Advocacy & Safety - Duh! In car tech not safe for drivers!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20101124/sc_livescience/incartechnologiesnotsafefordriversexpertssay


Technology is everywhere these days, and cars are no exception. From built-in Internet hot spots and iPad docks attached to seat headrests to state-of-the-art TVs, many drivers are cruising around with the latest high-tech frills and accessories in their ride.

But even when it is designed to help drivers keep both hands on the wheel, such technology can cause "cognitive distractions" and are ultimately dangerous, experts say.

Gee, it took experts to figure this out? :innocent:


"Some activities such as listening to the radio are passive, but others such as texting and checking Facebook are not," Strayer told TechNewsDaily. "The mind can only do one thing at once when driving - it's been long published in scientific journals. People who say that in-car technology is not distracting to drivers just don't know the science of the brain."




U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is fighting to disable the use of certain technologies in cars. LaHood recently launched a "Faces of Distracted Driving" campaign, an online video series exploring the tragic consequences of texting and using a cell phone while driving.

The series features people from across the country that have been injured or lost loved ones in distracted driving crashes. In 2009, nearly 5,500 people died and half a million were injured in accidents involving a distracted driver.

"If there was a drug on the market that killed that many people each year, it would be immediately removed." Strayer said.

"If there was a drug on the market that killed that many people each year, it would be immediately removed." Strayer saidWhat, a drug like alcohol or product like cigarettes (nicotine is the drug, but it's not nicotine that kills ...) ?

What, a drug like alcohol or product like cigarettes (nicotine is the drug, but it's not nicotine that kills ...) ?

Nicotine isn't that dangerous. It is the tar, formaldehyde, and other crap they add to cigarrettes. Alcohol when taken at normal doses(1-2 drinks a day max) is beneficial. Too much of any drug and you will suffer. At least drugs have redeeming qualities like lowering blood pressure, alleviating pain, controlling diabetes.

What redeeming quality of texting while driving is there? None.

Nicotine isn't that dangerous. It is the tar, formaldehyde, and other crap they add to cigarrettes. Alcohol when taken at normal doses(1-2 drinks a day max) is beneficial. Too much of any drug and you will suffer. At least drugs have redeeming qualities like lowering blood pressure, alleviating pain, controlling diabetes.

What redeeming quality of texting while driving is there? None.

Nicotine is actually quite toxic and can kill you if you overdose on it. It's just that it's pretty hard to OD on it from smoking alone. But if you made a tea or something out of tobacco, or overused nicotine products like patches or gum while also smoking, it potentially could poison you.

But yes, I agree that there is no redeeming quality associated with texting while driving. I'm beginning to think we should perhaps just have phones disable the capability to send or receive texts while the phone is moving at driving speed. This would certainly have some false positives (people on trains, passengers of cars), but it's beginning to seem like it would be worth it just to stop the idiots who won't stop doing it while driving.

Nicotine is actually quite toxic and can kill you if you overdose on it. It's just that it's pretty hard to OD on it from smoking alone. But if you made a tea or something out of tobacco, or overused nicotine products like patches or gum while also smoking, it potentially could poison you.

But yes, I agree that there is no redeeming quality associated with texting while driving. I'm beginning to think we should perhaps just have phones disable the capability to send or receive texts while the phone is moving at driving speed. This would certainly have some false positives (people on trains, passengers of cars), but it's beginning to seem like it would be worth it just to stop the idiots who won't stop doing it while driving.

Forget the false positives... any driver found to be texting while driving, and involved in a collision, should be shot on the spot.

Forget the false positives... any driver found to be texting while driving, and involved in a collision, should be shot on the spot.

that is reasonable.

Nicotine isn't that dangerous.I think I covered that pretty well, actually.

Alcohol when taken at normal doses(1-2 drinks a day max) is beneficial.The context was "If there was a drug on the market that killed that many people each year, it would be immediately removed." Alcohol kills a lot of people, and I'm guessing that more than 5,500 of the 40,000 annual US motor vehicle fatalities are attributed to it. Cigarettes aren't exactly/simply a drug, but they kill lots too -- and aren't banned. Ultimately, I'm saying that Strayer's claim is likely incorrect. (I wonder if chemo kills more than 5,500 people per year? Hopefully it saves more than it kills, but it itself kills more than a few.)

What redeeming quality of texting while driving is there? None.That's a bit simplistic. Simply being able to communicate with others is a redeeming quality. What you're really trying to say [I hope] is that the cost (thousands of collisions, injuries and deaths) isn't worth the benefit -- but don't claim there is no benefit.

You yourself said that alcohol was beneficial in low doses (and we haven't even gotten into any non-medical benefits to derive from it) -- yet it likely kills more than texting. Again, the benefits of drinking and driving (might be fun, you get home without paying for a cab, etc.) are greatly outweighed by the costs (arrests, jail, fines, damage to cars, injuries, deaths.)

All the gizmos in cars are to prepare us for the future when cars drive themselves, and we will be driving in rolling entertainment devices, free to watch movies, surf the web, text, email etc.

All the gizmos in cars are to prepare us for the future when cars drive themselves, and we will be driving in rolling entertainment devices, free to watch movies, surf the web, text, email etc.

I'd like to see the cars drive themselves first, then add the entertainment gizmos.

It's the biggest proof out there of: "make something idiot-proof, and someone will make a better idiot."

What, a drug like alcohol or product like cigarettes (nicotine is the drug, but it's not nicotine that kills ...) ?

There are plenty of dangerous drugs on the market. Aspirin kills 10,000 - 20,000 people a year, yet you don't hear people complain about it.

"If there was a drug on the market that killed that many people each year, it would be immediately removed." Strayer said.

He needs a better analogy (from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/06/12/drug-companies-are-killing-you-legally-while-robbing-you-blind.aspx):
Well, an estimated 106,000 hospitalized patients die each year from drugs that, by medical standards, are properly prescribed and properly administered, according to an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

And 2 million more suffer serious side effects.

Taking this a step further, consider the medical error and mortality rate of conventional medicine in this light:


1. The recorded error rate of ICU’s is like the post office losing more than 16,000 pieces of mail every hour of every day, or banks deducting 32,000 checks from the wrong bank account every hour, 24/7

2. The recorded medical errors and deaths equate to six jumbo jets falling out of the sky each day, 365 days a year

3. Since 2001, a recorded 490,000 people have died from properly prescribed drugs in the United States, while 2,996 people died on U.S. soil from terrorism, all in the 9/11 attacks; prescription drugs are therefore 16,400 percent more dangerous than terrorism.

4. If deaths from over-the-counter drugs are also included, then drug consumption leaps to being 32,000 percent more dangerous than terrorism. And conventional medicine viewed as a whole is 104,700 percent deadlier than terrorism.

There are plenty of dangerous drugs on the market. Aspirin kills 10,000 - 20,000 people a year, yet you don't hear people complain about it.Extremely good point, but it's not aspirin, per se -- I'm pretty sure that statistic includes all pain relievers or at least all "non-steroidal anti-Inflammatory drugs".

Tylenol / acetaminophen is also really dangerous (probably far more than aspirin) as even a modest overdose can destroy your liver, killing you that way (or requiring a transplant, which doesn't kill you but really screws up your life.)

comparing rates of death between unrelated things is pointless. Even between related things it can also be pointless. For example with drugs over the counter vs. prescription and overdose vs. medical malpractice vs. random anomolies.

Regardless on the note of cars: I dont even drive with the radio on because it distracts me.... I can't even imagine how someone can text let alone check facebook while driving and not find themselves going backwards....

I have the Ford Sync (http://www.ford.com/technology/sync/?brand=flm) system in my car and it works great. Lets you have the latest technology without the distractions. You just talk to the car to accomplish what you want to do.

I have the Ford Sync (http://www.ford.com/technology/sync/?brand=flm) system in my car and it works great. Lets you have the latest technology without the distractions. You just talk to the car to accomplish what you want to do.
Bad example. Talking on the phone, even hands free, is the equivalent of driving drunk. When you are on the phone you are something like 8 times as likely to cause a wreck as you are when you are not distracted. It's not the hands that are important, it is the brain; brains are pretty good at doing one thing at a time, but multi-tasking causes all tasks to be done poorly.

Extremely good point, but it's not aspirin, per se -- I'm pretty sure that statistic includes all pain relievers or at least all "non-steroidal anti-Inflammatory drugs".

Tylenol / acetaminophen is also really dangerous (probably far more than aspirin) as even a modest overdose can destroy your liver, killing you that way (or requiring a transplant, which doesn't kill you but really screws up your life.)

You're right, the death estimates are for NSAIDs. But most people don't recognize that term.

Michael Moore compares the yearly deaths due to a lack of medical insurance and terrorists. While his comparison ignores the deaths caused by people getting the wrong kind of care, it does show that being deadly isn't the most important factor in something being banned.