[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by VisualEcho

I'm not into politics, but I do wonder why, since they have the ability to, cell service providers don't turn off the ability to use apps over say, 5 mph. It would be easily possible. Your take on that?

Because, oh, I don't know, a human can run faster than 5 mph?

And if the joggers suddenly can't listen to Spotify or similar while running, well, if I were the human that created this software that shut down their apps, I'd certainly make sure I was able to run faster than them for a sustained distance....

[VisualEcho]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Because, oh, I don't know, a human can run faster than 5 mph?

And if the joggers suddenly can't listen to Spotify or similar while running, well, if I were the human that created this software that shut down their apps, I'd certainly make sure I was able to run faster than them for a sustained distance....

You really just said that?

I'm talking about driving, which has a completely different physics than running, and with today's technology we can easily tell the difference.

[suckbangblow]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Here's one.....


....So I'm on patrol one night and I observe a vehicle in my rear view mirror traveling at a high rate of speed. As the car passes, I start rolling code, and the chase is on. The driver exited the freeway and starts driving through the hills. Part of me was a little impressed by the driving, and part of me was thinking, "This m'fer is going to end up tumbling down the hillside." Finally the driver yields, and who do I find in the driver's seat?!?!? ......a 14 year old girl with no license, wearing pajamas and driving shoes. LMAO! I laughed.....loudly!

WHOA!!!!


Thanks for taking the time to share!

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Here's one.....


....So I'm on patrol one night and I observe a vehicle in my rear view mirror traveling at a high rate of speed. As the car passes, I start rolling code, and the chase is on. The driver exited the freeway and starts driving through the hills. Part of me was a little impressed by the driving, and part of me was thinking, "This m'fer is going to end up tumbling down the hillside." Finally the driver yields, and who do I find in the driver's seat?!?!? ......a 14 year old girl with no license, wearing pajamas and driving shoes. LMAO! I laughed.....loudly!

LOL. What year was this though? I just want to cross reference, because Lups kids were in the US at one point and this....well, it could be one of them.

But that is funny and happy the kid finally pulled over, could have ended much worse.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by VisualEcho

You really just said that?

Funny, I said the exact same thing when I read your original post. Eerie.

Originally Posted by VisualEcho

I'm talking about driving, which has a completely different physics than running, and with today's technology we can easily tell the difference.

To which are you referring (technology) that is in the smartphone standard? I'm not a technological guru, so consider me unaware.

[Salty Dog]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Because, oh, I don't know, a human can run faster than 5 mph?

And if the joggers suddenly can't listen to Spotify or similar while running, well, if I were the human that created this software that shut down their apps, I'd certainly make sure I was able to run faster than them for a sustained distance....

Why should a passenger not have access to his/her phone, not only in a car but train, bus etc.

[premier3is]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Because, oh, I don't know, a human can run faster than 5 mph?

And if the joggers suddenly can't listen to Spotify or similar while running, well, if I were the human that created this software that shut down their apps, I'd certainly make sure I was able to run faster than them for a sustained distance....

You got to have an analytical and problem solving mindset man. Cant just say it wont work, got to try to work around the potential problems that could occur.

Pretty sure there can be a number of ways to go around this. Ones I can think of on top of my head right now:

1.) monitor speed fluctuations for 30-60 seconds before the software turns on to recognize you are in a vehicle.

2.) raise the speed limit to 10mph...

3.) encode an on/off button (although this would potentially defeat the purpose since people would forget to turn it on or just ignore it)

4.) Recognize a bluetooth connection to the vehicle only (since you can use bluetooth headphones and such for running), and turn on application.


Just showing you there can be many ways around the problem, just got to be willing to solve it and put in an effort.

[VisualEcho]

I guess my point is that I believe the technology exists to disable visual-heavy apps while driving a car. I can understand talking on the phone, or using a GPS that gives you audible alerts, but using something that requires you to look down to use, while you are driving a car is just stupidity. People just aren't that brilliant, they are going to use it, and cause accidents.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

LOL. What year was this though? I just want to cross reference, because Lups kids were in the US at one point and this....well, it could be one of them.

But that is funny and happy the kid finally pulled over, could have ended much worse.

It's wasn't Lups' kids, but had she not been out of the country at the time, were living in California, and had it been an Austin Yellow M4, I might've concluded that it could be her. LOL!

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by Salty Dog

Why should a passenger not have access to his/her phone, not only in a car but train, bus etc.

I agree with you, this would seem to be a further problem with what Visual suggested.

Originally Posted by premier3is

You got to have an analytical and problem solving mindset man. Cant just say it wont work, got to try to work around the potential problems that could occur.

Pretty sure there can be a number of ways to go around this. Ones I can think of on top of my head right now:

1.) monitor speed fluctuations for 30-60 seconds before the software turns on to recognize you are in a vehicle.

2.) raise the speed limit to 10mph...

3.) encode an on/off button (although this would potentially defeat the purpose since people would forget to turn it on or just ignore it)

4.) Recognize a bluetooth connection to the vehicle only (since you can use bluetooth headphones and such for running), and turn on application.


Just showing you there can be many ways around the problem, just got to be willing to solve it and put in an effort.

I agree with you as well, certainly there can be a way around it if one really saw it as a huge problem that needed to be addressed.

I don't see it as a huge problem though. I think instead of trying to further a nanny state that we all start taking some responsibility for our own actions instead of blaming whatever we did on something else / a manufacturer. That won't happen though. Or at least I see it as a low probability.

[Salty Dog]

Originally Posted by VisualEcho

I guess my point is that I believe the technology exists to disable visual-heavy apps while driving a car. I can understand talking on the phone, or using a GPS that gives you audible alerts, but using something that requires you to look down to use, while you are driving a car is just stupidity. People just aren't that brilliant, they are going to use it, and cause accidents.

Why should a passenger not have access to his/her phone, not only in a car but train, bus etc.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by VisualEcho

I guess my point is that I believe the technology exists to disable visual-heavy apps while driving a car. I can understand talking on the phone, or using a GPS that gives you audible alerts, but using something that requires you to look down to use, while you are driving a car is just stupidity. People just aren't that brilliant, they are going to use it, and cause accidents.

And they should be held accountable then. Wouldn't you agree? Make an example of enough of them, and it'll either thin the herd / cull the stupid, or the message will get across.

[VisualEcho]

Originally Posted by Salty Dog

Why should a passenger not have access to his/her phone, not only in a car but train, bus etc.

It's my assertion that these companies can tell the driver from the passenger, the train/bus from a car, etc. But even if they can't, it could still be done.

Originally Posted by Joekerr

And they should be held accountable then. Wouldn't you agree? Make an example of enough of them, and it'll either thin the herd / cull the stupid, or the message will get across.

Held accountable is already too late.

[premier3is]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

I agree with you as well, certainly there can be a way around it if one really saw it as a huge problem that needed to be addressed.

I don't see it as a huge problem though. I think instead of trying to further a nanny state that we all start taking some responsibility for our own actions instead of blaming whatever we did on something else / a manufacturer. That won't happen though. Or at least I see it as a low probability.

I agree, we do need to take into account our own actions. But the problem is causing an accident with others which could potentially be fatal. And that is why I think something like this would be nice since there are far too many incidents these days due to people using their phones on the road.

Anyways, sorry for the sidetrack OP! back to the topic of the thread lol

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by premier3is

I agree, we do need to take into account our own actions. But the problem is causing an accident with others which could potentially be fatal. And that is why I think something like this would be nice since there are far too many incidents these days due to people using their phones on the road.

Anyways, sorry for the sidetrack OP! back to the topic of the thread lol

Hey, I'm all for sidetracks. The tangential conversation was applicable and relevant.

[King Rudi]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Now_Rudi and I had a huge amount of fun with one individual a few months back, I feel he was only a few posts away from an apoplectic stroke.

I have a new candidate! lols

[Rmtt]

Originally Posted by Now_Rudi

I have a new candidate! lols

I'm definitely in for this one.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by Now_Rudi

I have a new candidate! lols

Are you going to share in the wealth or no??? PM me - have to get them into OT.

Is it WR?

[King Rudi]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Are you going to share in the wealth or no??? PM me - have to get them into OT.

Is it WR?

This individual already participates in OT.....and far too often in my opinion. The only reason the ignore button hasn't been pressed is that reading their nonsense, makes me feel better about my human condition.

Indeed, it is.

[UncleWede]

"$1000 fine for littering". How many of these citations have you written?

I don't even know of anyone rumored to have been cited

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

"$1000 fine for littering". How many of these citations have you written?

I don't even know of anyone rumored to have been cited

I've cited for CVC 23111 (..tossing a lit cigarette, cigar or other lighted artifact out of a vehicle onto a public road, or committing that same act as a pedestrian), and a few similar fines. Is that what you're referring to?

[Salty Dog]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I've cited for CVC 23111 (..tossing a lit cigarette, cigar or other lighted artifact out of a vehicle onto a public road, or committing that same act as a pedestrian), and a few similar fines. Is that what you're referring to?

We have a seldom used offence in Ontario under the Environmental Protection Act that forbids any person from abandoning any material likely to become litter. It's a beauty because it isn't limited to public space like the litter highway offence. I used it a few times to correct poor attitudes.