• Zagorath
    link
    fedilink
    English
    5
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Shaping behaviour isn’t about being flawless

    I absolutely agree, but I think there are different kinds of flaws. If it creates a mere 2% increase in safety, that’s perhaps worthwhile. But if it’s restricting people who shouldn’t be restricted, that’s a hard no from me. If it’s something as simple as clicking a button that says “I’m not driving”, I’m okay with that. But if it can’t be avoided at all as a passenger, it’s a complete non-starter. If it requires unpairing from the car, that’s a bit of a grey zone, but I’d personally lean towards “no”. Why can’t a passenger be the one to control the music (which must be the main reason to be paired to the car)? Surely that’s increasing safety compared to if the driver is trying to do it?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -31 year ago

      Dude that’s fucking nonsense.

      Just lay out what you’re saying and like really think through the consequences.

      unpairing for a second to check a fact on Wikipedia or whatever isn’t a massive imposition. I’m not even attached to that, it’s just an example. It’s not like passengers wouldn’t control music and drivers would if you had to unpair to Google the year a song came out.

      Anyway setting imaginary specifics aside your argument, taken at face value, would imply all sorts of regulations nobody actually wants rolled back except teenaged libertarians (no shade, I was also stupid once. it happens.).

      • WalrusDragonOnABike
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        If I’m a passenger when my brother’s driving, I’m probably on my phone most of the time and using my phone for the car’s music, for example. Such a restriction would simply mean my brother would be doing the music while driving.

      • Zagorath
        link
        fedilink
        English
        61 year ago

        Dude that’s fucking nonsense.

        Dude chill the fuck out. No, it’s not. Your position is so extreme it’s going to result in zero compliance, because yes, it is a pretty big imposition. It’s a ridiculous idea. Like seriously.

        Lay out what you’re saying and like really think through the consequences. Imagine how ridiculous it would be if a passenger had to unpair their phone every single time they want to send a text message or Google something. It’s a laughable idea.

      • @[email protected]OP
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        please keep it polite.

        I expect cars in the future will have driver monitoring checking if the driver is sleepy, distracted, etc and will sound a warning.

        I think android/ios should do a better job at making distraction free car-modes that only shows navigation and reads out text messages, etc.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -11 year ago

          Don’t come the raw prawn I’m being plenty polite. At least by Aussie standards. What they said is nonsense, not them. I’m sure they’re a reasonable person afk. We all get a bit of brain damage once we start typing haha.

          I expect cars of the future to not exist given they’re poisoning the world, killing us, and destroying our urban environments but I admit to being an eternal optimist. I like driving, well riding anyway (before I became too crippled), but it’s not something we’re very good at and cars are ludicrious machines for what they’re used for. Like driving a tank to pin up a poster haha.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        My car requires you to be in park to pair /unpair at least initially. It’s several steps to pair /unpair after that. Because it’s complicated, if I’m driving a passenger, I end up doing it for them even though I’m driving. Maybe you’re thinking of a whole new system, but calling op stupid and unthinking is short-sighted on your part.