Acura TSX Forum banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,086 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
They talk a lot about how dangerous it can be to talk on the phone while you're driving (or to put on makeup, or get a b***j** or whatever).
But we haven't heard anything yet about how dangerous it can be to fiddle with the Nav.

Not that I've heard of anything bad, but I must admit that early on I did have a couple of close calls. I mean, even besides the temptation to plug stuff in to help you get where you're going, there are so many ways to play with this toy. Like, "Hey, I wonder how many miles it is from here to Boulder?" -- so you start punching it in, just to see.

You might say that anybody knows better than that. Well, yeah. But really, it's tempting -- and I had to lecture myself about it a couple of times. Sorry if this is sounding like a public service announcement, but that's kind of why I'm saying it, because you just KNOW that sooner or later we're going to hear about bad accidents that happened because of fiddling with Nav, not just in the TSX but in any kind of car with Nav. Let's make sure it's not us.

I wonder if anyone else has had close calls, and if anyone else has had to lecture himself about it like I have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,255 Posts
I have had some close calls, mostly while I was being stupid. I have found some voice commands that are not listed in the help section, and the manual however.
 

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,086 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
OK, so John and I are the only fools who ever had any close calls because of fiddling with the Nav.

OK, everybody, just keep fiddling with it. :D :D :D :D :D :D
 

·
, Administrator Emeritus
Joined
·
2,496 Posts
I should of get a Nav.. :(

Keep getting lost everywhere I go. Mapquest is the worst way to find anything.

As far as problems they will put out new laws sooner or later.

They should also make smoking in the car illegal but thats just because I drive a manual, smoke, drink coffee, talk on the phone hehe all in the same time.
 

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,086 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
tsxclub said:
.....they will put out new laws sooner or later.....
Later.

.....They should also make smoking in the car illegal but thats just because I drive a manual, smoke, drink coffee, talk on the phone hehe all in the same time.
Anybody else but me go out of their way to get out from being behind a *&$#@& whose smoke is coming right at you?

I do it all the time. Even if the only way is to drop back a few lengths.
 

·
Just a little nutty
Joined
·
664 Posts
No close calls yet but then again, I try real hard not to mess with it while driving.

You prob know this already but here are some suggestions (feel free to add more):
(1) Maximize Voice Recognition capabilities
(2) Memorize the placement of keys/buttons
(3) Utilize the buttons on the steering wheel (for audio control)
(4) Set up the directions before starting your trip
(5) Resist the urge and keep the [email protected]#$ing eyes on the road :mardi:
 

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,086 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Whatchamacallit said:
.....(5) Resist the urge and keep the [email protected]#$ing eyes on the road :mardi:
That's really it. We just have to keep reminding ourselves.

I'm telling ya, there are DEFINITELY, DEFINITELY going to be some big-time bad accidents because of fidding with the Nav. And the only way it's not going to be me is if I keep reminding myself.

But boy, is it tempting.
 

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
1,003 Posts
Sorry if this offends anyone (especially if it sounds familar) but I have had more near misses with cell phone users than Navi users! :mad:

Until people take driving seriously and stop screwing around behind the wheel there will always be stupid accidents. I bet when Motorola introduced the first radio in cars back in the 40's they must have said the same thing we complain about with the Navi?

The bigger issues is not so much the distractions but how disciplined we are when driving. I still maintain that getting and keeping a driver's license in the U.S. is way too easy but no politician is going to stick their neck out and deal with it. In Arizona, we all have drivers license that expire when we turn 60! Unless you really screw up, you don't need to retest till then! How's that for safe driving? :rolleyes:

Instead, we have every car makers introducing new "tech toys" to make driving "safer" for us. No one wants to face the truth, we need better educated and courteous drivers, not neccesarily "safer" cars.

Imagine the car of the "future" it will have air bag in every nook and cranny imagineable; navi systems that not only guide you but take you there while monitoring road conditions for the least congested route; auto pilot systems that drive and maintain "safe" distances between cars all bottlenecked on the roadways; auto parking capability (no need to ever parallel park again), telematics systems to keep you touch with everyone and for the authorities to track your vehicle (if they need or want to); in-vehicle communications and entertainment systems that rival current in home systems; breath analyzers that prohibit drivers with alcohol levels above set limits from starting their cars and more. BTW, the average cost for the car will be ~$50k :eek:

At some point the only safe car will be a vehicle that drives itself with drivers who are passengers. Won't that be fun? :confused:

Hey, this is therapeutic, now that I've given up all hope I feel a lot better ;)
 

·
, Administrator Emeritus
Joined
·
2,496 Posts
hip said:
At some point the only safe car will be a vehicle that drives itself with drivers who are passengers. Won't that be fun? :confused:
:sprint: I have to agree with you on this one. They probably have someone already working on this. But that would mean making EVERYONE change over to a car that drives itself.

They will start this in California and NY first. But then again think about states like Florida with no Emissions for current cars. Hmm
 

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
1,003 Posts
tsxclub said:
:sprint: I have to agree with you on this one. They probably have someone already working on this. But that would mean making EVERYONE change over to a car that drives itself.

They will start this in California and NY first. But then again think about states like Florida with no Emissions for current cars. Hmm
You're right, I was and it won't happen overnight it will be phased in and take several more years. As you say the most densely populated areas are the most likely candidates. In fact it's already happening, some time ago I worked on a project developing this technology.

Look at the latest high end cars with "smart cruise control systems" that maintain a set distance between vehicles. Next it will be "intelligent highways" that will have in-road or similar sensors. These will interface with the vehicle's onboard computer systems to completely take over driver and navigation controls. They will tie in with satellite systems to track and monitor vehicle traffic.

At first automated highway guidance systems will probably be deployed in phases. It may start with " carpool lanes" and later proliferate to other lanes or possibly use dedicated highways that will not allow vehicles without the necessary systems to enter?

Today, most newer technology is implemnted by private enterprise, so most likely these systems will have fees attached. It could be a similar scenario to a toll road system. Each vehicle will have a serialized transponder along with necessary hardware/software to utilize the system. Every time you make use of the road, the distance you travel the time of day, etc. could become the basis for billing?

If your car is older, it will be possible to retrofit, similar to what we have today with aftermarket navi systems and such. Eventually, all cars will have these automated highway systems totally integrated with more bells and whistles which will make more people want to buy new (and spend more $).
 

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,086 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
hip said:
Sorry if this offends anyone (especially if it sounds familar) but I have had more near misses with cell phone users than Navi users! :mad:

Until people take driving seriously and stop screwing around behind the wheel there will always be stupid accidents. I bet when Motorola introduced the first radio in cars back in the 40's they must have said the same thing we complain about with the Navi?

The bigger issues is not so much the distractions but how disciplined we are when driving. I still maintain that getting and keeping a driver's license in the U.S. is way too easy but no politician is going to stick their neck out and deal with it. In Arizona, we all have drivers license that expire when we turn 60! Unless you really screw up, you don't need to retest till then! How's that for safe driving? :rolleyes:

Instead, we have every car makers introducing new "tech toys" to make driving "safer" for us. No one wants to face the truth, we need better educated and courteous drivers, not neccesarily "safer" cars.

Imagine the car of the "future" it will have air bag in every nook and cranny imagineable; navi systems that not only guide you but take you there while monitoring road conditions for the least congested route; auto pilot systems that drive and maintain "safe" distances between cars all bottlenecked on the roadways; auto parking capability (no need to ever parallel park again), telematics systems to keep you touch with everyone and for the authorities to track your vehicle (if they need or want to); in-vehicle communications and entertainment systems that rival current in home systems; breath analyzers that prohibit drivers with alcohol levels above set limits from starting their cars and more. BTW, the average cost for the car will be ~$50k :eek:

At some point the only safe car will be a vehicle that drives itself with drivers who are passengers. Won't that be fun? :confused:

Hey, this is therapeutic, now that I've given up all hope I feel a lot better ;)
Wow -- this post and your next one are like a virtual tour of the future.
Feels pretty real -- all too real.

Yeah, about the cell-phone stuff -- it's not only close calls, but even more so, it's just a lot of crazy nuisance stuff. It used to be that when you saw someone in the left lane going 40, or just generally driving without a clue, it meant the driver was either old or drunk. Now, it's just that they're on the phone.

I'd love to see law enforcement put a lot less emphasis on cut-and-dried stuff like "speeding" or even whether or not the person is using a cell phone -- and more emphasis on whether they're driving in an unsafe or distracted manner.
 

·
Just a little nutty
Joined
·
664 Posts
Anyone live in a state where cell phone usage while driving is illegal?

New Jersey is very close to passing a law to ban cell phone usage while driving and I'm all for it. When I stop at a red light and look at all the cross traffic pass by, I swear 50% of them are on the phone. Makes me wonder who's actually DRIVING on the road nowadays?

Also, even if laws are passed can the cops pull you over for just taking on the phone OR can they only pull you over for another violation and tack on cell phone usage on top of it?
 

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,086 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Whatchamacallit said:
Anyone live in a state where cell phone usage while driving is illegal?

New Jersey is very close to passing a law to ban cell phone usage while driving and I'm all for it. When I stop at a red light and look at all the cross traffic pass by, I swear 50% of them are on the phone. Makes me wonder who's actually DRIVING on the road nowadays?

Also, even if laws are passed can the cops pull you over for just taking on the phone OR can they only pull you over for another violation and tack on cell phone usage on top of it?
In New York, it's been illegal to be on a cell phone unless it's hands-free, since about October '02 I think.

They can pull you over even just for the cell phone thing, although I haven't known of anyone who did get pulled over for that.
 

·
, Administrator Emeritus
Joined
·
2,496 Posts
larchmont said:
In New York, it's been illegal to be on a cell phone unless it's hands-free, since about October '02 I think.

They can pull you over even just for the cell phone thing, although I haven't known of anyone who did get pulled over for that.
I know atleast 10 people who were pulled over for using a cell phone while driving. I just dont use it at all as I drive a stick and it makes it even harder to drive while on the phone.

I think they are doing a good job here most people dont use cell phones while driving anymore.
 

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,086 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
tsxclub said:
.....I think they are doing a good job here most people dont use cell phones while driving anymore.
You must not drive in Westchester that much.

Seriously. It's epidemic here. And I'm talking about hand-held (i.e. the illegal way).
 

·
Just a little nutty
Joined
·
664 Posts
larchmont said:
I haven't known of anyone who did get pulled over for that.
Grrr, I was afraid of this.

To go though all the hassle to pass a law and to see it not even being enforced. It sends the wrong message.

What's next, people watching TV while driving? Oh wait, that's already happening. :rolleyes:
 

·
Just a little nutty
Joined
·
664 Posts
Interesting story on driving while being "distracted". The full article is below. Or you can check it out here

Driver pulled over for watching porn

ALBANY, New York (Reuters) -- Andre Gainey found out the hard way that in the state of New York it's illegal to drive while watching porn.

Police said the 35-year old man from Clifton Park, New York, was watching a adult movie called "Chocolate Foam" on Tuesday night while driving his Mercedes Benz in the town of Schenectady when he was spotted by an officer at a stop light.

Police spokesman Pete Frizoni said detectives pulled Gainey over when they saw the movie playing on screens embedded in the car's headrests. When they confronted him, they saw another screen in the passenger-side visor was facing Gainey, allowing him to watch the movie while driving.

The case is thought to be the first of its kind in New York, said Joe Pichi, a spokesman for the for the state's Department of Motor Vehicles.

"Our biggest problem is illegal cell phone use while driving," Pichi said. "Drivers should be driving."
 

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,086 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Whatchamacallit said:
....Driver pulled over for watching porn

ALBANY, New York (Reuters) -- Andre Gainey found out the hard way that in the state of New York it's illegal to drive while watching porn.

Police said the 35-year old man from Clifton Park, New York, was watching a adult movie called "Chocolate Foam" on Tuesday night while driving his Mercedes Benz.....
:rofl: !!!!!

I always knew MB drivers were really classy.
 

·
Just a little nutty
Joined
·
664 Posts
Some more goodies related to the topic :naughty:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/03/sex.defense.ap/index.html


Woman uses sex act as manslaughter defense
Wednesday, March 3, 2004 Posted: 1:52 PM EST (1852 GMT)

MIDDLETOWN, Connecticut (AP) -- A woman charged with causing a fatal car crash in 1999 says that she couldn't have been behind the wheel because she was performing a sex act on the driver at the time.

Heather Specyalski, 33, was charged with second-degree manslaughter in the crash that killed businessman Neil Esposito. Prosecutors allege that she was driving Esposito's Mercedes-Benz convertible when it veered off the road and hit several trees.

But Specyalski claims that Esposito was driving, and she was performing oral sex on him at the time, said her attorney, Jeremiah Donovan. He noted that Esposito's pants were down when he was thrown from the car.

Superior Court Judge Robert L. Holzberg ruled Tuesday that Specyalski can proceed with the defense, despite objections by the prosecutor.

"A defendant has a right to offer a defense no matter how outlandish, silly or unbelievable one might think it will be," Holzberg said. He added: "No one ever told me in law school that we'd be having these kinds of conversations in open court."

Assistant State's Attorney Maureen Platt said the defense is flawed.

"His pants could have been down because he was mooning a car he was drag racing," Platt said. "His pants could have been down because he was urinating out of a window. His pants could have been down because he wasn't feeling well."

Also Tuesday, Holzberg denied Donovan's motion to use gender as grounds to eliminate jurors. Donovan had argued that women would be biased and more likely to convict.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top