In article
, Muggles
wrote:

People are going to do stupid things when they drive, and get distracted
by something eventually. I don't know if the solutions is to totally
ban the usage of any phone while driving regardless of the technology,
or adapt to the technology as it makes cars safer to drive.


the solution are autonomous vehicles, at which point people can do
whatever the hell they want while the car does the driving, and far
safer than any human can do.

While autonomous vehicles may be practical in the future, it'll be quite
a few years before that technology is advanced enough for practical
implementation. Maybe it'll be something we can actually practically
use within the next 20 or 30 years.


it's *already* starting to appear in limited forms and within 5-10
years, autonomous vehicles will be more than a curiosity.

I'm guessing longer than that before they are anything but in the
testing phase, but who knows.... It could happen sooner.

as i said, it's already happening.

many vehicles have adaptive cruise control, lane departure warning and
blind spot assist. ford had auto-park several years ago.

last year, an autonomous mercedes drove itself to las vegas:
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/60-min...des-benz-self-
driving-car/

autonomous trucks exist:
https://www.daimler.com/innovation/a...ightliner-insp
iration-truck.html

several car makers have announced autonomous functionality as soon as
the 2017 model year.

I'd also want to know how those people involved in developing the
technology have addressed the possibility of maliciously hacking
vehicles, and all the issues involved when software is in charge of
controlling a 2000 pound rolling weapon?


nothing is perfect. what matters is that the collision, injury and
fatality rate is lower than it is now, which isn't all that hard to do.

If the purpose of an autonomous car isn't to eliminate collisions and
injuries, is it going to be worth the expense just to change the stats a
little?

there are *many* advantages to autonomous vehicles, including a
*dramatic* reduction of collisions, injuries and fatalities, reducing
traffic and being able to make trips otherwise not possible.

In article , Your Name
wrote:

Now self driving car is around the corner.... My new car tugs my hands
on steering wheel if I stray off the lane I am on. If I ignore
it steering wheel turns itself to keep the car in the lane, LOL!

Some of those systems rely on the road markings ... problem is that
many roads don't have markings or may have multiple markings (the real
one and others faded / "blacked out" but still visible) where the
layout has been altered.

road markings help but are not required.

In article , Your Name
wrote:

The reason car manufacturers don't install blocking technology in cars
is because the loud mouthed selfish idiots would complain too much ...
the same reason America *still* lets every looney have a gun.

nope. the reason is because jamming is illegal, and for good reason.

Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-21, nospam wrote:
In article
,
Muggles wrote:

If you're gonna ban cellphones, you may as well ban GPS.
And coffee.
And radio dials.
And that damn defroster button (now where is it?)
Oh, and ban crying babies.

Yeah! I'd vote for that, especially, in grocery stores and restaurants.

and airplanes. nothing sucks more than a screaming baby nearby, or
worse, in the next seat.

Add people with bad body odor to that list.

People who hold their phone horizontally out in front of them as if
they're balancing an invisible drink on it, having conversations on
speakerphone as they shop, so everyone else in the store is forced to
hear both sides of their worthless blathering.

--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Paul M. Cook wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:38:32 -0600, SeaNymph wrote:

Why do people go hiking, and take their phone?
Makes no sense to me at all.

Huh?

I suspect he ommitted a 'not'.
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Muggles wrote:

I just don't get what's so important that can't wait a few minutes 'til
you get stopped.

The world will end if they don't answer every damn call and TXT
immediately :-D Same kind of irrational impatient attitude that sees
these people execute dangerous lane changes into the path of oncoming
traffic, just to leapfrog one car and save no time at all.

--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

On 2016-01-21, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

Same kind of irrational impatient attitude that sees
these people execute dangerous lane changes into the path of oncoming
traffic, just to leapfrog one car and save no time at all.

Watched an idiot lady do exactly that just yesterday. She was originally
behind me in the right-most exit lane, then jerked over two lanes into
the left-most lane to swerve in front of and dodge several cars, only to
end up right in front of me at the exit red light. Pure idiocy.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

In article , Dick
Phallic wrote:
On 01/21/2016 01:08 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:

I guess that can be a worthwhile conclusion, but, as in all science,
let's see if someone else can back up their claim because something
is logically fishy with the second order issue being greater than
the first order instigation.

Who would be dumb enough to admit they were texting while driving?

Do the police investigate every accident to see if the driver's
cellphone was in use at the time of the accident?

I doubt the insurance company lawyers even bother unless there are
extreme injuries/death involving lots of money.

Many "lesser accidents" don't even get reported, especially if it's a
parked car, letterbox, etc. the driver hits and nobody is around to see
them so they just drive off again.

On 1/21/2016 2:46 PM, nospam wrote:


as i said, it's already happening.

many vehicles have adaptive cruise control, lane departure warning and
blind spot assist. ford had auto-park several years ago.


Used to be that only high end cars had stuff like that, but it is
filtering down to the more basic models now too. Makes driving less
tiresome and safer.

In article , Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:48:50 -0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/20/2016 8:10 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

It's just communication. Do you object to people talking to each other
face to face? How about phoning each other? What's the difference?
It's all communication. What about people like you who chat on newsgroups?

Not that simple. Two people talking in the car is less distracting and
as the driver you can easily ignore the other person whule your brain
copes with the traffic condition of that moment. Same with ignoring the
radio.

Phone conversations can be more intense. Less so for a quick call to
pick up bread on the way home than trying to give tech support on a
broken machine.

Firstly I was talking about the objection of people using phones while
standing in the pavement.

Secondly I disagree, a phone conversation is just talking, it's not "more
intense". The only difference is the person is not visible. In fact with
someone in the passenger seat you might be tempted to look at them while
speaking. Since that's not possible on a phone, a phonecall is LESS
distracting.

Nope. Tests have shown that cellphone conversations can be more
distracting and dangerous than talking with a passenger. The passenger
can see what's happening and knows to shut up at particularly dangerous
points and can even help out by checking traffic in the opposite
direction, etc. The person on the other end of the phonecall simply
keeps blabbering on.

Also, many people ridiculously seem to think that because it's a
phonecall it is more "important" and so they concentrate more on it
than they do on an "unimportant" conversation with a passenger.

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:33:37 -0000, Your Name wrote:

In article , Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:48:50 -0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/20/2016 8:10 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

It's just communication. Do you object to people talking to each other
face to face? How about phoning each other? What's the difference?
It's all communication. What about people like you who chat on newsgroups?

Not that simple. Two people talking in the car is less distracting and
as the driver you can easily ignore the other person whule your brain
copes with the traffic condition of that moment. Same with ignoring the
radio.

Phone conversations can be more intense. Less so for a quick call to
pick up bread on the way home than trying to give tech support on a
broken machine.

Firstly I was talking about the objection of people using phones while
standing in the pavement.

Secondly I disagree, a phone conversation is just talking, it's not "more
intense". The only difference is the person is not visible. In fact with
someone in the passenger seat you might be tempted to look at them while
speaking. Since that's not possible on a phone, a phonecall is LESS
distracting.

Nope. Tests have shown that cellphone conversations can be more
distracting and dangerous than talking with a passenger. The passenger
can see what's happening and knows to shut up at particularly dangerous
points and can even help out by checking traffic in the opposite
direction, etc. The person on the other end of the phonecall simply
keeps blabbering on.

Also, many people ridiculously seem to think that because it's a
phonecall it is more "important" and so they concentrate more on it
than they do on an "unimportant" conversation with a passenger.

Your second paragraph explains my point well. Only a complete and utter moron will prioritise a phonecall over driving. In everyday life, we are constantly prioritising without even thinking about it. And there is no reason to penalise sensible folk by making it illegal to do two things at once, just because a few morons are incapable of it. If I'm driving along with my phone to my ear, and I need to swerve round something, I will simply drop the phone. I have done so in the past.

--
Only public user defined types defined in public object modules can be used
as parameters or return types for public procedures of class modules or as
fields of public user defined types.
(VB6 compilation error)

In article , Mr Macaw wrote:

Secondly I disagree, a phone conversation is just talking, it's not "more
intense". The only difference is the person is not visible. In fact with
someone in the passenger seat you might be tempted to look at them while
speaking. Since that's not possible on a phone, a phonecall is LESS
distracting.

Nope. Tests have shown that cellphone conversations can be more
distracting and dangerous than talking with a passenger. The passenger
can see what's happening and knows to shut up at particularly dangerous
points and can even help out by checking traffic in the opposite
direction, etc. The person on the other end of the phonecall simply
keeps blabbering on.

Also, many people ridiculously seem to think that because it's a
phonecall it is more "important" and so they concentrate more on it
than they do on an "unimportant" conversation with a passenger.

Your second paragraph explains my point well. Only a complete and utter
moron will prioritise a phonecall over driving. In everyday life, we are
constantly prioritising without even thinking about it. And there is no
reason to penalise sensible folk by making it illegal to do two things at
once, just because a few morons are incapable of it. If I'm driving along
with my phone to my ear, and I need to swerve round something, I will simply
drop the phone. I have done so in the past.

exactly.

On 2016-01-21, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:33:37 -0000, Your Name wrote:

Nope. Tests have shown that cellphone conversations can be more
distracting and dangerous than talking with a passenger. The passenger
can see what's happening and knows to shut up at particularly dangerous
points and can even help out by checking traffic in the opposite
direction, etc. The person on the other end of the phonecall simply
keeps blabbering on.

Also, many people ridiculously seem to think that because it's a
phonecall it is more "important" and so they concentrate more on it
than they do on an "unimportant" conversation with a passenger.

Your second paragraph explains my point well. Only a complete and
utter moron will prioritise a phonecall over driving. In everyday
life, we are constantly prioritising without even thinking about it.
And there is no reason to penalise sensible folk by making it illegal
to do two things at once, just because a few morons are incapable of
it. If I'm driving along with my phone to my ear, and I need to
swerve round something, I will simply drop the phone. I have done so
in the past.

That doesn't magically negate or refute his first paragraph. A person on
the other end of a phone line doesn't have eyes on the road or
environment around the car, and cannot react to changing circumstances
the way a passenger can.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:58:03 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-21, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:33:37 -0000, Your Name wrote:

Nope. Tests have shown that cellphone conversations can be more
distracting and dangerous than talking with a passenger. The passenger
can see what's happening and knows to shut up at particularly dangerous
points and can even help out by checking traffic in the opposite
direction, etc. The person on the other end of the phonecall simply
keeps blabbering on.

Also, many people ridiculously seem to think that because it's a
phonecall it is more "important" and so they concentrate more on it
than they do on an "unimportant" conversation with a passenger.

Your second paragraph explains my point well. Only a complete and
utter moron will prioritise a phonecall over driving. In everyday
life, we are constantly prioritising without even thinking about it.
And there is no reason to penalise sensible folk by making it illegal
to do two things at once, just because a few morons are incapable of
it. If I'm driving along with my phone to my ear, and I need to
swerve round something, I will simply drop the phone. I have done so
in the past.

That doesn't magically negate or refute his first paragraph. A person on
the other end of a phone line doesn't have eyes on the road or
environment around the car, and cannot react to changing circumstances
the way a passenger can.

They don't need to, the driver does that, with a higher priority than the conversation.

--
I don't approve of political jokes. I've seen too many of them get elected.

Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:58:03 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-21, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:33:37 -0000, Your Name wrote:

Nope. Tests have shown that cellphone conversations can be more
distracting and dangerous than talking with a passenger. The passenger
can see what's happening and knows to shut up at particularly dangerous
points and can even help out by checking traffic in the opposite
direction, etc. The person on the other end of the phonecall simply
keeps blabbering on.

Also, many people ridiculously seem to think that because it's a
phonecall it is more "important" and so they concentrate more on it
than they do on an "unimportant" conversation with a passenger.

Your second paragraph explains my point well. Only a complete and
utter moron will prioritise a phonecall over driving. In everyday
life, we are constantly prioritising without even thinking about it.
And there is no reason to penalise sensible folk by making it illegal
to do two things at once, just because a few morons are incapable of
it. If I'm driving along with my phone to my ear, and I need to
swerve round something, I will simply drop the phone. I have done so
in the past.

That doesn't magically negate or refute his first paragraph. A person on
the other end of a phone line doesn't have eyes on the road or
environment around the car, and cannot react to changing circumstances
the way a passenger can.

They don't need to, the driver does that, with a higher priority than the conversation.

Nope. I'm not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse, or you are just
missing the point. Of course it is the responsibility of the driver to pay
attention to conditions around them; but it is an accepted fact that humans
do not multitask well, and the driving environment forces us to multitask
as a necessity. Two sets of eyes and ears are better than one. If the
driver happens to be looking in one direction (to check cross traffic, for
instance), a passenger who is holding a conversation with the driver can
see something critical happening in the other direction, and their audible
and/or visible (perhaps even tactile) reaction can inform the driver. That
simply cannot happen if the person on the other end of the conversation is
miles away blabbering nag away on the other end of the phone.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 22:36:29 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:58:03 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-21, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:33:37 -0000, Your Name wrote:

Nope. Tests have shown that cellphone conversations can be more
distracting and dangerous than talking with a passenger. The passenger
can see what's happening and knows to shut up at particularly dangerous
points and can even help out by checking traffic in the opposite
direction, etc. The person on the other end of the phonecall simply
keeps blabbering on.

Also, many people ridiculously seem to think that because it's a
phonecall it is more "important" and so they concentrate more on it
than they do on an "unimportant" conversation with a passenger.

Your second paragraph explains my point well. Only a complete and
utter moron will prioritise a phonecall over driving. In everyday
life, we are constantly prioritising without even thinking about it.
And there is no reason to penalise sensible folk by making it illegal
to do two things at once, just because a few morons are incapable of
it. If I'm driving along with my phone to my ear, and I need to
swerve round something, I will simply drop the phone. I have done so
in the past.

That doesn't magically negate or refute his first paragraph. A person on
the other end of a phone line doesn't have eyes on the road or
environment around the car, and cannot react to changing circumstances
the way a passenger can.

They don't need to, the driver does that, with a higher priority than the conversation.

Nope. I'm not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse, or you are just
missing the point. Of course it is the responsibility of the driver to pay
attention to conditions around them; but it is an accepted fact that humans
do not multitask well, and the driving environment forces us to multitask
as a necessity. Two sets of eyes and ears are better than one. If the
driver happens to be looking in one direction (to check cross traffic, for
instance), a passenger who is holding a conversation with the driver can
see something critical happening in the other direction, and their audible
and/or visible (perhaps even tactile) reaction can inform the driver. That
simply cannot happen if the person on the other end of the conversation is
miles away blabbering nag away on the other end of the phone.

You seem to be making two points, and are correct about one of them. Yes, two people in a car increases the chances of spotting a problem. But that's nothing to do with phones or conversations. People DO multitask and they're very good at it. If you're not, maybe you should consider not driving, which already involves doing about 5 things at once.

--
Interesting fact number 476:
80% of millionaires drive used cars.

Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 22:36:29 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:


Nope. I'm not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse, or you are just
missing the point. Of course it is the responsibility of the driver to pay
attention to conditions around them; but it is an accepted fact that humans
do not multitask well, and the driving environment forces us to multitask
as a necessity. Two sets of eyes and ears are better than one. If the
driver happens to be looking in one direction (to check cross traffic, for
instance), a passenger who is holding a conversation with the driver can
see something critical happening in the other direction, and their audible
and/or visible (perhaps even tactile) reaction can inform the driver. That
simply cannot happen if the person on the other end of the conversation is
miles away blabbering nag away on the other end of the phone.

You seem to be making two points, and are correct about one of them.

I'm right about everything I just said.

Yes, two people in a car increases the chances of spotting a problem.
But that's nothing to do with phones or conversations.

Yes it does, for the reasons explained above.

People DO multitask and they're very good at it. If you're not, maybe
you should consider not driving, which already involves doing about 5 things at once.

I didn't say people *can't* multitask - I said they *suck* at it, which has
been scientifically proven. The fact is people are not very good at
multitasking, and studies also show the ones who think they are the best at
it are actually among the worst. The fact remains a passenger who is
holding a conversation with a driver can respond to cues while a person
miles away over the phone simply cannot.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:43:27 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 22:36:29 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:


Nope. I'm not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse, or you are just
missing the point. Of course it is the responsibility of the driver to pay
attention to conditions around them; but it is an accepted fact that humans
do not multitask well, and the driving environment forces us to multitask
as a necessity. Two sets of eyes and ears are better than one. If the
driver happens to be looking in one direction (to check cross traffic, for
instance), a passenger who is holding a conversation with the driver can
see something critical happening in the other direction, and their audible
and/or visible (perhaps even tactile) reaction can inform the driver. That
simply cannot happen if the person on the other end of the conversation is
miles away blabbering nag away on the other end of the phone.

You seem to be making two points, and are correct about one of them.

I'm right about everything I just said.

Yes, two people in a car increases the chances of spotting a problem.
But that's nothing to do with phones or conversations.

Yes it does, for the reasons explained above.

People DO multitask and they're very good at it. If you're not, maybe
you should consider not driving, which already involves doing about 5 things at once.

I didn't say people *can't* multitask - I said they *suck* at it, which has
been scientifically proven. The fact is people are not very good at
multitasking, and studies also show the ones who think they are the best at
it are actually among the worst. The fact remains a passenger who is
holding a conversation with a driver can respond to cues while a person
miles away over the phone simply cannot.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Most people (there are thickos like you who can't) multitask well, as I just said, it's required to drive, driving in itself requires several things to be done at once. Adding one (the phone) to that makes **** all difference.

--
The dandelion swayed in the gentle breeze like an oscillating electric fan set on medium.

Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:43:27 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

People DO multitask and they're very good at it. If you're not, maybe
you should consider not driving, which already involves doing about 5 things at once.

I didn't say people *can't* multitask - I said they *suck* at it, which has
been scientifically proven. The fact is people are not very good at
multitasking, and studies also show the ones who think they are the best at
it are actually among the worst. The fact remains a passenger who is
holding a conversation with a driver can respond to cues while a person
miles away over the phone simply cannot.

thickos like you

Personal insults. Not surprised. You lose.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote:
Your Name wrote:
[...]
Ah, the ridiculous "flappy paddle" system that's becoming a fad in the
car industry these days. :-( Usually that means it's not a real manual
/ "stick shift" car, but a silly automatic pretending to be a manual /
"stick shift".

Well, in the Formula 1 (and most of the rest of the car racing) world
they don't consider them "silly" at all.

Remember that most of what we consider quite normal or even standard
now, was a "fad" once or/and came from other industries (like my car
racing example).

That doesn't make it a right nor sensible thing to change. The road
isn't the same as a racing circuit (no matter what boy racer hoons like
to think).

They tend to be a pain in the backside when wanting to go to reverse
(especially in something like a multi-point turn where you have to go
backwards and forwards a number of times because you have to keep going
through neutral. That is something racing drivers don't usually have to
worry about doing!




And to get somewhat back to the topic of the thread, these "flappy
paddle" can make driving *safer*, because your hands can remain on the
steering wheel, instead of fiddling with the gear-stick (or worse :-))!

Technically it makes this less safe ... at least in the short term as
the driver gets used to the new system and trying to remember which
paddle goes up and which goes down.

I wouldn't be surprised if different manufacturers / countries also
have their own ideas about the "correct" way to do that as well.

On 1/21/2016 1:46 PM, nospam wrote:
In article
, Muggles
wrote:

People are going to do stupid things when they drive, and get distracted
by something eventually. I don't know if the solutions is to totally
ban the usage of any phone while driving regardless of the technology,
or adapt to the technology as it makes cars safer to drive.


the solution are autonomous vehicles, at which point people can do
whatever the hell they want while the car does the driving, and far
safer than any human can do.

While autonomous vehicles may be practical in the future, it'll be quite
a few years before that technology is advanced enough for practical
implementation. Maybe it'll be something we can actually practically
use within the next 20 or 30 years.


it's *already* starting to appear in limited forms and within 5-10
years, autonomous vehicles will be more than a curiosity.

I'm guessing longer than that before they are anything but in the
testing phase, but who knows.... It could happen sooner.

as i said, it's already happening.

many vehicles have adaptive cruise control, lane departure warning and
blind spot assist. ford had auto-park several years ago.

last year, an autonomous mercedes drove itself to las vegas:
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/60-min...des-benz-self-
driving-car/

autonomous trucks exist:
https://www.daimler.com/innovation/a...ightliner-insp
iration-truck.html

several car makers have announced autonomous functionality as soon as
the 2017 model year.

I've seen a lot of testing going on with such things, but I still thinks
it's a decade or more away from fully autonomous cars being the norm on
the roads.

I'd also want to know how those people involved in developing the
technology have addressed the possibility of maliciously hacking
vehicles, and all the issues involved when software is in charge of
controlling a 2000 pound rolling weapon?


nothing is perfect. what matters is that the collision, injury and
fatality rate is lower than it is now, which isn't all that hard to do.

If the purpose of an autonomous car isn't to eliminate collisions and
injuries, is it going to be worth the expense just to change the stats a
little?

there are *many* advantages to autonomous vehicles, including a
*dramatic* reduction of collisions, injuries and fatalities, reducing
traffic and being able to make trips otherwise not possible.


I'm somewhat skeptical as the viability and effectiveness, at least any
time soon.

--
Maggie

In article , Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:33:37 -0000, Your Name wrote:
In article , Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:48:50 -0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/20/2016 8:10 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

It's just communication. Do you object to people talking to each other
face to face? How about phoning each other? What's the difference?
It's all communication. What about people like you who chat on
newsgroups?

Not that simple. Two people talking in the car is less distracting and
as the driver you can easily ignore the other person whule your brain
copes with the traffic condition of that moment. Same with ignoring the
radio.

Phone conversations can be more intense. Less so for a quick call to
pick up bread on the way home than trying to give tech support on a
broken machine.

Firstly I was talking about the objection of people using phones while
standing in the pavement.

Secondly I disagree, a phone conversation is just talking, it's not "more
intense". The only difference is the person is not visible. In fact with
someone in the passenger seat you might be tempted to look at them while
speaking. Since that's not possible on a phone, a phonecall is LESS
distracting.

Nope. Tests have shown that cellphone conversations can be more
distracting and dangerous than talking with a passenger. The passenger
can see what's happening and knows to shut up at particularly dangerous
points and can even help out by checking traffic in the opposite
direction, etc. The person on the other end of the phonecall simply
keeps blabbering on.

Also, many people ridiculously seem to think that because it's a
phonecall it is more "important" and so they concentrate more on it
than they do on an "unimportant" conversation with a passenger.

Your second paragraph explains my point well. Only a complete and utter
moron will prioritise a phonecall over driving. In everyday life, we are
constantly prioritising without even thinking about it. And there is no
reason to penalise sensible folk by making it illegal to do two things at
once, just because a few morons are incapable of it. If I'm driving along
with my phone to my ear, and I need to swerve round something, I will simply
drop the phone. I have done so in the past.

It's amazing how people can (supposedly) read something and still get
the completely wrong conclusion or warp it to their own idiotic wishes.
:-\

If you had actually read that paragraph then you'd have seen that is
says a person on a phone is concentrating more on the phone call than
compared to a a conversation with passenger ... that means they're more
distracted from doing what they're meant to be doing: DRIVING THE DAMN
CAR!

On 1/21/2016 2:39 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:33:37 -0000, Your Name wrote:

In article , Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:48:50 -0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/20/2016 8:10 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

It's just communication. Do you object to people talking to each
other
face to face? How about phoning each other? What's the difference?
It's all communication. What about people like you who chat on
newsgroups?

Not that simple. Two people talking in the car is less distracting
and
as the driver you can easily ignore the other person whule your brain
copes with the traffic condition of that moment. Same with
ignoring the
radio.

Phone conversations can be more intense. Less so for a quick call to
pick up bread on the way home than trying to give tech support on a
broken machine.

Firstly I was talking about the objection of people using phones while
standing in the pavement.

Secondly I disagree, a phone conversation is just talking, it's not
"more
intense". The only difference is the person is not visible. In fact
with
someone in the passenger seat you might be tempted to look at them while
speaking. Since that's not possible on a phone, a phonecall is LESS
distracting.

Nope. Tests have shown that cellphone conversations can be more
distracting and dangerous than talking with a passenger. The passenger
can see what's happening and knows to shut up at particularly dangerous
points and can even help out by checking traffic in the opposite
direction, etc. The person on the other end of the phonecall simply
keeps blabbering on.

Also, many people ridiculously seem to think that because it's a
phonecall it is more "important" and so they concentrate more on it
than they do on an "unimportant" conversation with a passenger.

Your second paragraph explains my point well. Only a complete and utter
moron will prioritise a phonecall over driving. In everyday life, we
are constantly prioritising without even thinking about it. And there
is no reason to penalise sensible folk by making it illegal to do two
things at once, just because a few morons are incapable of it. If I'm
driving along with my phone to my ear, and I need to swerve round
something, I will simply drop the phone. I have done so in the past.


Funny thing happened today as I was at a light waiting for light to
change. I was in the left turn lane facing north, and the highway
traffic coming off the highway heading across my path showed a police
car going past me and the cop driving was talking on his cell phone.

I just shook my head as I watched him drive past me.

--
Maggie

In article
,
Muggles wrote:

I've seen a lot of testing going on with such things, but I still thinks
it's a decade or more away from fully autonomous cars being the norm on
the roads.

it obviously won't change completely overnight, nor does it have to be
fully autonomous either.

even if only part of a trip is automated, that's still a win.

there are *many* advantages to autonomous vehicles, including a
*dramatic* reduction of collisions, injuries and fatalities, reducing
traffic and being able to make trips otherwise not possible.

I'm somewhat skeptical as the viability and effectiveness, at least any
time soon.

why?

it only needs to be better than human drivers, which unfortunately, is
not all that difficult.

In article
,
Muggles wrote:


Funny thing happened today as I was at a light waiting for light to
change. I was in the left turn lane facing north, and the highway
traffic coming off the highway heading across my path showed a police
car going past me and the cop driving was talking on his cell phone.

I just shook my head as I watched him drive past me.

cops get to break the law any time they want. sometimes they even lie
about it.

they also have a laptop computer mounted beside them the front seat,
which they interact with constantly.

On 01/21/2016 02:17 PM, nospam wrote:
In article
,
Muggles wrote:

If you're gonna ban cellphones, you may as well ban GPS.
And coffee.
And radio dials.
And that damn defroster button (now where is it?)
Oh, and ban crying babies.

Yeah! I'd vote for that, especially, in grocery stores and restaurants.

and airplanes. nothing sucks more than a screaming baby nearby, or
worse, in the next seat.


Or stinky obese people with their rolls of sweaty greasy fat hanging over the arm rest.

On 1/21/2016 7:10 PM, nospam wrote:
In article
,
Muggles wrote:

I'm somewhat skeptical as the viability and effectiveness, at least any
time soon.

why?

it only needs to be better than human drivers, which unfortunately, is
not all that difficult.


Quite often software fails, gets hacked, or simply doesn't work like
it's supposed to work.

--
Maggie

In article
,
Muggles wrote:

I'm somewhat skeptical as the viability and effectiveness, at least any
time soon.

why?

it only needs to be better than human drivers, which unfortunately, is
not all that difficult.

Quite often software fails, gets hacked, or simply doesn't work like
it's supposed to work.

not as often as humans fail.

nothing is perfect, but as long as it does better, it's a win, and
since drunk driving, texting, falling asleep, etc., will no longer
happen, that's rather easy to do.

keep in mind that autonomous vehicles will have radar, lidar and video
scanning 360 degrees non-stop, which means it will be able to see
things humans could never see, particularly at night and also in fog.

nospam wrote:
In article
,
Muggles wrote:

traffic coming off the highway heading across my path showed a police
car going past me and the cop driving was talking on his cell phone.

I just shook my head as I watched him drive past me.

cops get to break the law any time they want. sometimes they even lie
about it.

Sometimes? Try *most* of the time. Cops lie as a matter of policy. It's
perfectly legal for them to lie to citizens; meanwhile a citizen lying to a
cop means almost certain arrest.

they also have a laptop computer mounted beside them the front seat,
which they interact with constantly.

But don't you dare do it as a ****ant citizen...

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Wild Bill wrote:
On 01/21/2016 02:17 PM, nospam wrote:
In article
,
Muggles wrote:

If you're gonna ban cellphones, you may as well ban GPS.
And coffee.
And radio dials.
And that damn defroster button (now where is it?)
Oh, and ban crying babies.

Yeah! I'd vote for that, especially, in grocery stores and restaurants.

and airplanes. nothing sucks more than a screaming baby nearby, or
worse, in the next seat.

Or stinky obese people with their rolls of sweaty greasy fat hanging over the arm rest.

Experience shows they don't have to be overweight to stink.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 1/21/2016 3:39 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

Your second paragraph explains my point well. Only a complete and utter
moron will prioritise a phonecall over driving. In everyday life, we
are constantly prioritising without even thinking about it. And there
is no reason to penalise sensible folk by making it illegal to do two
things at once, just because a few morons are incapable of it. If I'm
driving along with my phone to my ear, and I need to swerve round
something, I will simply drop the phone. I have done so in the past.


Good for you. Not everyone thinks like that.

I don't think phones should be banned, but drivers must be educated.
There are times I call home to see what's for dinner, other time I would
ignore it due to traffic conditions..

Texting is a different situation. I never look at my phone while driving.

On 1/21/2016 8:49 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 1/21/2016 7:10 PM, nospam wrote:
In article
,
Muggles wrote:

I'm somewhat skeptical as the viability and effectiveness, at least any
time soon.

why?

it only needs to be better than human drivers, which unfortunately, is
not all that difficult.


Quite often software fails, gets hacked, or simply doesn't work like
it's supposed to work.


Bought a new car a couple of months ago. I'm still a bit skeptical but
less than I was. My car can easily follow another at highway speeds and
adjust speed and even come to a stop with me just steering. Even helps
with that with lane departure.

I've posted a link before to Genesis driverless caravan.

Muggles wrote:

traffic coming off the highway heading across my path showed a police
car going past me and the cop driving was talking on his cell phone.

I just shook my head as I watched him drive past me.


Police in some towns are using phones for privacy as people are
listening to scanners. Bad guys listen to not get caught.

That cop may have been heading to a big drug bust. Or ordering lunch.

In article
,
Muggles wrote:
On 1/21/2016 1:46 PM, nospam wrote:

several car makers have announced autonomous functionality as soon as
the 2017 model year.

I've seen a lot of testing going on with such things, but I still thinks
it's a decade or more away from fully autonomous cars being the norm on
the roads.

The manufacturers currently (and of course plans may change) have a
range of dates for introducing self-driving cars. Some are talking
about 2020 while others are saying 2025 or later.

The reality is that no matter when (or if) these cars do get released,
they will be so hideously expensive to begin with that there will be
very few of them on the roads and it'll take another 5-10 years for the
technology starts to trickle down to more "normal" cars, and a further
10-20+ years before the majority of cars on roads are self-driving.

Even then, many of the manufacturers are planning to have their cars
include self-driving as an option and leaving it up to the driver
whether or not they want to be in control on a journey-by-journey
basis.

It's going to be a long long time before *all* cars on the road are
self-driving.

In article
,
Muggles wrote:

Funny thing happened today as I was at a light waiting for light to
change. I was in the left turn lane facing north, and the highway
traffic coming off the highway heading across my path showed a police
car going past me and the cop driving was talking on his cell phone.

I just shook my head as I watched him drive past me.

Police are allowed to break most traffic laws *IF* it's appropriate for
doing their job (the obvious example being speeding and running red
traffic lights when on an emergency call out). Unfortunately there are
many cases of police being just as moronically stupid as the rest of
the human race and using their cellphone for non-official business
while driving, illegally parking so they can grab a coffee, etc.

In article , Ed
Pawlowski wrote:

I don't think phones should be banned, but drivers must be educated.
There are times I call home to see what's for dinner, other time I would
ignore it due to traffic conditions..

Yep, because finding out "what's for dinner" is so Earth-shatteringly
important that it can't wait to be done when parked somewhere sensible
or when you actually get home. :-\

On 2016-01-22, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Police in some towns are using phones for privacy as people are
listening to scanners.

Pure irony, considering their unconstitutional use of Stingrays.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2016-01-22, Your Name wrote:
In article , Ed
Pawlowski wrote:

I don't think phones should be banned, but drivers must be educated.
There are times I call home to see what's for dinner, other time I would
ignore it due to traffic conditions..

Yep, because finding out "what's for dinner" is so Earth-shatteringly
important that it can't wait to be done when parked somewhere sensible
or when you actually get home. :-\

+1

Everyone who does this stupid behavior seems to think their personal
reasons are legit.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

In article , Your Name
wrote:

several car makers have announced autonomous functionality as soon as
the 2017 model year.

I've seen a lot of testing going on with such things, but I still thinks
it's a decade or more away from fully autonomous cars being the norm on
the roads.

The manufacturers currently (and of course plans may change) have a
range of dates for introducing self-driving cars. Some are talking
about 2020 while others are saying 2025 or later.

try 2017:
http://www.computerworld.com/article...hnology/volvo-
unveils-self-driving-concept-car-promises-fleet-by-2017.html

The reality is that no matter when (or if) these cars do get released,
they will be so hideously expensive to begin with that there will be
very few of them on the roads and it'll take another 5-10 years for the
technology starts to trickle down to more "normal" cars, and a further
10-20+ years before the majority of cars on roads are self-driving.

also wrong, nor does it need to be the majority of vehicles.

Even then, many of the manufacturers are planning to have their cars
include self-driving as an option and leaving it up to the driver
whether or not they want to be in control on a journey-by-journey
basis.

they're doing that not because of choice, but because stupid lawmakers
are requiring it.

It's going to be a long long time before *all* cars on the road are
self-driving.

that does not need to happen for there to be massive benefits.

In article , Ed
Pawlowski wrote:

traffic coming off the highway heading across my path showed a police
car going past me and the cop driving was talking on his cell phone.

I just shook my head as I watched him drive past me.


Police in some towns are using phones for privacy as people are
listening to scanners. Bad guys listen to not get caught.

no they don't. bad guys are too stupid to do that and can't afford to
have a scanner (or know how to use one) anyway.

on the other hand, news reporters and hobbyists use them.

That cop may have been heading to a big drug bust. Or ordering lunch.

likely the latter.