memfree@piefed.social
on 23 Sep 12:03
nextcollapse
You’re kidding, right?
We rode without seatbelts in the back of stations wagons. Worse: just ready to fly free in pickup beds. It was almost expected that people would drink and drive.
All that said, you can still eat, drink, and change stations in most places and it is far, far less distracting than phones.
The survivors bias is ridiculous. My wife told me that she didn’t wear a seat belt her whole childhood and she is fine so the backseat doesn’t need to wear one now. Infuriates me to high hell
meco03211@lemmy.world
on 23 Sep 12:04
nextcollapse
States are likely to have laws against “distracted driving” or “reckless driving”. Those likely encompass much of the driving while texting or fiddling with controls. Unless a cop directly saw the action this are usually charges levied after an accident happens and do nothing to prevent it. Once enough crashes are attributed to a narrower set of actions, public opinion can be swayed to support action against that narrower set. Now with a specific “no texting while driving” law, cops can pull you over simply for holding a phone. They don’t need to see you do something that would constitute “distracted” or “reckless” driving to ticket you.
Most of the software on smartphones is built from the ground up to grab every bit of user attention it can and this makes phone use more dangerous than eating or fiddling with the radio. So much so that law makers and law enforcers notice and treat phone use differently from other drive-time activities.
hydrashok@sh.itjust.works
on 23 Sep 12:14
nextcollapse
Because for the most part, you can do all those things with only removing your eyes from the road for a few seconds, if at all. You’re still focused mostly on driving.
When using your phone, you’re not paying attention at all to the road, and looking away for far longer. That’s the danger.
I don’t see how eating and drinking are comparable. You can do those without taking your eyes off the road. A changing the radio stations should only take seconds.
Texting will take up most of your attention for minutes.
Same reason lead was in everything you used and rvery building made with asbestos. They knew it was dangerous. Regulators didn’t care.
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club
on 23 Sep 12:44
nextcollapse
The standard of safety was far lower back then. You could legally drink alcohol and drive in all states in the 1970s and didn’t face a national ban until 1998.
Texting on a tiny keyboard on a phone requires much more visual attention than finding a button (which you can feel for anyway), and changing a radio station which you only need to listen for. A drink should also be okay if you’re not raising your head full tilt.
Edit: that said, eating is also a no-no; either because it is a resting/social activity which may reduce concentration, or because accidents happen while you’re eating and you’re going to get distracted wiping sauce off your clothes.
Which is why the case for having tactile buttons instead of a screen is so strong. You can use feel to use these controls while still watching the road.
Mhm. I texted while driving when I had T9 because I could watch the road and text at the same time. I refuse to touch my phone while driving now because it’s just a giant screen and I can’t do anything without taking my eyes off the road.
Eating is fine when it meets three criteria.
- Low traffic density, like a highway with very light traffic. Residential streets are never acceptable places to eat while driving.
- The food should be a moderate temp and manageable with one hand, and unlikely to make a mess. Like fries, a wrap, or some carrots and other small snacks less that aren't messy.
- You do not care if something l falls on you. Literally don't care enough to do anything until you reach your destination. If you can't help but try and catch or look at dropped food then don't.
Basically eating in the car is acceptable on long drives with food you can drop randomly but only if traffic is light.
vinceman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 23 Sep 13:16
nextcollapse
Better question, why is every moron free to legally text and drive if they glue the phone to the dash first? Those mounts are driving me up a fuckin wall, I literally saw one dead center on a steering wheel hump.
scottmeme@sh.itjust.works
on 23 Sep 13:37
collapse
I had a Lyft driver who was watching YouTube videos using one of the windshield mounts
vinceman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 23 Sep 13:42
collapse
Shit like that is why I still prefer cabs tbh. Not saying it doesn’t happen, but I see it happen way more in the rideshare stuff.
phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
on 23 Sep 16:11
collapse
I’d rather die than deal with the ads thats cabs play nowadays.
I report and low rate shitty drivers, no real option for that for cabs.
vinceman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 23 Sep 22:14
collapse
Ah see those screens aren’t in cabs in my city
paultimate14@lemmy.world
on 23 Sep 13:43
nextcollapse
People died. A lot. Ralph Nader, who is today probably better known for being a former presidential candidate for the Green Party in the US, first got famous with his 1965 book “Unsafe at Any Speed” that brought just how dangerous cars were to the public attention. Which led to a ton of laws that regulated the manufacture and operation of motor vehicles. It was similar to how Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” was with the food industry.
Density has increased. It was easier to get away with driving when there were fewer cars on the road, fewer intersections, fewer buildings and other property nearby. Our signs and signals have grown more complicated. I live in a major US city, where there is a main thoroughfare that cuts through the southern suburbs with a 5 lane stroad (2 lanes each way with a central turning lane). There are traffic lights every couple hundred feet to allow interesections with feeder roads. My grandfather still tells the stories about how when he was a teenager, that was a 3-lane DIRT road, where the center was still a turn lane. He could drive for miles before getting to the densest part of the city where there was 1 traffic light.
He also tells the story of how the police radios used to only be one-way, so officers in cars could receive messages from the station but not send anything back. On top of that, their big heavy cruisers were slower and less maneuverable than his motorcycle, so he used to commonly blow by and ignore cops trying to pull him over. It was a completely different world.
I can imagine that in jurisdictions where the police are more likely to be predatory, retaliatory or have quotas to meet that such a law might be considered too powerful by a judiciary that isn't quite as corrupt, so that could be why such a thing doesn't exist. Assuming that it's true that no such law exists, anyway.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 23 Sep 16:56
nextcollapse
Lol my friend, people regularly drank (alcohol) while driving in the 70s and 80s.
rayquetzalcoatl@lemmy.world
on 24 Sep 07:38
nextcollapse
I walk a lot. Even in that much lower speed, much lower stakes situation, I can tell you that eating/drinking is generally completely fine but give somebody a phone and they turn into a blind moron with no concept of other people. Even I’m guilty of it, if I’m trying to skip ads on a podcast or something and I absent-mindedly look down at my phone without getting out of the way and stopping first, by the time I look up I’ll have travelled much further than I thought and have been surprised by people popping out of alleyways or crossing roads etc who are now in front of me.
The number of times I’ve seen people physically walk into lampposts, other people, or just slowly sway side to side on the pavement, taking the whole thing up, while they dick around on their phones… People get out of elevators or up stairs and immediately stop and pull out their phones, blocking the exit for everyone else.
You can’t use a phone and do anything else at the same time unfortunately.
They didn’t have seat belts either. So simplest explanation is that people were still figuring out what safety features were necessary for a new invention that started gaining traction. Lot of safety regulations that came into play happened after disasters like building codes or work place regulations or food expiration. People learn from tragedy.
Mildly related - I vividly remember back in the 90s on my drivers test in Florida, it was illegal to have a screen facing the driver. Period. Now, what they were aiming at was making sure the driver wasn’t watching a portable TV while driving. But the center console screen in modern cars would 100% qualify. Heck, mounting your GPS or cell phone to the dash so that it’s hands free would still be illegal by that law. So I have to assume something in Florida’s driving laws changed. Always been curious what, but I moved away shortly after then, never bothered to follow up.
threaded - newest
You’re kidding, right?
We rode without seatbelts in the back of stations wagons. Worse: just ready to fly free in pickup beds. It was almost expected that people would drink and drive.
All that said, you can still eat, drink, and change stations in most places and it is far, far less distracting than phones.
And importantly, people died from that shit. Not every time, obviously, so you get morons with survivorship bias lamenting safety laws.
A kid in my neighborhood died from falling out of the bed of a pickup truck. Hit his head and was gone.
The survivors bias is ridiculous. My wife told me that she didn’t wear a seat belt her whole childhood and she is fine so the backseat doesn’t need to wear one now. Infuriates me to high hell
States are likely to have laws against “distracted driving” or “reckless driving”. Those likely encompass much of the driving while texting or fiddling with controls. Unless a cop directly saw the action this are usually charges levied after an accident happens and do nothing to prevent it. Once enough crashes are attributed to a narrower set of actions, public opinion can be swayed to support action against that narrower set. Now with a specific “no texting while driving” law, cops can pull you over simply for holding a phone. They don’t need to see you do something that would constitute “distracted” or “reckless” driving to ticket you.
Exactly this. There were laws that would cover most situations. But now there are more specific electronic device usage laws.
You could make a sandwich in your lap and it wouldn’t be as distracting as scrolling social media on your phone.
Likely the same reason I used to be able to smoke in cinema’s, airplanes etc. The same reason wearing seatbelts wasn’t legally required.
Most of the software on smartphones is built from the ground up to grab every bit of user attention it can and this makes phone use more dangerous than eating or fiddling with the radio. So much so that law makers and law enforcers notice and treat phone use differently from other drive-time activities.
Because for the most part, you can do all those things with only removing your eyes from the road for a few seconds, if at all. You’re still focused mostly on driving.
When using your phone, you’re not paying attention at all to the road, and looking away for far longer. That’s the danger.
I don’t see how eating and drinking are comparable. You can do those without taking your eyes off the road. A changing the radio stations should only take seconds.
Texting will take up most of your attention for minutes.
Same reason lead was in everything you used and rvery building made with asbestos. They knew it was dangerous. Regulators didn’t care.
The standard of safety was far lower back then. You could legally drink alcohol and drive in all states in the 1970s and didn’t face a national ban until 1998.
People also died or were severely injured a lot more back then.
There way have been a law against eating while driving where you were, many areas had them.
But it was probably only enforced if there was an accident.
Texting on a tiny keyboard on a phone requires much more visual attention than finding a button (which you can feel for anyway), and changing a radio station which you only need to listen for. A drink should also be okay if you’re not raising your head full tilt.
Edit: that said, eating is also a no-no; either because it is a resting/social activity which may reduce concentration, or because accidents happen while you’re eating and you’re going to get distracted wiping sauce off your clothes.
Which is why the case for having tactile buttons instead of a screen is so strong. You can use feel to use these controls while still watching the road.
Mhm. I texted while driving when I had T9 because I could watch the road and text at the same time. I refuse to touch my phone while driving now because it’s just a giant screen and I can’t do anything without taking my eyes off the road.
Eating is fine when it meets three criteria.
- Low traffic density, like a highway with very light traffic. Residential streets are never acceptable places to eat while driving.
- The food should be a moderate temp and manageable with one hand, and unlikely to make a mess. Like fries, a wrap, or some carrots and other small snacks less that aren't messy.
- You do not care if something l falls on you. Literally don't care enough to do anything until you reach your destination. If you can't help but try and catch or look at dropped food then don't.
Basically eating in the car is acceptable on long drives with food you can drop randomly but only if traffic is light.
Better question, why is every moron free to legally text and drive if they glue the phone to the dash first? Those mounts are driving me up a fuckin wall, I literally saw one dead center on a steering wheel hump.
I had a Lyft driver who was watching YouTube videos using one of the windshield mounts
Shit like that is why I still prefer cabs tbh. Not saying it doesn’t happen, but I see it happen way more in the rideshare stuff.
I’d rather die than deal with the ads thats cabs play nowadays.
I report and low rate shitty drivers, no real option for that for cabs.
Ah see those screens aren’t in cabs in my city
People died. A lot. Ralph Nader, who is today probably better known for being a former presidential candidate for the Green Party in the US, first got famous with his 1965 book “Unsafe at Any Speed” that brought just how dangerous cars were to the public attention. Which led to a ton of laws that regulated the manufacture and operation of motor vehicles. It was similar to how Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” was with the food industry.
Density has increased. It was easier to get away with driving when there were fewer cars on the road, fewer intersections, fewer buildings and other property nearby. Our signs and signals have grown more complicated. I live in a major US city, where there is a main thoroughfare that cuts through the southern suburbs with a 5 lane stroad (2 lanes each way with a central turning lane). There are traffic lights every couple hundred feet to allow interesections with feeder roads. My grandfather still tells the stories about how when he was a teenager, that was a 3-lane DIRT road, where the center was still a turn lane. He could drive for miles before getting to the densest part of the city where there was 1 traffic light.
He also tells the story of how the police radios used to only be one-way, so officers in cars could receive messages from the station but not send anything back. On top of that, their big heavy cruisers were slower and less maneuverable than his motorcycle, so he used to commonly blow by and ignore cops trying to pull him over. It was a completely different world.
In some countries there's definitely a catch-all law for this. It's called Driving without due care and attention where I live.
I can imagine that in jurisdictions where the police are more likely to be predatory, retaliatory or have quotas to meet that such a law might be considered too powerful by a judiciary that isn't quite as corrupt, so that could be why such a thing doesn't exist. Assuming that it's true that no such law exists, anyway.
Lol my friend, people regularly drank (alcohol) while driving in the 70s and 80s.
People just did not give a fuck.
Because things were so much stupider back then.
<img alt="" src="https://slrpnk.net/pictrs/image/5e2f7efa-8e59-457e-b51c-208890f33102.png">
I walk a lot. Even in that much lower speed, much lower stakes situation, I can tell you that eating/drinking is generally completely fine but give somebody a phone and they turn into a blind moron with no concept of other people. Even I’m guilty of it, if I’m trying to skip ads on a podcast or something and I absent-mindedly look down at my phone without getting out of the way and stopping first, by the time I look up I’ll have travelled much further than I thought and have been surprised by people popping out of alleyways or crossing roads etc who are now in front of me.
The number of times I’ve seen people physically walk into lampposts, other people, or just slowly sway side to side on the pavement, taking the whole thing up, while they dick around on their phones… People get out of elevators or up stairs and immediately stop and pull out their phones, blocking the exit for everyone else.
You can’t use a phone and do anything else at the same time unfortunately.
They didn’t have seat belts either. So simplest explanation is that people were still figuring out what safety features were necessary for a new invention that started gaining traction. Lot of safety regulations that came into play happened after disasters like building codes or work place regulations or food expiration. People learn from tragedy.
Mildly related - I vividly remember back in the 90s on my drivers test in Florida, it was illegal to have a screen facing the driver. Period. Now, what they were aiming at was making sure the driver wasn’t watching a portable TV while driving. But the center console screen in modern cars would 100% qualify. Heck, mounting your GPS or cell phone to the dash so that it’s hands free would still be illegal by that law. So I have to assume something in Florida’s driving laws changed. Always been curious what, but I moved away shortly after then, never bothered to follow up.