base2 

I think the point of posts #68 , #73 , (that's me) & the posts of Mr. Cranky are that the engineers enable & encourage the poor decisions & tragic higher consequence outcomes through wrong-headed design. They have the wrong human as their safety focus. So with every iteration the drivers connectedness to that human diminishes.
When I finished my post with "Freedom, or whatever..." What I meant was:
The drivers freedom to travel with out risk or consequence the only thing that matters in modern design philosophy.
No one seems to have any interest in changing that.
You are right, it is cultural at this point.

Leisesturm

So why are you still blaming the engineers? "Wrong-headed design"? "The wrong human as their safety focus"? What does that mean? Can you give some concrete examples of how U.S. road infrastructure might change safety metrics for the better?

base2 

With every iteration of "safety for car occupants" the goal posts get moved further reducing any connectedness to the task at hand; piloting a 2 ton chunk of metal safely. The feeing of "safety" reduces risk, so drivers risk/reward formula used by the drivet gets skewed in favor of higher speed & disregard for "silly" laws. Drivers in-turn become lax, sloppy, & distracted. When the unthinkable happens they are already so far into a vehicles performance envelope the results can be nothing other than catastrophic.

Come on man, you are smart. This is nothing new. Garbage cars with terrible brakes on tight windy roads near cliffs get driven slower than a Mercedez-Benz get hammering down on the Autobahn. Why? The consequence is a terrible plunge to your doom vs no consequence at all. Driver choices and actions are influenced by the road & car engineer.

If you need another opinion besides mine.

McBTC

You've got to know when and where to ride and know when there's some sketchy circumstances that you have to think for the driver... Nowadays, if you don't have the physical and mental agility do think and look over your shoulder at the same time, you shouldn't be on the road - you are nothing but an obstruction!

Rollfast

To be fair, cars are no match for the Union Pacific.

Maelochs

Opinions are fine ... got any facts?

Here is my experience: when I drove like an idiot, i did it in whatever car i drove. When I rode a motorcycle like an idiot, i did it on my motorcycle---in some cases with bald tires and very little brakes. People who are stupid are just as stupid in a new BMW and an old Ford Fiesta. The difference is, the new BMW Can go faster, and probably will, because it has superior brakes, adhesion, and acceleration. But both cars will likely be driven to their limits by the kind of drivers who drive stupidly.

Taken to an extreme ... why not have sharp metal spikes pointed at the driver from the top of the windshield, the steering column, the driver's side door frame, and the center console. Take out the air bags and seat belts. That way if the driver doesn't drive with extreme car, he/she will be impaled. This will increase road safety, you are saying? Why not have one of those insurance-company "snapshot" multi-plane accelerometers which sets off an explosive under there driver's seat if the driver exceeds certain limits?

Real-world experience has shown that people really don't expect to crash, so that the survivability of a crash is not that much of a consideration when deciding to drive foolishly.

base2 

They are everywhere. Why is it so controversial that peoples actions are influenced by external factors or percieved capabilities of themselves or their machine? You are a human person, correct? Have you never interacted with the world? Every aspect of every thing ever built is influenced by an engineer in some capacity. Are you not aware of how peoples decisions are influenced or the degree properties are agonized over by engineers? Everything from the rumble of the exhaust note to the "thunk" of the door closing to the amount of road noise allowed is purpose built and tailored for a particular effect. By definition that is influencing the occupants. That's the whole point of their work. The concept supports itself...unless you are being deliberatly obtuse & want me to provide a link to an industrial design, architectural design or marketing manuals or psychology in human desision making..in which case, I will point you towards the local community college. Classes are $500 tuition plus books. There you can gain great understanding of factors affecting human decision making. Heres a hint: It's rarely based on non-emotional factors & actions are easily manipulated.
The BMW is more likely to be a pedestrian/cyclist murder machine. Exactly my point. Thank you.
It would make it safer for pedestrians & cyclists. Exactly my point. Thank you.
That is exactly my point. For drivers, they are lulled into a false sense of safety due to being insulated from the activity at hand. They don't expect to crash. A feeling of insecurity & tactile sense of forces on the vehicle would influence them to operate the vehicle differently. Engineers have jurisdiction in that domain. Therefore, it makes sense to get their buy-in for all users safety.

Rollfast

I don't know about you, but who all owns a Beamer and wants to hit stuff? Inversely proportional to the number of mass market vehicles that might actually hit you.

Unless you are hit by a Maserati doing 185.

In which case, how were you doing 185???

mr_bill

mr_bill

REDMASTA

i'm all for autonomous vehicles. the sooner we can get terrible drivers out of their **** boxes and in to one the better.

Rollfast

I'm all for autonomous demolition derbies myself.

greatscott

I'm sure this was covered but I don't have the time to read every post, so I think the reason for the increase in bike and car accidents is due to a few reasons, motorists are driving more miles over the years, motorists have a lot more in car distractions now, there are more cyclists on the road then ever before. those are conflicts and they will cause problems.

genec

NPR just came out with a report on this... and the conclusions focus on the poor road designs; not serving pedestrians well...
AND, most importantly, DISTRACTION!!!
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/28/70648...a-30-year-high

greatscott

And this is why they need to automatically, with no way of overriding it, to shut down all cellphone capabilities from receiving or sending either text or voice once the built in GPS detects the unit is moving faster than 20 mph, and only allow phones to call 911 over 20 mph; but set a max speed where it would come back on once you exceed 220 mph so you can use while on a airliner. This is far safer to do and far cheaper then to try to get cars to drive autonomously. I know some of you will throw rocks at me but so what? People have been driving cars for many more years without phones then they have with phones so I think we could live without yakking and texting about mostly nonsense to friends and family constantly while driving. At least with a cell phone you can pull over anywhere and make a call, before cell phones we couldn't just pull over anywhere, we had to find a phone booth and prayed it worked and we had the coins to operate it for as long as we needed it!

base2 

It is illegal to interfere with lawful communications.

Maelochs

The legal definition of "lawful communications" can be changed.

We made the old laws, we can make new laws. We can change Any ;law.

The U.S. Constitution, as written, allowed slavery. I hear that might no longer be legal?

I think we can deal with cell phones---if we want.

I-Like-To-Bike

Who is this "we" you keep mentioning? Does "we" include anybody else but the deep thinkers" of A&S who want to "deal" with motorists and cell phone use with draconian shut 'em down, throw 'em in jail proposals that would be DOA if proposed anywhere but the A&S sandbox?

base2 

"Lawful communications" is any communications allowed by the first amendment concurrent with the license of said station operator. For cell phones, the carrier has a license issued by the FCC to use a portion of the tax-payer owned radiological spectrum. The license is issued because, presumably, the carrier serves some sort of public interest. The cell phone user is allowed use of their communications device &/or service under the carriers license.

It is also why Broadcasters are required by law to have public service programming & to identify themselves, their station call letters, transmitter location +/-5 minutes at the top of each hour, and participate in tests of the Emergency Broadcast System. To ensure they are who they say they are and are on the frequency they are supposed to be. Anything else is depriving that space from some user that has a right to it.

Interfering with lawful communications is also why net-neutrality was/is such a controversial issue. Essentially the telecoms/ISP's wanted the right to interfere with lawful communications of tax paying citizens & that by definition denies them the fruit of their investment in infrastructure, marginalizes their voice, & infringes on individual First Amendment protections.

Ajit Pi gave the ISP'S what they wanted. During the California wildfires it proved catastrophic to firefighting efforts.

This is really basic stuff.
N7FSM

Maelochs

So ... net neutrality could be changed, but no other aspect of communications law?

FCC can make whatever regs they like ... like the Emergency Broadcast System regs, or whatever else, ... or as you mention, station identification breaks and such. The FCC issues licences and can amend licensing regs as it sees fit ... as it did with net neutering. Your argument makes my point. The laws can change.

base2 

You are right. The FCC rule was & can be illegally changed when telecom or other industry lobbyists get appointed to head Federal Agencies.

The general consensus among State attorneys regarding net neutrality is that rule change was illegal, unconstitutional, deprives rights of citizenry, and counter to the very reason the FCC exists: To serve the public good. 21 States Attorneys General have filed lawsuits & it is very likely due to be seen the Supreme Court.

Of course that can all be avoided with a law passed by both houses of Congress. But with one side bent on selling out American institutions to industry interests at every available opportunity, that is unlikely to happen.

Thank goodness we have 3 branches of government.

Nevertheless, "lawful communications" is a First Amendment issue, and with very few exceptions can not be regulated.

Back on topic: Sorry, cell jammers are unlikely to become legal anytime soon. If, for no other reason than AT&T, T-mobile, Sprint, et. al, would scream bloody murder aout being denied spectrum they paid for.

I have a feeling you did not read the FCC page the link lead too.

greatscott

Ok, so it's better to kill others than to shut down communications to prevent that.

Slavery abused and killed people and that's still legal yet it's not allowed, so why not shut off phones? besides it says LAWFUL communications, if using a phone is a car is made illegal then it becomes unlawful thus it fine with the Constitution.
And no, so far people have not been able to deal with their cell phones. Even in Chicago where it's illegal to use cell phones while driving the cops aren't enforcing it, so that helps.

base2 

Dude, are you for real?
You don't know the 13th & 14th Amendments are part of The Constitution?

To your attempt:
You get an awful lot of these links...for a smart person.

Maelochs

I don't see where a cell phone motion sensor would be much more difficult to defend legally than a ban on driving while using a cell phone, or a ban except when totally hands-free--both of which are in place in various areas (though difficult to enforce.)

As far as the First Amendment issue ... not sure i recall which clause involved electronic communications. But, i do know that (was it Frankfurter?) one justice made it clear that yelling fire in a theater was not protected, and it is generally accepted that any speech which incites to violence or criminal action is not protected. If cell-phone use is linked to motorist deaths then a similar logic would follow.

The car-makers might actually install jammers instead of the phone makers doing it ... that would be one way to approach the issue. Hands-free bluetooth phone-linking would become a prime option ... mo' money for car companies. Texting seems to be the real culprit anyway. Also, states can regulate roads to their own standards (which is made clear by driving cell-hone bans.) The FCC doesn't have to get involved.

Not saying it will or should happen, just saying that th idea that it can't happen is an overstatement.

I hope net-neutering comes up in the Supreme Court. It is an embarrassment for the whole nation.

base2 

Just because a law is made doesn't necessarily mean it is Constitutional. Lots of States make laws, often at the request of various interest groups that are struck down. Generally they get struck because infringing or limiting Constituionally protected personal liberties because of a "maybe" just isn't how we do things in America.

To your point though. A reactionary approach after someone has demonstrated they are unable or unwilling to exercise their rights in a responsible manner would be the best legal approach given current law. With rare exception, felons don't get a lot or rights restored & Drunks still have freedom of movement & freedom of association, just the means of doing do by automobile are curtailed.

Similar treatment for cellphone using motor vehicle operatorswould be a tough sell. But consistant. I see your point.