Why must ppl find more and more ways to distract themselves while driving down the highway, game consoles, dvd players, tv reception systems, hacking nav systems. I'm all for ppl modding their vehicles as they like, whether I like the results or not, but I personally have a problem with mods that risk the lives of innocent people just so someone can have a "cool" mod. "Oooo, look at him he can play xbox, wow you can watch movies!" Cell phones are bad enough.

Sorry but this is absurd. In my 20 years of driving, I've been lucky to have been in only 2 accidents, neither of which had injuries, but both of which the other driver wasn't paying attention and I had no where else to go, both times I got sideswiped. I'm inherently very attentive on the highway and maybe that's due to my training and job to some degree, the rest is that I don't want to be one of the 40,000+ people that die needlessly due to someone elses ignorance, which I have seen run rampant on many forums, not just here.

Ask anyone what they would wish for all humanity, most respond "Peace on Earth", I say, "A Modicum of Common Sense". A vehicle is inherently a complicated machine in which we all are jack-of-all-trades and master-of-none, we are all constantly learning the intricacies of driving the vast array of roads available to us. And seeing as though a majority of accidents happen within 25 miles home shows just how complacent ppl get to their surroundings, add to that a movie playing in an RX-8 driven by a less-than-stellar driver with less-than-stellar experience and you've got a recipe for disaster; a dead pedestrian waiting for a bus or rearending that family at a stop light.

You want a big ass whale-tail on the back, knock yourself out, you want to put 13" wheels on your ride and scrape the undercarraige as you drive, that's your business, put on as many stickers as you want if it makes you feel like you go faster. Leave the TV, DVD, and game console to the living room.

The only exception, and I mean the only exception are those vehicles such as SUVs, mini-vans that have such systems in the rear-passenger part of the vehicle.

You have my word, if I see a movie or game playing in the front of a vehicle as I drive behind you, I won't be behind you much longer because I'll have to make room for the Z28 Highway Patrol Cruiser about to pull your ass over, that I took the liberty of calling.


Enjoy and Stay Safe!
-Drew-

I guess I'll just avoid Palm Harbor, FL from now on.

I fully understand what you're saying. I like to be extra-perceptive of all the cars around me, and one of the things I look for when driving is whether the other drivers are talking into a cell phone so I can expect acts of stupidity.

I think it should be illegal to drive while holding the cell phone to your ear. Studies show however that hand-free cell use, even nav computers, kids in the back seat :), stereos are a distraction to the driver, but I think that they should allowed. Certain people are bad drivers even without any distractions, so should we ban stereos, nav computers, all cell phone use, etc? I don't think so.

It is possible to ignore a movie playing in the front compartment. Hell, mother's often tune out their loud-mouth kids and I don't know how they do it :) Regardless, are you going to report a guy driving safely playing movies for his kids in the back seat (to entertain them so they're less of a distraction to him ;) )? In fact, what's the highway patrol going to say? How about this:

You: Some guy is playing movies in his front compartment.
Cop: Is he driving erratically? exceeding the speed limit?
You: Well, no, but he could do so at any moment.
Cop: Sorry, I have bigger fish to fry.

Regardless, are you going to report a guy driving safely playing movies for his kids in the back seat (to entertain them so they're less of a distraction to him

You didn't read everything; "The only exception, and I mean the only exception are those vehicles such as SUVs, mini-vans that have such systems in the rear-passenger part of the vehicle."


You: Some guy is playing movies in his front compartment.
Cop: Is he driving erratically? exceeding the speed limit?
You: Well, no, but he could do so at any moment.
Cop: Sorry, I have bigger fish to fry.

Not likely, but I wouldn't be so non-chalant about it either, trust me, he would get stopped. No cop is going to risk his career or possible lawsuits should he decide NOT to pull him over.

I think it should be illegal to drive while holding the cell phone to your ear. Studies show however that hand-free cell use, even nav computers, kids in the back seat , stereos are a distraction to the driver, but I think that they should allowed. Certain people are bad drivers even without any distractions, so should we ban stereos, nav computers, all cell phone use, etc? I don't think so.

Thanks for concurring with me on how we have enough distractions and do not need anymore.

It doesn't mean it should be made illegal. First of all, IF I was capable of playing movies, then I certainly wouldn't let it distract me because I'm not an IDIOT. Personally, it would be way more effective to make driver's tests actually test SOME skill.

I did read everything, I was just giving an example where I think you're being a little overzealous. It's even an example where the driver may be less distracted with a movie playing (i.e. with two screaming kids in the back seat). I don't know, which would tend to make me drive more aggressively, one movie (where I can control the volume) or two screaming kids? Not that I have two screaming kids, but this is just a hypothetical situation.

You want to do something about public safety, why not report drunk and/or reckless drivers, which are a much bigger problem, rather than the small percentage of people that can even play movies in the front compartment?

If you want to report even people driving safely, then go right on ahead. It's a free country, so I'm free to think it's a waste of time. It's just that if states legislate against everything that anybody objects to, this wouldn't be a country that I want to live in.

More to my point, with 2 screaming kids, is that not enough? For those that don't have kids, does that mean we allow them distractions where there should be none. Typically, someone that doesn't have kids, initially, are the young and inexperienced drivers to begin with, so it should be okay? At the expense of other's safety, no.

I have reported erratic driving, as for reckless, I haven't had the opportunity, though I'm unsure if i would be willing to get close enough or challenge the situation, though I would still report what i could. I don't imagine that I would even come across someone with such a mod as a DVD or game console in the front compartment, since it's more of a rarity at this point. Just the fact that ppl are considering it with apparent disregard to their safety and the safety of others is what's disheartening.

So where are we now? Drunk drivers or under the influence of something else, screaming kids, reckless road ragers, cell phone addicts, do we need to add such mods to an equation that's already difficult to control?

If this was a forum of family van or SUV owners discussing some fancy install techniques for a movie player in the back seat to calm those crazy nuggets, that would be one thing. But that's not it, is it? It's ppl that want to hack a nav system so they can watch movies as they drive, watch the local game on the way home, have their buddy kick on a console game with a screen in plain view of the driver. Is this really necessary? come on. "Modicum of Common Sense". Maybe that covers only 1% of all fatalities, but that's still 400 people that will see the sunrise, spend time with their families and friends, be able to get back in their 8.

The only difference in opinion is that you think it's impossible to video playing in the front of the car without being an impossible distraction to the driver. If I see someone that is distracted by watching a movie while driving, then I'd be the first one to turn them in. Hell, they're stupid enough that they shouldn't be allowed to use sharp pencils.

What I'm trying to argue is that it IS possible for someone to use this in a rational manner, that's all. You simply assume that everyone is going to abuse it and endanger lives, which I don't believe is true.

Sad to say but ANYTHING can be a distraction. Even your woman feeling risky. I plan on doing some rather interesting (to me) mods but I am responsible and dont plan on actually using anything more than the mp3 player or GPS while actually driving. People have the choice to be idiots or not. Having the gear for it doesnt mean they will be. Making it illegal is about as smart as making pot illegal (in my view wich of course differs from a lot of people) rather than alcohol. I know a lot of people dead from drunk drivers, yet dont know anybody killed for stoned drivers. Yet one is universally accepted almost as a right, while another is shunned quite emphatically in a lot of places.

I personally dont trust anybody but myself on the road and drive acordingly. You just need to do the same.

How can you be so attentive while checking out every other driver to ensure they are not on a cell phone, or playing a video on some television?

Why not pay attention to your lane, your vehicle, and the MOVEMENT of the ones around you, not whether the driver is calling home, or playing a DVD on an LCD screen to show it off.

I do not have any televisions, play stations, VCRs, DVD players, etc in my car, unless they are in the trunk for some reason, but, that is not my thing. I grew out of that mess 10yrs ago.

I fly for, and do a lot of business with, a local police department, and allow me to tell you, at least locally, they could care a less about wreckless drivers, speeders, and the others you commented about here. It is BOLO'd (Be On The Look Out) & forgotten at best. It is a different story if the officer is there & see's it, but if you call it in, typically they don't care.

With that said, I lost my sister to a car accident. Inattentiveness is a bad deal, but it tends to be the moron that is busy being pretend cop, or drinking and driving over the one making a phone call.


Nothing personal, just my opinion.

The only difference in opinion is that you think it's impossible to video playing in the front of the car without being an impossible distraction to the driver.

Never said that, just why do we need to add to the already numerous distractions we have to contend with.

You simply assume that everyone is going to abuse it and endanger lives

Never said that either, but we're taking an already complicated, inherently dangerous task and making it more dangerous...and for what purpose, highway entertainment?

Sad to say but ANYTHING can be a distraction

My point........

Making it illegal is about as smart as making pot illegal

Again, I never said that, but now that you mention it, it wouldn't bother me in the least. though I can't personally see the correlation between vehicle mods and the use of controlled substances.

I personally dont trust anybody but myself on the road and drive acordingly.

More to my point, but driving is a privaledge and abuses of that privaledge needs to be kept in check.

No one has yet justified any reason for such mods in the forward cabin.........

oosik, if it's any consolation, I COMPLETELY agree with you. I think having any additional possible distractions to the driver is a bad thing, and we're headed down the proverbial slippery slope; it started with cup holders, then CD players, then CD changers, then cell phones (oh my god the cell phones), then nav systems, now DVD players/televisions and game consoles! What's next, laptop computers mounted in the dash? Microwave ovens and cappucino machines? I know my examples are getting a bit ridiculous, but so are the things being installed in cars to distract drivers.

I, too, do agree with most of the things oosik said.

A friend of mine, a family guy, has a van with the overhead dvd/game console for his kids in the back. Personally, I think that's cool, entertain the kids on those long trips. Swap out driving with the spouse and you can sit back and watch a movie with the little ones for a while. Actually, I think those systems are pretty cool. But I"m sorry, no one can ever justify putting those things in the front cabin. I don't play console games and I know if the passenger up fron was watching a movie I'd probably be distracted at times and I don't need that.

I found, early on, that just driving my 8 is entertainment, in and of itself so I need nothing else.

If those kinds of mods are something you have to do just to do it, fine. Use while your driving and get into an accident, you'll get zero sympathy from me and probably from most ppl if they knew. If the system was rigged that it could operate when the vehicle was at a complete stop with the parking brake set fine. I guess you'd have to play in parking lots, but I can't imagine why on earth you'd do that.

All I want is for ppl to think about what they are really doing and what their intentions are. I'd really hate to come onto this forum to find out someones precious RX8 was wrecked either due to their own stupidity or that of someone else. Anytime I see pictures of damaged 8's here, I cringe. Even though it's not my car, I know how it feels all too well.

Do to your car what makes you happy, regardless of what anyone says, just use common sense and don't do anything that will risk your personal safety and the safety of, by far, the best looking car on the road!!

One time I had to leave on a trip when I was only about 50 pages from finishing a very good book. Know what I did? Yeah.

"I know a lot of people dead from drunk drivers, yet dont know anybody killed for stoned drivers."

Maybe thats because at least as of now Pot is illegal. Im all for making alcohol illegal as well then you wouldnt have so many drunk drivers either.

As I've said before, people who get in accidents because of this won't get my sympathy either. oosik, I know you didn't exactly say those things, but those conclusions I draw from your statement

"You have my word, if I see a movie or game playing in the front of a vehicle as I drive behind you, I won't be behind you much longer because I'll have to make room for the Z28 Highway Patrol Cruiser about to pull your ass over, that I took the liberty of calling"

regardless of whether the vehicle is being driven in a safe manner. You say that it would distract YOU, but it IS possible for someone else to IGNORE the video. I don't see that as making driving more difficult than listening to the radio.

If it makes you happier, I probably won't get a permanent video setup up front on my car, but I will bring my laptop along on long trips so my passengers can watch movies :)

I love these people that say they're capable of cooking a pizza and conducting an orchestra while they drive.

It must be great to have three heads.

---------

A stupid bitch crossed half of my lane and hit my leg (was on my motor bike) a few months ago while she was chatting on the hand held phone, driving her volvo. I stayed up and avoided getting killed - she denied all knowledge.

...ego and stupidy seem to go hand in hand!

What about the flip out touch screen CD recievers, with bigger text and buttons to make it easier to use?

Anyway, i mostly agree with you. I try not to talk on my cell phone at all while i am driving, and if i leave it on, it's for emergencies only (expecting a call.)

I usually dont change CD's at night during deer season for risk of keeping my eyes off the road for only a second or three.


However, should it be illegal? Well, maybe. We'll also need muzzles for the rugrats.:D

Originally posted by rabinabo
...What I'm trying to argue is that it IS possible for someone to use this in a rational manner, that's all. You simply assume that everyone is going to abuse it and endanger lives, which I don't believe is true. The problem with that is that there are too many people who do abuse it and endanger lives. And there are too many people who are not responsible enough to admit to themselves that it does distract them. They truly believe that they are capable, when in fact they don't take an honest assessment of the situation, but instead they foolishly assume that they are good enough. And that goes for about everything, not just distractions while driving.

There are people out there with the skills, and responsibility, that they can drive safer 20 miles over the speed limit than most people can at the speed limit. There are vehicles out there that with the same driver, are safer 20 miles over the speed limit than others at the speed limit. But there is no feasible way of identifying them, and allowing them to drive differently. In the system we have today, everyone has to be held to the same standard.

This was proven in the last ten years in Montana. When the national speed limit was lifted, Montana had no set speed limit during the daytime. Instead, the limit was as fast as conditions would allow. What happened was that people drove in what they thought were within their and their vehicle's capabilities. There were two problems: A) There were many many people who obviously did not make an honest assessment of what they or their capabilities were, or thought it was a free ticket to drive recklessly, and B) There is no way for a trooper to make an accurate assessment of a driver or vehicle's abilities. Sure, you can tell if someone is being reckless, but you can't determine someone's limits. For example, my brother canNOT drive my car as capably as I can. He is a perfectly responsible driver, but the responsible limit for him on a twisty mountain road is significantly less than mine, and there is no way that a trooper on the side of the road can tell the difference between the two of us. Several years back, Montana eventually had to put an actual speed limit up, because there was just no way that a trooper or the courts could fairly judge whether someone was driving past their capabilities.

So, even though there are a couple of people with vehicles that can safely drive down an open freeway at 100 mph, we have to restrict them to the same speed limits as everyone else. And so, even though there are a few people who actually can keep a video screen from distracting them, we have to restrict them from that like everyone else too.

---jps

crossed half of my lane and hit my leg (was on my motor bike)

WOW.........that would freak me out. That's why I don't own a motorcycle and why, when I see one I stay the hell away from them. Bikes make me more nervous than big rigs.

Originally posted by oosik
WOW.........that would freak me out. That's why I don't own a motorcycle and why, when I see one I stay the hell away from them. Bikes make me more nervous than big rigs.

You see a lot more on a bike (of drivers) one guy I remember seeing in a tunnel had his filofax on the steering wheel held by his left hand, pen slotted through left fingers, a mobile in the crook of his neck and using his right hand to sip the coffee he had between his legs when not taking notes with the pen.

Then you have women that apply eye make up as the drive along. There can be no brain at all in those heads!!!

Maybe a video screen on the back parcel shelf, facing forward with a view from a camera at the front of the car would be a good idea. That way women with children could spend all of their time twisted around facing the back seat and yelling at their kids instead of only half of it.

I'll end my rant by asking how anyone here would feel if they ran over a child because they were too busy with their attention on a video display to see the kid run out? (Don't be foolish enough to think this can't happen to you).

OK, I skimmed thru this thread. But I would call bad in-attentive drivers, bad in-attentive drivers.

If you want to go back to the begining of distractions, don't forget radios, tape players, and the ones the "professional" drivers use most 2-way radios. Be it truckers or law enforcement. Have you seen the equivilent of laptops in police cars these days.

You're right, more and more toys for the auto come out to make our lives simpler, yet, possibly put us in more danger. Hopefully most people can weed through these things when making a decision. Though it seems there are more and more visual distractions, where as in the beginning is was more aural. I think visual distraction is more dangerous by far.

So I'm slightly confused. Are those of you who don't like the added distractions in cars arguing that we make them illegal or simply recommending that people shouldn't put game consoles and similar things in their cars? In my opinion it's foolish to put a game console in a small car, but by no means am I going to tell you that you aren't allowed to if you so choose. As for people watching tv or playing games while they are driving, again I believe people should make their own decisions, even if they might be retarded ones.

It seems to me, though, that most of you are advocating making these new distractions illegal in cars for security. I even see some of you saying that we should illegalize alcohol so people won't have the opportunity to drive drunk. Do you really believe illegalizing alcohol will keep people from drinking it, and moreover from drinking and driving? It worked really well in the 20s and it's working well with drugs right now, minus the "it worked part". You people are so ready to throw away your freedom and let the government regulate everything just for the possibility of security. As Benjaming Frankilin so eloquently put it "they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty". I don't think by any means that this is an essential liberty, but I still don't want the government regulating everything I do. This includes making foolish decisions to put game consoles in my car. I'm willing to take the risk and allow others to make their own decisions.

Originally posted by Skapunk
So I'm slightly confused. Are those of you who don't like the added distractions in cars arguing that we make them illegal or simply recommending that people shouldn't put game consoles and similar things in their cars? In my opinion it's foolish to put a game console in a small car, but by no means am I going to tell you that you aren't allowed to if you so choose. As for people watching tv or playing games while they are driving, again I believe people should make their own decisions, even if they might be retarded ones.

It seems to me, though, that most of you are advocating making these new distractions illegal in cars for security. I even see some of you saying that we should illegalize alcohol so people won't have the opportunity to drive drunk. Do you really believe illegalizing alcohol will keep people from drinking it, and moreover from drinking and driving? It worked really well in the 20s and it's working well with drugs right now, minus the "it worked part". You people are so ready to throw away your freedom and let the government regulate everything just for the possibility of security. As Benjaming Frankilin so eloquently put it "they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty". I don't think by any means that this is an essential liberty, but I still don't want the government regulating everything I do. This includes making foolish decisions to put game consoles in my car. I'm willing to take the risk and allow others to make their own decisions.

I'm glad for you that you're willing to take the risk of doing something stupid. If you were the only person that would be killed or injured as a result of your own stupidity I would also endorse it. BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE!!!

It's fine to quote Benjamin Franklin, but I can't imagine many parallels in his day that would equate to a speeding drug addict playing a game console driving past a school at the wheel of two tons of steel.

Let's face it, the ability of many individuals to make intelligent choices must be getting pretty close to non existent in recent years. Common sense is no longer common. Laws have to be introduced to protect the innocent from the morons and criminals that have no regard for the safety of others.

If this makes installing a game console in a car that can be used by the driver while the car is in motion a crime - GOOD!!! Because it may safe someone's life.

If you think having the freedom to do something really stupid that can harm or kill others is important, you are a FOOL of the hishest order. (Notice here that I said "if you think" - not "you are").

While you're quoting Benjamin Franklin, remember that if you did something that needlessly caused death to others in those days, you'd probably have been shot dead within a few minutes - is that the sort of freedom you want???

Originally posted by Kev
I'm glad for you that you're willing to take the risk of doing something stupid. If you were the only person that would be killed or injured as a result of your own stupidity I would also endorse it. BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE!!!

The person who applies eye makeup or watches TV while driving is assuming most of the risk himself. Not all, but most.

It's fine to quote Benjamin Franklin, but I can't imagine many parallels in his day that would equate to a speeding drug addict playing a game console driving past a school at the wheel of two tons of steel.

Since the invention of the spear thousands of years ago, man has been able to take the life of another with a flick of the wrist. Responsibility has been a core human virtue for at least as long. The old lessons still apply.

Let's face it, the ability of many individuals to make intelligent choices must be getting pretty close to non existent in recent years. Common sense is no longer common. Laws have to be introduced to protect the innocent from the morons and criminals that have no regard for the safety of others.

You're exaggerating. There have always been morons and criminals, and there have always been people complaining that civilization is going right down the crapper. It is not.

If this makes installing a game console in a car that can be used by the driver while the car is in motion a crime - GOOD!!! Because it may safe someone's life.

There are an infinite number of ways in which one person could harm another through irresponsibility. Should we outlaw each one? Each new law brings new bearucratic overhead, and it's gotten to the point that your life is governed by thousands of times more laws than you could feasibly understand.

If you think having the freedom to do something really stupid that can harm or kill others is important, you are a FOOL of the hishest order. (Notice here that I said "if you think" - not "you are").

Not only is it important, it is absolutely vital. Have you ever thrown a baseball in an area where a stray throw might have given a concussion to a passerby? Imagine such a simple right taken away, and maybe you'll get a sense of why some people guard their freedoms jealously.

While you're quoting Benjamin Franklin, remember that if you did something that needlessly caused death to others in those days, you'd probably have been shot dead within a few minutes - is that the sort of freedom you want???

Uh, do you have a reference for that? I actually thought that they had laws and courts and judicial process in his day. Or are you exaggerating again?

Kev,
Do you ever speed? I ask this seriously.

Also, I would like to make clear that I don't have a game console in my car and am not planning to put one in. I also barely use my cell phone in general, much less in the car. I have the navigation, but I only use it when I'm not moving or someone is in the passenger seat to read it to me. When I said I was willing to take the risk and let people make their own decisions I did not mean I was going to put a game console in my car, poor wording. I meant I was willing to let others do it in their own cars.

Yes, I do understand that many people can't make informed or intelligent decisions, but that is what our constitution is based on. We allow people to vote on who will run the country but we shouldn't allow them to decide whether or not they want to have a game console in the car and use it or a cell phone while they are driving? You are right, their decision might get people, including themselves, injured or killed. But their decision on who will lead the country might cause the same thing (war, abortions, and so forth). People have not gotten less intelligent, they've always been this way.

Your stance means also, that if sometime in the near future, technology allows us to have a fully automated car system (one where the cars and routes are controlled completely by computers and people only ride in them), you can't complain about not being able to drive anymore, because human driving would put yourself and others at risk of injury or death.

bluesnowmonkey,

What sort of moron thinks that applying eye makeup while driving is mostly a risk to the driver doing it. You are exactly the sort of limited intellect that needs to be stopped from injuring others through thoughtless action. Ever heard of a "head on" accident? What about the baby that no longer has a mother?

Also, I don't think anyone was ever killed by a spear while the operator was playing a game console - maybe you'd like to do a little research on this though???

You want the freedom to throw baseballs at people and cause brain damage? What sort of mixed up indiviual are you. Responsible people take precautions - but you expect everone else to suffer your stupidity.

Now let me explain things very simply to you as I believe things like this are very hard for you to understand. A car is a big heavy thing that can cause damage if not controlled properly. If it hits people it can kill them. It should not be a personal freedom to drive a car in a way that it can kill innocent people.

Freedom isn't about your right to harm people through the expression of your own stupidity. Kill someone's child in your car while you're watching a dvd and you'll be experiencing the sort of freedom you are endorsing.

As long as people continue to express their stupidity through acts that harm others, laws will continue to be introduced to protect the innocent.

Let's talk about freedom though, the freedom to walk down the street without being raped or robbed, the freedom to cross the road without being killed by someone who doesn't see a traffic light because they're playing a game, the freedom to walk through a park without being hit in the head by a baseball.

Skapunk,

There are laws against speeding - you spped, you get fined. Kill someone speeding ... manslaughter and jail.

I'm not focused on you in any way as an individual. I'm glad you are a responsible driver. A lot of people are. The people who are not responsilbe are the problem.

You don't need a phone, dvd, game console or anything else in a car to do something stupid.

In passing, would you really want a person that believes it's their constitutional right to watch a dvd while driving a car to be driving down the street while your child was crossing the road?

A society needs laws, if one law of "don't do anything stupid that could harm others" was introduced, would you accept it? Probably not, but I just don't understand why people believe they should have the right to do things that can harm others, why would they want to or feel the need to?

Now come on Kev, we were having an honest debate, no need to call people morons. Let's try to keep it civil, ok?

We're talking about some technology that can be used in both safe and unsafe ways (talking on a cell phone or watching a video screen). Here's your argument:

1. Talking on a cell while driving causes accidents (no doubt about that).
2. Most people are too lazy and/or too impatient to pull over when they get a call on their cell while driving.
3. Therefore, we should ban the presence of any cell phone in the presence of the driver of any car, denying this to all the people that would use them intelligently.

What Mr. bluesnowmonkey (and I as well as Mr. Franklin) are trying to argue is that as a society that attempts to provide everyone with some reasonable amount of freedom. Furthermore, if we outlaw every single thing that could possibly cause deaths, then this would be a severely repressed society with not much freedom besides the right to live. I.E. there can be NO freedom without risk.

Originally posted by Kev
Let's talk about freedom though, the freedom to walk down the street without being raped or robbed, the freedom to cross the road without being killed by someone who doesn't see a traffic light because they're playing a game, the freedom to walk through a park without being hit in the head by a baseball. [/B]

First of all, that's security, not freedom. Freedom is the ability to walk down the street if you so choose to without the government telling you that you can't. Shall we outlaw baseball in the parks so your precious head will not be at risk? We shouldn't walk dogs in the park anymore either because they might bite someone.

Also, you never answered my question and I'm thinking maybe you just missed it, not that you're avoiding it? Do you ever speed? Do you ever break traffic laws, like rolling stops at stop signs or not using your blinker?

I apologize if I sound too sarcastic or condescending, I did not mean it to seem so.

What I mean by the speeding question is, if you're not following the laws we already have, why should we add more? Enforce what we have, as more laws don't necessarily mean less accidents. Also, I mean that if you speed, then you have no place at all to say that others should be prosecuted for not paying attention to driving. You are breaking present laws and a danger yourself. I'm not trying to attack you personally, but I am trying to show the folly in your thinking.

If we eliminate every activity that endangers others, there'd be no smoking, no drinking, no cell phones, etc. In fact, once we can program cars to drive to destinations by themselves (without the help of a driver), we can just outlaw driving. How would you like that?

I know I wouldn't.

Originally posted by Skapunk
First of all, that's security, not freedom. Freedom is the ability to walk down the street if you so choose to without the government telling you that you can't. Shall we outlaw baseball in the parks so your precious head will not be at risk? We shouldn't walk dogs in the park anymore either because they might bite someone.


How on earth can you separate security from feedom?

Dangerous dogs should be on a lead with a muzzle. Recreatational activities should be undertaken in ways that do not risk the safety of others.

Which would you prefer??? Walk your dog on a lead or be beaten to death by the parent after your dog bites a small child on the face? Kill an 80 year old lady by hitting her in the head with a baseball or play a safe distance from others or in a location more suited to the activity?

It's because many people are too stupid and/or too selfish to exercise sufficient common sense that laws need to be introduced to make them aware of the dangers and reduce the risk to the innocent.

BTW, whether I personally drive about at triple the speed limit or rob banks for a living are questions that will not be answered on this forum. I didn't miss your question - I ignored it.

Also, "folly of my thinking" ? Now that's rather insulting isn't it? But what should I expect from a person with your viewpoint? I'm glad your driving around on the other side of the world.

Originally posted by rabinabo
Now come on Kev, we were having an honest debate, no need to call people morons. Let's try to keep it civil, ok?



It's an honest debate and I honestly believe that anyone that feels that limiting dangerous acts of stupidy by law takes away their freedom is a moron.

Remember, if everyone was capable of driving a car while watching tv, this would not be an issue.

... or is it a case that I should be allowed to run someone over because I'm watching a dvd in my car, but I'm not permitted to express a strongly felt opinion.

Originally posted by rabinabo
If we eliminate every activity that endangers others, there'd be no smoking, no drinking, no cell phones, etc. In fact, once we can program cars to drive to destinations by themselves (without the help of a driver), we can just outlaw driving. How would you like that?

If you exercise your brain a little harder, you'll see there would be potential for you to sit and smoke and get drunk while talking to someone on the phone and watching the tv - all while your car drove you home - you'd just sit in the back! When you are in the mood to pay 100% attention you drive ... call comes in - rover take over!

There is no reason you can't experience 100% enjoyment in life - just do it responsibly. It's because people can't or won't be responsilbe that laws need to be introduced.

Would you carry out rifle practice in a crowded park? If you say yes to this I'd be truly amazed.

As the initiator behind this thread, I'll say this, I personally never stated that such things should be illegal, i.e. game consoles, dvd, etc, but if they were I wouldn't be hurt by it.

What has been baffling me while perusing these threads for the the past couple of months is that people aren't looking for advice on how to install game systems into the rear part of the car for the kids, but rather up front in plain view of the driver. Now maybe some of these people thought, if only for a moment, how dangerous it could be and ignored it or maybe they didn't think about it. In either case, this thread was to, hopefully, "open their eyes" to see the possible "future" error of their ways and just not do it.

This thread was not intended to degenerate into alcohol and drugs, security and freedom, though I can see how they came about. But for people not to be so blind about some of the things they do, and that the decisions they make can have consequences for others as well. The world does not revolve around any one individual, though it seems some posters think that.

Just to digress for a moment, one of things I've been trained in as an aircrewman on helicopters is Crew Resource Management. Without boring everyone with the training here, one aspect that is pushed, shoved and stuffed into our brains is:

SITUATIONAL AWARENESS

Knowing anything and everything that is going on around you at all times. I have found that this simple principle has carried over to my driving, that at any given time I know where I am on a given road and what other vehicles are around me. I've taught myself to see who specifically is driving and how they are driving and also, and more importantly, what am I doing at any given time and not to have my attention drawn away too long.

This is a human principle and with that there is an inherent problem, maintaining it 100% of the time! Which brings me to mentioning that the reason I got an 8 in October was because I was sideswiped and my truck totaled. I wasn't distracted, the radio was off and my cell phone on vibrate, at the moment of impact I trulely believed that neither of the 2 cars in the far 3rd lane would come all the way over to my side. When I made that turn, 1 truck had come from the third lane and crossed over the line between lanes 1 and 2 as I was straightening my vehicle out in lane 1(left lane, hoping to leave a safety zone between me and them, one lane apart). Regardless I was cited, even though it was aparent he had switched lanes too far. And this happened when I had no other distractions, what if that driver was busy doing something else and just t-boned me?

Nothing is 100%, so why must ppl increase the level of risk that so inherent with driving a car.

I think the points are just not coming across well in this format. I'm not advocating watching a tv in ANY way WHILE DRIVING, and I don't think anybody else was either. Just like I don't advocate driving with one hand while holding the cell in the other.

I'm just saying that a REASONABLE person can DRIVE and not get distracted by NOT WATCHING THE VIDEO. That's all. Just like a reasonable person will pull over when they have to talk on their cell phone.

I just don't see why you would make a law to ban such a thing. If a person is driving WHILE FRICKIN' WATCHING A VIDEO, then they're already committing a crime: reckless endangerment (or some such thing). Then I'm all for locking them up.

oosik, I can appreciate the situational awareness comment. When I really get into driving, I look for every bit of info that I can find while driving. Sometimes it's someone on a cell phone, other times I try to anticipate other drivers' actions, or when I'm changing lanes I'll often look over two lanes to make sure someone doesn't change into my next lane while I'm moving over. Anyways, when I'm like that, there's nothing that will distract me from my task of driving.

Originally posted by rabinabo
I think the points are just not coming across well in this format. I'm not advocating watching a tv in ANY way WHILE DRIVING, and I don't think anybody else was either. Just like I don't advocate driving with one hand while holding the cell in the other.

I'm just saying that a REASONABLE person can DRIVE and not get distracted by NOT WATCHING THE VIDEO. That's all. Just like a reasonable person will pull over when they have to talk on their cell phone.

I just don't see why you would make a law to ban such a thing. If a person is driving WHILE FRICKIN' WATCHING A VIDEO, then they're already committing a crime: reckless endangerment (or some such thing). Then I'm all for locking them up.

Good and I agree with you.

My issue is that there are a significant number of people out there that are too stupid to know it's dangerous to watch televison while they're driving. Tell me it's less than 1 in 500 - would that still be ok? ... not by me.

How do you stop the idiots from doing the wrong thing without dividing society? How do you determine if someone is an idiot or has the potential to do stupid things?

Then I wouldn't give them a driver's license. If they're not reasonable enough to think intelligently, they shouldn't be allowed to drive on the streets.

I'm not advocating that people watch tv or talk on their cell phones while they are driving either, but a law isn't going to help. Kev, you seem to want a law for everything that is potentially dangerous to anyone at any time. We have speed limits, does that keep people from breaking them, no. If you are willing to break them yourself then you cannot be angry at others for doing the same thing or breaking similar driving laws. You don't have to answer officially. I will admit that I have broken the speed limits, but I'm not advocating adding more laws and complaining about my security. If you are willing to put others at risk with your own driving behavior, then you have no business condemning them for doing the same.

Kev,
Also, since you want potentially harmful practices illegalized, then tell me if you would accept a law that says humans are not allowed to drive if we can create an automated car system where computers do the driving and you sit in the back (I ask this because with the technology I've seen in cars right now, I think it is very possible this will happen in the near future). With your positions on everything else, you would have to accept it, because human error in driving could cause injury to others, and that possibility is not acceptable to you. At least that's how I've interpereted your stance. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

People get angry when they feel cornered by their words, and you seem to be getting angry. I wonder how old you are?

Let me add that I'm for punishing more on law breakers. I simply think we don't need more laws, just ones that we enforce, and enforce more strictly if they are serious. If someone hits another car because they were watching tv, would you punish them differently if they hit another car because they were listening to music or talking on the cell phone? They should all be punished just as harshly in my opinion.

Originally posted by rabinabo
Then I wouldn't give them a driver's license. If they're not reasonable enough to think intelligently, they shouldn't be allowed to drive on the streets.

Agreed. Instead of making things a crime because you "might" do this or "might" do that. Make it far more difficult to obtain a license. It should be on a par with obtaining a pilot's license - i.e. significant coursework on mechanics, physics, human factors, situational awareness, emergency procedures, navigation, etc.. A thorough written test and a demanding "check ride". Periodic medical examinations. Stringent vehicle inspections ('roadworthiness certificate') and mandatory maintenance schedules.

It should also be much easier to lose that license, and law enforcement should stop taking the easy way out (focusing on speed), and start citing for the far more dangerous offenses of following too closely and dangerous lane changes.

law enforcement should stop taking the easy way out (focusing on speed), and start citing for the far more dangerous offenses of following too closely and dangerous lane changes.

Absolutley agree here!!

Speed may kill, but combine that with what you just mentioned and more than one link in that chain is broken.

Originally posted by Kev
It's an honest debate and I honestly believe that anyone that feels that limiting dangerous acts of stupidy by law takes away their freedom is a moron... Kev, chill out with the name calling. If you can't argue your point civilly, then don't bother.

---jps

this is an excellent argument (so long as people can remani civil with one another) we must be aware what freedome means. "the price of freedom is constant vigilance."

to the point of professional drivers being able to use 2-way radios and laptops i.e. police and truckers. it is actually that these people experience accidents at a significantly increased rate due to the distractions created by these devices. it seems to be that people are only capable of so much multitasking and as we add in other distractions like kids or phones that attention diminishes even further.

i agree that when we start letting law makers do all the thinking about what is safe and what we can/cant do then we no longer deserve our freedom. we have lost sight of the goal and traded for ease of life and comfort.

coincidentally though speed does kill technically it was actually the poor thinking of the driver. in the U.S. we say speed kills on the autobahn the leading cause of fatal accidents is actuall tailgaters.

Originally posted by Sputnik
Kev, chill out with the name calling. If you can't argue your point civilly, then don't bother.

---jps

Sputnik,

Don't confuse the expression of opinion with name calling, also please don't confuse my applied observations as being anything less than civil.

Opinion counts as one on a planet of five billion plus.

I see the attitude expressed towards other people as one of careless disregard and the law as an annoying restriction on activities. Further, I feel this attitude is either criminal or moronic. The opportunity to express things differently exist, but this is how I currently interpret things.

Also, crying "freedom" everytime a law is introduced that intends to restrict people from harming others is foolish. Debating how law is used and the general state of your legal system is a completely different matter.

Explain to me why anybody should have the freedom to harm another living soul through negligent action and I'll concede the point and change my view.