Suzuki Samurai was Re: [geeks] SPARC proprietary (waaaay

[Dan Duncan]

As I recall, 'nimitz at ns1.nimitzbrood.com' wrote:
> > > > A manual forces you to have a better understanding of how a
> > > > car works and pay more attention to what's going on.
> > > 
> > > Not necessarily.  Back when I was doing field-service of computer systems I was able to shift gears, adjust the radio, and eat a taco while driving my beat up old Dodge 024.
> > 
> > Are you saying you didn't have an understanding of what was going on
> > and weren't paying attention?
> 
> On more than one occasion.  But I was young and stupid then too.

All the more reason for better training and such.

> > It's POSSIBLE to safely drive a car whilst using a cellphone, for
> > example, but many people do not.  All it requires is paying attention.
> > Note that several studies have shown that requiring a handsfree set
> > in order to use a cellphone whilst driving actually does nothing
> > to increase safety.  It's not the extra hand on the wheel that makes
> > so difference.  It's simply driver inattention.
> 
> Actually from my point of view the extra hand makes a big difference.  Without taking that hand off the wheel you can't do anything _but_ drive.  I don't mind that because several things could be added to the column to allow steering wheel control of them.  The radio is only one example of such.

And following from further stuff, there are NECESSARY reasons to take a hand
off the wheel.  Shifting, turning on the front or rear defogger or defroster,
adjusting the visor, flipping down the mirror when a truck gets behind you...
Stuff you can't prepare for before you hit the road.

> As for cellphones I think hands-free should be mandatory in all states while driving.  Period.  There's no reason, if you pay a cellphone bill, that you can't pay an extra $20 for a hands-free kit.

Why?  Studies have shown they do nothing to improve driving.

> > > The truth is that unless you train people right from the start what could _possibly_ happen (within reason) they will take the whole thing lightly.
> <snip criminal charges>
> 
> I agree wholeheartedly.  There needs to be more serious penalties for serious accidnets.  But then that would only worsten under our sue-happy society so i'm not sure what he solution should be.

Start off by not calling them accidents.  It implies a lack of liability.

> > Following it up with a tougher driving test resulting in a probationary
> > license (no driving at night, for example, and possibly restrictions on
> > the weight and power of the vehicle) that would be converted to
> > a regular license after a period of time without incidents and maybe
> > another test might also be nice.
> 
> I can see the one but restricting the size of the vehicle proabably wouldn't be feasible as many kids tinker with their own cars.  What's next?  Licensed performance products?  Do you want to have to pay extra for that turbo?

I don't want a green driver to HAVE a turbo.  When he learns to walk,
he can get a permanent license and start to run.  Insurance rates
only partly correct this.  Have you seen some of the rolling stock
high school kids are driving nowadays?  Man, I had to pay for my
own shitty car in high school.  My parents didn't buy me some
new luxury or performance car and nowadays I'm thankful for it.  
Now people have to keep up with the Jones' KIDS!

-DanD

-- 
#  Dan Duncan (kd4igw)  dand at pcisys.net  http://pcisys.net/~dand
# Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example.
#   -Mark Twain