with a certain level of mistakes that will never be reduced further by legislation. Driving is dangerous and difficult, and when you go out on the road, you are willingly taking a risk of injury or death, because: stuff happens! Whining about cell phones, GPS, radios, or alcohol use, and legislating against them, never has, and never will, solve the problem.
I love gadgets
by KuanYin7 - 5/31/07 8:09 AM In reply to: Here we go again, let's pass yet another useless law... by dickgoodwin2003dickgoodwin2003 this is great. I tried saying the same thing, but you said it so much better. We don't need another stupid law. Those gadgets have made things a lot easier. I'd like to see those complainers going back to the horse and buggy stage, but they'd find something else to complain about. But isn't this the American Way... blame somebody or something else for all your screw-ups, you are never responsible for your own schtuff.
The division of attention is the problem =
by Msorensen - 5/31/07 7:12 AM In reply to: Are you for or against GPS and cell phones in cars? by wcunning
There has been a lot of research done on hands free cell phones that proves that hands free phones are just as distracting as if you are holding a phone. The division of your attention is the problem, whether you are eating or changing the channel on the stereo or talking on the phone. The physical nature of how you talk on the phone doesn't change the division of attention, so even if it is 'safer' in terms of physical motions to make it happen, that doesn't really make it safer. People just need to drive when they are in the car and nothing else.
Not safe no matter what manufactures do to them:
by chrisntony - 5/31/07 7:13 AM In reply to: Are you for or against GPS and cell phones in cars? by wcunning
I do a lot of driving all over the country and have seen some real careless drivers useing cell phones. I have an answer to this that most out there will hate me for. When the car is moving there should be an interference so that you can't use either the cell phone or the GPS. Anyone agree with me?
It's the driver
by snoboarder77 - 5/31/07 7:17 AM In reply to: Are you for or against GPS and cell phones in cars? by wcunning
You can throw whatever you want in a car, if you have a smart, responsible driver, they should know when and when not to be using something that will lessen their driving ability.
You can not blame cellphones or eating on causing accidents. In the end it is the driver's fault.
CELL PHONES AND GPS IN CARS
by Norma333 - 5/31/07 7:17 AM In reply to: Are you for or against GPS and cell phones in cars? by wcunning
There should be a law against using cell phones in cars. Practically every time you see a car doing erratic, or unreasonable things, the driver is talking on a cell phone. Hands free cell phones would be an improvement, but the modern day population has become addicted to cell phone conversations. If I get a cell phone call while I am driving, I wait until I can pull off the road and return the call. I do not get "911" calls, so the caller can wait until I feel it is safe to talk.
I certainy like to use my GPS and will use it as long as it is not endangering my life and the lives of others on the road. If it needs readjusting, I will pull off he road to do so. I have looked at Mapquest for directions, but I preview it before the trip, know where I am likely to have problems, and lay it open to that place. AND I would never try to look at a paper map while driving.
Nanny state, part 2
by akravets - 5/31/07 7:23 AM In reply to: Are you for or against GPS and cell phones in cars? by wcunning
I guess this will be controlled by our all too powerful government, right? What's up with that? If my government is worried about my safety why don't they just provide a personal chauffeur for me so I don't do all those "stupid" things like talking, looking at the surroundings while I am driving, using cell phone, thinking, daydreaming and _____________ (insert anything here).
Don't forget that will all the surveillance technologies becoming more advanced and cheaper you just might at the end of the day get bunch of emails with tickets:
1:03pm - talked on the cell phone
2:34pm - interacted with GPS while driving
4:45pm - looked at a girl while driving
and on, and on, and....
Protect Us from the Nanny State - It's the Stupid Dirver
by Reframmellator - 5/31/07 7:25 AM In reply to: Are you for or against GPS and cell phones in cars? by wcunning
As a transplanted New York State resident, one of my favorite lines when Mario Cuomo led our People's Republic was that if he had his way, the drinking age would be 55 and the speed limit 21. And why not? If speed is bad, if drinking is bad, then let's take it to a REALLY meaningful level of intrusion. And I'm sick and tired of legislators patting themselves on their backs every time they think they've solved a problem by passing a law banning that something or other. If that were the case, there would be no speeders, because there are laws prohibiting it; no murders, because there are laws prohibiting it; etc.
In April, I drove about 1000 miles in the UK, where drivers are much more courteous, the roads are not as good, and things just seem to go better. Now I navigated those roads with a rented GPS (or, as I told my wife, with TWO women telling me when to turn). Without the GPS, I would have become hopelessly lost, or become confused and made an inappropriate turn. We also would have missed out on some really cool things we saw on side roads that we were unafraid to take because of our faithful little GPS. It was one less thing I needed to think about while concentrating on driving on the wrong side of the road. (And I never became truly comfortable on the left side, especially with all the roundabouts.)
The fact is that virtually everything can be used for good or bad - it's all in the user's ability and intent. GPS and cells have undoubtedly saved far more time, pollution, accidents, injuries, and deaths than they have caused. In fact, there was a cause celebre in upstate New York this winter when two elderly motorists froze to death when their car went off I-87 in the Adirondack Park. They had a cell phone, but couldn't reach anyone because there were no cell towers because of concerns about the adverse impacts of cell towers on the park(!?) This was not the first fatality of its type on the extreme northern part of I-87, but it was the one that finally pushed everyone, from the carriers to the environmentalists, to move to a reasonable middle ground and install towers along the road.
I have two words for anyone truly serious about improving highway safety: mandatory relicensing.
restrictions and Libertarian nonsense
by Ricktay99 - 5/31/07 8:04 AM In reply to: Protect Us from the Nanny State - It's the Stupid Dirver by ReframmellatorRefammellator said:
"I'm sick and tired of legislators patting themselves on their backs every time they think they've solved a problem by passing a law banning that something or other. If that were the case, there would be no speeders, because there are laws prohibiting it; no murders, because there are laws prohibiting it; etc. . . . I have two words for anyone truly serious about improving highway safety: mandatory relicensing."
If there were no laws against and consequences for speeding and murders, their commissions would be much, much more egregious and frequent. So I am glad we have them. Your reasoning is Libertarian nonsense. And be consistent, licensing is more "nanny state" imposition than speeding laws. If a libertarian wants to drive, by golly, they should be able to drive, anywhere, anytime, and too bad if you don't get outta their way.
Please Read My Rants More Carefully
by Reframmellator - 5/31/07 3:18 PM In reply to: restrictions and Libertarian nonsense by Ricktay99I think you've missed my point. My point is that the state has a legitimate vital interest to protect the greater good - it either doesn't know how or has missed the mark horribly in the case of highway regulations, among many others. Read my last line - I'm a strong advocate of mandatory testing upon relicensing. That hardly qualifies as libertarian nonsense. And yes, there is libertarian nonsense, just as there is socialist/nanny state nonsense. For example, I favor mandatory motorcycle helmet laws, if for no other reason than the fact that some helmetless riders survive motorcycle accidents and too frequently impose tremendous costs upon society - usually taxpayers - to take care of them. Here's another: which is worse, the use of DDT or the one million new cases of malaria annually in Africa that would be prevented by the use of DDT? You're probably saying, "Ah, but that's a poor choice. The real problem is the indiscriminate/improper/irresponsible use of DDT." And if you were saying that, you would agree with my point. The keys are to encourage the proper behaviors so as to gain the maximum benefit from something, and to discourage improper behaviors. That is why speed limits and laws prohibiting murder and the like are again, legitimate roles of the state. All actions, either active or passive, have consequences. Some of the problems come in when the rules and regs are seen as arbitrary or improper - then, in that case, I agree that no law is better than bad law. For example, the 55 mph speed limit was so blatantly ignored because the roads were obviously designed to accommodate speeds of up to twice that. To me, the greater problem is out of touch legislators who fail to look at costs and benefits and decide that the best way to deal with a potential problem is to prohibit its occurrence. If the law passes the legitimacy test (often a fairly extreme assumption), all the benefits of that activity are also lost to society.
Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right, to use a powerful piece of equipment, and it should be a high bar that one must clear to get - and keep - a license. Outlawing GPS devices and cell phones is a poor excuse for addressing the underlying behaviors of a small minority of people who quite honestly lack the common sense to know any better.
And no, I'm hardly a libertarian, although you could have called me much worse. Now let me ask you a question: if drinking and driving kill, and speed kills, then, according to your logic, why SHOULDN'T the drinking age be 55 and the insterstate speed limit 21? Seems to me that a lot of lives could be saved. . . .
Noel Coward observed that two things are universal: hydrogen and stupidity, and the latter occurs in greater abundance. Don't consider that an attack upon you; it's just a general observation.
GPS and Cellphones
by criptx - 5/31/07 7:32 AM In reply to: Are you for or against GPS and cell phones in cars? by wcunning
GPS is amazing. I no longer have to pull off the road, get on my cellphone (yes cellphone) and have my wife mapquest me home.
As a relative newcomer to the USA, it was hard enough handling the high volumes of traffic, driving on the wrong side of the road AND trying to find my way. After a number of times ending up in either the wrong city, once even the wrong state, I bit the bullet and forked out $400 for a Tom Tom. Best investment I ever made. I don't find it a distraction in the least. In fact, as a trip planner and real time guide, it allows me to concentrate on the road and know in advance just where I need to be.
As for cellphones, ban them while in motion!!
They passed a law here (New Jersey) a while back doing just that, but it's a joke. Seems every 2nd car has someone yacking on one.
It should be classed the same as not wearing a seat belt.
Governor Corzine, take note.
For GPS and cell phones in cars if not hand held!
by campingvan2 - 5/31/07 7:35 AM In reply to: Are you for or against GPS and cell phones in cars? by wcunning
Exactly as my title says: I'm for GPS and cell phones in the car, but don't trust anybody holding a telephone in one of their hands while driving. I've seen too many uncontrolled moves by people doing that, sometimes aggravated by the fact that there are others in the car like a couple of kids. I believe that it is unwise and even dangerous and irresponsible and should be forbidden by law. By the way I have used a TomTom Navigation GPS system all over North America from New York to California on my travels to the States and use this system quite extensively in Europe where I reside. I have a blue tooth connection from my cellphone to the TomTom, which works just great. I can call people by just briefly touching the screen for the correct number and I only do that when traffic allows. This is different from using a handheld cellphone, because a call to or from someone will not stop when traffic does not allow for taking eyes of the road and hands of the wheel. On a long haule an occasional call on my (blue tooth) cellphone even helps me staying alert, while music from my stereo eventually might make me a bit drowsy. Also the lady inside my TomTom keeps me on the ball by now and then telling me where I am, what to expect, where I have to turn, etc. She is virtually indispensable.
Bottemline: GPS and Cellphones should not be any problem or may even be preferred as long as you can have your hands free at all times.
For good tools...against inattention
by casualgeek - 5/31/07 7:38 AM In reply to: Are you for or against GPS and cell phones in cars? by wcunning
GPS,cells,etc. are just tools. They are only as effective as the 'craftsperson' using them. Just as an inattentive carpenter can still cut off a finger using a laser-guided compound miter saw, an inattentive 'operator' can crash the most sophisticated vehicle. That's why the rest of us must be constantly reminded to stay 'defensive drivers'.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
|
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
