Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

gnasher729

Suspended
Nov 25, 2005
17,980
5,565
It's very simple. If people continue to do it, the punishment is not harsh enough.

But then there's the question what you actually want to achieve. Reducing phone use while driving by 90 percent helps a lot. Think that two drivers on the phone meeting at a crossing is particularly dangerous (because one on the phone might force you to brake hard and swear at them, while two on the phone would cause a crash), and that chance has gone done by 99%.

Where I learned driving, speed limits were let's say 10 km/h less than what police considered dangerous, knowing that most people drive a bit faster than allowed. So that the "normal" law breaker would still be going at a safe speed, and it would be pointless going after people who exceeded the limit by a bit. So the goal is to keep most people at safe speed, and catch those going at unsafe speed, but not a 100% enforcement of the speed limit.

There's also the problem that very high fines will cause drivers to do dangerous things to avoid getting caught.
 

tbrinkma

macrumors 68000
Apr 24, 2006
1,651
93
"Apple is aware of these distracted driving concerns and notes in a press release that Siri minimizes distraction by allowing drivers to keep their eyes on the road."

Minimizes is the same as having distractions. Sorry Apple but you can't say there is no distraction and then say you minimized it.

Care to show us the quote where Apple said there is no distraction? Or are you having too much fun beating up on those straw men?

At first glance, CarPlay *looks* less distracting than most car radios I've send and/or used, and even a few car climate-control systems I've dealt with as a passenger.

If a system *reduces* (aka: minimizes) the distraction involved with performing a given task, that is a net positive (aka: a *good thing*).
 

paradox00

macrumors 65816
Sep 29, 2009
1,416
838
It's very simple.

If you create a law, lets say no holding and talking on your mobile phone whilst driving. And people still do it. It is because the risk/reward is still in the phone users favor.

The next step you do it to increase the risk/punishment for breaking this law, until people feel the reward which is speaking to a friend is not worth it.

$10 if caught, people still do it. Hey it's only ten dollars
$20
$30
$40
$50 heck, fifty dam dollars..... moan, but hey chances are I won't get caught.

How about $1000, $5000, $10,000 ?

How many Ten thousand dollar fines do you think someone would need to get before they thought, sod that, I'm not even going to risk it. I'll wait till I can pull over and ring them back.

It's very simple. If people continue to do it, the punishment is not hash enough.

Same for pretty much any law

Quite often, people breaking the law means that the law was poorly thought out. Increasing the punishment for a law on a questionable foundation is a good way to increase the pressure for it to get repealed. Increasing punishment is only a valid approach when people feel its justified, which would not be the case with your suggestion.
 

Piggie

macrumors G3
Feb 23, 2010
9,134
4,038
Quite often, people breaking the law means that the law was poorly thought out. Increasing the punishment for a law on a questionable foundation is a good way to increase the pressure for it to get repealed. Increasing punishment is only a valid approach when people feel its justified, which would not be the case with your suggestion.

Often no

Many laws, perhaps most laws people don't like being applied to themselves as, to them is restricts them from doing something THEY want to do.

However the funny part is, these same people are quite happy when the same law applies to someone else.

Hey, I'm using my phone when I'm driving, why the hell not, I'm in total control. Stupid lawmakers.

On the other hand. Look at that stupid idiot driving the car and using their phone, are they 100% focused on their driving, No, that are distracted and it should not be allowed.

So many laws stop YOU from doing what YOU want.
 

paradox00

macrumors 65816
Sep 29, 2009
1,416
838
Often no

Many laws, perhaps most laws people don't like being applied to themselves as, to them is restricts them from doing something THEY want to do.

However the funny part is, these same people are quite happy when the same law applies to someone else.

Hey, I'm using my phone when I'm driving, why the hell not, I'm in total control. Stupid lawmakers.

On the other hand. Look at that stupid idiot driving the car and using their phone, are they 100% focused on their driving, No, that are distracted and it should not be allowed.

So many laws stop YOU from doing what YOU want.

While I agree that people like to apply rules to others, but not to themselves, my point still stands. Increasing the penalties is not a be all, end all solution. If the public thinks such a penalty is unjustified, there will definitely be pressure to repeal the law. A $10,000 fine for touching a cell phone while driving would not be deemed acceptable to the public. You can't force compliance like that. Democracies are not police states. while distracted driving is a problem, you'll achieve better results through smarter laws and better education than you will with stiffer penalties.

The current distracted driving laws are so bad (in general) that if you increased penalties, you'd simply place an unnecessary burden on the court system, as every ticket would be appealed (with many overturned). Even if the public didn't get the law repealed, the courts would probably rend it toothless over time.
 

LordVic

Cancelled
Sep 7, 2011
5,938
12,458
While I agree that people like to apply rules to others, but not to themselves, my point still stands. Increasing the penalties is not a be all, end all solution. If the public thinks such a penalty is unjustified, there will definitely be pressure to repeal the law. A $10,000 fine for touching a cell phone while driving would not be deemed acceptable to the public. You can't force compliance like that. Democracies are not police states. while distracted driving is a problem, you'll achieve better results through smarter laws and better education than you will with stiffer penalties.

The current distracted driving laws are so bad (in general) that if you increased penalties, you'd simply place an unnecessary burden on the court system, as every ticket would be appealed (with many overturned). Even if the public didn't get the law repealed, the courts would probably rend it toothless over time.
Very true.

A government cannot enforce unjust laws with any measurable success. Any force used to enforce unnjust laws often results in strife that costs more in the long run.

EG, The Marijuana prohibition.

Its one thing to set a law as well that is just. Nobody is going to reasonably argue with the anti-handheld device laws. What people are going to argue with is how reasonable the punishment is.

$10,000 for having your phone in hand would by most people be considered ridiculous. Enough so, in Canada, you'd likely win that the law is unconstitutional because of it. you would solve nothing by having an overly ridiculous punishment for a crime. The law would be repealed and nothing accomplished.

On the other hand, Ontario has put a $150 fine on it and Demerit points. Its reasonable enough that people found guilty aren't being unreasonably punished, and it's a law that most people do support, since it has proven to reduce road accidents in Ontario.
 

unplugme71

macrumors 68030
May 20, 2011
2,827
754
Earth
Care to show us the quote where Apple said there is no distraction? Or are you having too much fun beating up on those straw men?

At first glance, CarPlay *looks* less distracting than most car radios I've send and/or used, and even a few car climate-control systems I've dealt with as a passenger.

If a system *reduces* (aka: minimizes) the distraction involved with performing a given task, that is a net positive (aka: a *good thing*).

How so? Not having it to begin with would be no distraction at all which is a positive thing. You have it all wrong.
 

tbrinkma

macrumors 68000
Apr 24, 2006
1,651
93
How so? Not having it to begin with would be no distraction at all which is a positive thing. You have it all wrong.

So you're comparing CarPlay to not having a radio at all? :confused:

Silly me. I was comparing the CarPlay interface to other car radio interfaces I've seen over the years.

Yes, CarPlay is, indeed, more distracting than not having a radio (or heat/AC) in your car. :rolleyes:
 

unplugme71

macrumors 68030
May 20, 2011
2,827
754
Earth
So you're comparing CarPlay to not having a radio at all? :confused:

Silly me. I was comparing the CarPlay interface to other car radio interfaces I've seen over the years.

Yes, CarPlay is, indeed, more distracting than not having a radio (or heat/AC) in your car. :rolleyes:

You can control the radio with your hands on the steering wheel. You don't typically change the volume or channels often. Your mind is not distracted as easily with these basic controls. And because its radio, you are more inclined to zone out easily to the music playing. It becomes a background object.

Whereas, CarPlay allows for voice interaction with the unit (be it a phone conversation, listening or replying to a command, etc). Your mind is dedicated and 'ENGAGED' to listening and responding and not to driving.

That is the difference. Next time you roll eyes at me, take a class on how the human mind works. :rolleyes:
 

tbrinkma

macrumors 68000
Apr 24, 2006
1,651
93
You can control the radio with your hands on the steering wheel. You don't typically change the volume or channels often. Your mind is not distracted as easily with these basic controls. And because its radio, you are more inclined to zone out easily to the music playing. It becomes a background object.

Whereas, CarPlay allows for voice interaction with the unit (be it a phone conversation, listening or replying to a command, etc). Your mind is dedicated and 'ENGAGED' to listening and responding and not to driving.

That is the difference. Next time you roll eyes at me, take a class on how the human mind works. :rolleyes:

Ah. So you're comparing not using the controls on the radio to using the controls on the radio. Of course it's less distracting to *not* interact with the radio. :rolleyes: By that metric, it's even *less* distracting to *NOT USE* CarPlay than it is to *NOT USE* a typical car stereo. You don't even have unused buttons on your steering wheel to *NOT USE* in that case. :rolleyes:

Seriously. The discussion was about the process of *INTERACTING WITH THE RADIO'S CONTROLS*. But, no. You're insisting that CarPlay is somehow worse than a typical car radio control set, all because you don't actually use the controls of *your* radio. :rolleyes:
 

unplugme71

macrumors 68030
May 20, 2011
2,827
754
Earth
Ah. So you're comparing not using the controls on the radio to using the controls on the radio. Of course it's less distracting to *not* interact with the radio. :rolleyes: By that metric, it's even *less* distracting to *NOT USE* CarPlay than it is to *NOT USE* a typical car stereo. You don't even have unused buttons on your steering wheel to *NOT USE* in that case. :rolleyes:

Seriously. The discussion was about the process of *INTERACTING WITH THE RADIO'S CONTROLS*. But, no. You're insisting that CarPlay is somehow worse than a typical car radio control set, all because you don't actually use the controls of *your* radio. :rolleyes:

Um, what?

My argument was that listening to radio is background noise. Having a phone conversation or speaking commands to Siri keeps the mind active and engaged. Your mind should be active and engaged to driving, not your phone.
 

grahamperrin

macrumors 601
Jun 8, 2007
4,942
648
Precedents and safety, careless wording, careless designs

… experts argue it still contributes to "cognitive distraction," which moves a driver's attention away from their driving and onto their phone. Recent studies …

The Apple effect

Ford … SYNC … Microsoft … MyTouch … QNX … Android … Mirralink (sp) … Google … Google glass …

Apple …

Of all those words, which one is most often associated with best practice?

Probably Apple.

Apple and best practice

It's no longer reasonable to assume that an Apple software title is the product of best practice. With the development and release of OS X Yosemite, Apple has effectively signalled that it's OK to place greater value on fashion, on trendiness, than on usability. User experience (UX) suffers.

Is that OK? No.

Do some developers follow Apple's poor precedents in a poor way? Yes.

Careless wording

CNN's article, for example, would have caused some readers to believe that National Safety Council (NSC) concerns were about CarPlay alone.

More accurately:
  • the NSC is concerned about technology such as Apple's CarPlay and Google's Android Auto …
Apple:



From the NSC

New dashboard infotainment systems are a great concern

Dashboard infotainment systems in vehicles are a real threat to roadway safety. The release of new technology such as Apple's CarPlay and Google's Android Auto are likely only the beginning.

The Council's David Teater remarked in an article, "The auto industry and the consumer electronics industry are really in an arms race to see how we can enable drivers to do stuff other than driving as long as their hands are on the wheel and their eyes are on the road. They completely disregard the critical requirement that the driver's attention is focused on driving and not on other, non-driving activities."

Vehicle technology unrelated to the task of driving, such as dashboard infotainment systems that allow hands-free phoning, speech to text, internet connectivity and the ability to interact on social networks, is not safe to use behind the wheel.

With driver error being a leading cause of crashes, why would we rush to enable drivers to engage in non-driving activities? All technology development should focus exclusively on advancing systems that prevent crashes, not those that may increase them.

If your organization has a Cell Phone Policy, consider adding language around the use of dashboard infotainment systems while driving.​

 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,329
7,421
The Apple effect



Of all those words, which one is most often associated with best practice?

Probably Apple.

Apple and best practice

It's no longer reasonable to assume that an Apple software title is the product of best practice. With the development and release of OS X Yosemite, Apple has effectively signalled that it's OK to place greater value on fashion, on trendiness, than on usability. User experience (UX) suffers.

Is that OK? No.

Do some developers follow Apple's poor precedents in a poor way? Yes.

Careless wording

CNN's article, for example, would have caused some readers to believe that National Safety Council (NSC) concerns were about CarPlay alone.

More accurately:
  • the NSC is concerned about technology such as Apple's CarPlay and Google's Android Auto …
Apple:

[url=https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0fnJDTIMAAv3YJ.png]Image[/URL]

From the NSC

New dashboard infotainment systems are a great concern

Dashboard infotainment systems in vehicles are a real threat to roadway safety. The release of new technology such as Apple's CarPlay and Google's Android Auto are likely only the beginning.

The Council's David Teater remarked in an article, "The auto industry and the consumer electronics industry are really in an arms race to see how we can enable drivers to do stuff other than driving as long as their hands are on the wheel and their eyes are on the road. They completely disregard the critical requirement that the driver's attention is focused on driving and not on other, non-driving activities."

Vehicle technology unrelated to the task of driving, such as dashboard infotainment systems that allow hands-free phoning, speech to text, internet connectivity and the ability to interact on social networks, is not safe to use behind the wheel.

With driver error being a leading cause of crashes, why would we rush to enable drivers to engage in non-driving activities? All technology development should focus exclusively on advancing systems that prevent crashes, not those that may increase them.

If your organization has a Cell Phone Policy, consider adding language around the use of dashboard infotainment systems while driving.​


So you're saying that this isn't some conspiracy against and/or people hating Apple?
 

grahamperrin

macrumors 601
Jun 8, 2007
4,942
648
Carelessness, rushes and the question of hatred

As I said, amongst other things: 'careless wording'. Some reports are more careless than others.

This is MacRumors, so I expect many readers to seize upon the Apple aspects of news articles. The cultures of rushed reporting and rushed response increase the likelihood of contexts being ignored or overlooked.

… you're saying that this isn't some conspiracy against and/or people hating Apple?

Hatred of Apple or products of Apple

MacRumors – news and rumors you care about

It's not unusual for Mac users to have a passion for Apple products, OS X in particular. We care about the state of the product. …

It's reasonable to assume that a large number of purchasers of new Macs that require Yosemite will dislike or hate the operating system. Not necessarily for its looks, but it's clear – from the helpful contributions of many people to this topic – that the design and looks of OS X 10.10 are genuinely troublesome for some customers.

…

Expressions of hatred in the App Store

That trend in the store for the United States is continuing. …

A proportion of the hatred (the one-star ratings) will be unrelated to appearance. I'll not guess a percentage, but from what I see on Twitter and elsewhere, I do believe that the swings to hatred of OS X are significantly fuelled by the ugliness and reduced usability of the appearance. …

Are any of you beginning to hate Apple, for whatever reason?

I hate some of Apple's recent and ongoing damage to its software.

I hate some of the negative effects – uncontrollable by Apple – of that damage, on third party software. …

Past

My confidence in the company's ability to produce the best was, nearly always, extremely high.

Present and future

My confidence in Apple's abilities was almost completely killed by the company's development and release of Yosemite. All things considered, that loss of confidence is pretty much irreversible.

… harsh breakage may result in extremely harsh criticisms of Apple.

… Apple certainly knows how to polish a product. Between the earliest pre-releases of Yosemite, and the first release, the set of improvements is remarkable; it's an expertly polished turd –

– and my perception of OS X 10.10 as a turd, or simply ugly, is far from solitary. The recent negativities from customers, negative responses to an Apple OS for Mac hardware, are without precedent. …

I don't hate Apple, but I've lost a lot of confidence in them. …

… Apple is all about style now, and that is coming at the expense of focusing on hardware and software. Maybe the hipsters will buy blingy tech whether it works or not, but a lot of us won't.

So while I surely don't HATE Apple, I've lost trust in Apple's hardware design and marketing decisions, as well as their software division.

… I don't hate Apple now, but I did love the Apple that previously inspired such confidence.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,329
7,421

grahamperrin

macrumors 601
Jun 8, 2007
4,942
648
Nor do I. And I don't imagine a conspiracy, it's just 'news-worthy' to seize on anything Apple-related …
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.