Charles, You are certainly correct about the problem not being solvable. A major part of that, aside from the immense popularity of driving with distractions, is the reality that the cellular companies have way more money for lobbying than the tobaco companies ever had. Perhaps i a less democratic area, like North LOrea, such a law might be passed and possibly enforced, but not in most places.
So possibly a solution would be to come down hard on the ones who have the accidents because they are distracted. That would affect the guilty and not touch the ones who don't have collisions due to not paying attention to their driving. Not touching the innocent might allow some laws to get passed.
I hate to say this, William K, but I've kind of reached the conclusion that the problem can't be completely solved. In 2012, when the NTSB suggested that phone usage of any kind in the car should be outlawed, there was nearly a full-scale revolt. Everyone wants others to shut down their phones, but they don't want to do it themselves.
On another note, every car that is owned by a teen should have this gadget as a component required by law. Teenagers get distracted too fast, much more easily than adults do and can easily cause accidents when they get carried away in their long phone conversations while they are driving.
I agree that this gadget could be just as useful for adults as it is for teens. However, I will disagree on making it a legal requirement for all vehicles. There are millions of responsible drivers out there who receive calls while driving and, unless caused by something beyond their control, are in no danger of distraction at all. There are some calls that you simply must take and it is not always that you can park right away in order to take them.
You're correct, Western NY. There are other apps for this. This is the first for an iPhone, however. Also, I agree that determined callers and texters can always find a way. The simplest might be to not buy this device in the first place.
J.W. It is fairly well documented that 80% of all accidents happen because of not concentrating on driving, which includes drunks not concentrating. About 15% of them come from human errors, which would include driving way too fast. The last 5% are from other causes including mechanical failures.
Drunkenness and texting both are serious distractions, and drunk driving gets a severe punishment, usually. But probably textingmis a more complete distraction, and hence even more dangerous. And nobody clims that drunk driving is OK.
The problem is that safe driving does require a lot of attention and concentration, and there are a lot of foks with that millisecond attention span who are simply no longer able to focus their attention enough to drive safely. So why should I be put at risk because of their very real problem? They should take a bus and never drive.
Westen, the difference that I see is that foil covering the box leaves no indication that anything has been tampered with, once it is removed. Tampering with a program is usually evident if somebody examines things closely.
Hi WK, I'm not really serious about that. See my response to NightOwl. My concern is really about all the people that think this Appvice is actually a good idea. I tried to draft a believable but still outrageous example of potential excessive government in our lives. Most people seem to speed, at least to a small degree, and removing the ability to speed, even if one generally does not, places an onerous level of control of private citizens. This little Appvice thing is just another liberty being stripped away (if actually mandated mind you versus voluntary use, i.e teenagers) from the people.
My assertion is that societal mores should discourage people from doing things that are mildly stupid. When we as a society decide to freely chastize those who text and drive, this problem will take care of itself with no need for more laws or complicated equipment to deny use in those situations. This would be akin to the use of stocks and pillories back in the Colonial period. Public humiliation generally is a very effective punishment however, it does not appear to be effective on politicians.
Yep, those would be great to implement too. Having lived and worked in the Baltimore area for the last 17 years, most the multi-vehicle accidents I've witnessed generally occur because some dipstick was in such a huge freaking rush to get somewhere and took stupid risks until it bites them. Even if it was as so important as to get home to enjoy their evening one minute and seventeen seconds sooner than it might have taken them if they drove like granny instead of Dale Earnhardt.
In spite of my tongue-in-cheek suggestion, I am not really risk averse. After all, I ride motorycycles in the dirt and on the street (35 years worth), jumped out of perfectly good airplanes, snow ski, water ski, autocross, and sometimes even run with scissors.
Truthfully speaking, I abhor the nanny state we have become. My preference is for accountability for stupidity instead of legislating the prevention of stupidity. After all, we are supposed to be adults.
A slew of announcements about new materials and design concepts for transportation have come out of several trade shows focusing on plastics, aircraft interiors, heavy trucks, and automotive engineering. A few more announcements have come independent of any trade shows, maybe just because it's spring.
Samsung's Galaxy line of smartphones used to fare quite well in the repairability department, but last year's flagship S5 model took a tumble, scoring a meh-inducing 5/10. Will the newly redesigned S6 lead us back into star-studded territory, or will we sink further into the depths of a repairability black hole?
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.