"Justin Young" (jus1029)
03/24/2014 at 10:26 • Filed to: Stuck In Reverse
1
14|
"Justin Young" (jus1029)
03/24/2014 at 10:26 • Filed to: Stuck In Reverse | 1
| 14 |
themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles
> Justin Young
03/24/2014 at 10:27 |
|
Stereotypical modern driver - doing everything but driving.
crowmolly
> Justin Young
03/24/2014 at 10:29 |
|
This is why they should stop making automatics. Or do something to force human engagement in the road in front of them.
philipilihp
> Justin Young
03/24/2014 at 10:37 |
|
He's using a map. How old fashioned.
Jayhawk Jake
> crowmolly
03/24/2014 at 10:39 |
|
I don't agree with this argument. I can do all the things people say manuals would stop in my manual, I'm just way more dangerous while doing them because I have to change gears.
This is why we need driverless cars.
spanfucker retire bitch
> crowmolly
03/24/2014 at 10:40 |
|
Stupidest argument I've ever heard. You think automatics are required for people to be distracted while driving?
You're wrong on every god damn account.
|
crowmolly
> Jayhawk Jake
03/24/2014 at 10:41 |
|
Something to make people more engaged. The trans is the first thing that came to mind.
|
crowmolly
> spanfucker retire bitch
03/24/2014 at 10:42 |
|
Do you only read one sentence at a time? There's a word "OR".
|
spanfucker retire bitch
> crowmolly
03/24/2014 at 10:46 |
|
Your first sentence asserted the fact that automatics are to blame for distracted driving. The 'or' is irrelevant in this instance.
ttyymmnn
> crowmolly
03/24/2014 at 10:48 |
|
Instead we get automatics, cruise control, backup cameras, blind spot monitors, infotainment systems. God forbid we should actually have to pay attention to the act of driving.
|
crowmolly
> spanfucker retire bitch
03/24/2014 at 10:55 |
|
Correlation doesn't equal causation but in areas of the globe where manuals are more prevalent there is a 20-25% fewer incidence of distracted driving. As above, it's the first thing that came to mind. The problem stems from more than just transmission selection.
|
spanfucker retire bitch
> crowmolly
03/24/2014 at 11:01 |
|
Correlation doesn't equal causation
And yet you kept going anyways? Equally unreliable anecdotal evidence; I have a friend who texts and drives all the time. What does he drive? A manual.
|
crowmolly
> spanfucker retire bitch
03/24/2014 at 11:22 |
|
Oh, so a sample size of n=1 is statistically significant. Or two if you count the other commenter.
Here, have a look at this. At least in this case it's an experiment being run in a lab setting.
http://jad.sagepub.com/content/10/2/2…
Subjectively, participants report being more attentive while driving in manual transmission mode. Objectively, participants drive safer in the manual transmission mode.
Does everybody with a manual pay attention and does everybody with an automatic space out? Fuck no. But you are required to be more interactive with the car when driving a manual trans. That's why I said the first sentence.
Question with no "tone" attached:
What change do you think would make a difference in lowering distracted driving incidence?
|
Jayhawk Jake
> crowmolly
03/24/2014 at 11:57 |
|
I wholeheartedly disagree. We need to remove the driver from the equation.
People don't need to be more engaged, they don't give a shit. Even if they had to pedal the car they'd still do all the things they do now while driving. Engagement won't stop them. Take them out of the picture? They can do whatever they want and not endanger lives.
|
crowmolly
> Jayhawk Jake
03/24/2014 at 12:04 |
|
Do you think that is a feasible solution in the near future? I know Google (for one) has invested a lot in development but they are still in the early phases of testing and also have no plans for a large scale release. It certainly seems like the best solution to the problem, I'm just not sure if it work work for the general populace.