Hacker News Reader

Comment by mden | Hacker News Reader

"Cell phones are not dangerous because the driver was looking at his phone or playing with the buttons when he had an accident. They are dangerous because they encourage your mind to wander."

So you are claiming that having to look away from the road for possibly whole seconds to deal with a phone is not really dangerous, but what is dangerous is your mind wandering? I'm sorry but experience and common sense says otherwise.

I would also argue that your second point is not as not clear cut either. Having some sort of distraction is definitely helpful most of the time when driving long distances. I personally find audio books very greatly help to fight off monotony, which in turn keeps my attention higher than if I was not being distracted.

View on HN

Don't downvote mden if you disagree.

> So you are claiming that having to look away from the road for possibly whole seconds to deal with a phone is not really dangerous, but what is dangerous is your mind wandering?

I'm not OP, but it's not that your mind is wandering per se (which suggests a neutral state) but your mind is actively focused on something other than the road, like an HUD in front of your face.

Peeking at the next turn on nav mode is not a big deal, but if you're composing a text using voice, I'll bet anyone $100 that the voice recognition isn't good enough that you won't be staring at the screen to check it's getting the right words.

The thing I dislike most about this product is that it deludes people into thinking this is a "safe" way to operate your phone and text while driving, and basically gives permission to do so. No way to text while driving is safe, not really even at red lights.

Hmm. I think I took Yxven's comment out of context which in turn made my comment out of context. I agree that interruptions like reading a text message are dangerous regardless of how they are done. They are obviously more dangerous if you have to take your eyes off the road to do it is what I was saying.

In regards to long trips, I still maintain that having a distraction like music, audio books, or company to talk to is actually safer than not having them. Your brain getting tired of monotonous activity and scenery is a real thing as anyone who's done a 10 hour drive can tell you. But again my comment wasn't really in the same context as the parent I guess, so there's that.

> In regards to long trips, I still maintain that having a distraction like music, audio books, or company to talk to is actually safer than not having them. Your brain getting tired of monotonous activity and scenery is a real thing as anyone who's done a 10 hour drive can tell you.

This is of course true, and I noticed that drivers anticipating longer trips often like to take someone with them so that the passenger can keep them awake and concentrated.

But then again, on a long trip you really should make those 30-minute stops every 3 hours or so.

> They are obviously more dangerous if you have to take your eyes of the road to do it is what I was saying.

Yeah, for sure. That's the problem with this sort of product: you release it without texting functionality and [most people will reach for their phone to text] and [some people will stop texting while driving]. And lose product sexiness etc.

You release it with texting and people will think it gives them carte blanche to text while driving. Both not great outcomes.

Not that it's without dangers, but you don't have to look at a screen to verify text message dictation. You dictate, it reads it back.

I think better would be a standard library, like "report I'll be late," that relays my current coordinates and ETA in the message to my spouse. (And simply showing up late would make me nervous; reporting my delay relieves tension.) I'm not a brain scientist so I can't say what the total effect would be.

> I'll bet anyone $100 that the voice recognition isn't good enough that you won't be staring at the screen to check it's getting the right words.

Let me take that bet ;). Some people really don't care, and it makes me want to kill them when I get a voice-typed message that's complete gibberish because the sender thinks comprehensibility is for the losers.

I'm sorry but experience and common sense says otherwise.

Whenever you find yourself saying this, particularly in response to an expert in the field, that is the time to stop and listen instead of talking.

So you are claiming that having to look away from the road for possibly whole seconds to deal with a phone is not really dangerous, but what is dangerous is your mind wandering?

This is a false choice and something that the person you are replying to never said.

> So you are claiming that having to look away from the road for possibly whole seconds to deal with a phone is not really dangerous, but what is dangerous is your mind wandering?

The point is that anything that distracts your mind/vision from the road is dangerous, be it looking at your phone or reading a tweet in a transparent HUD display. What Navdy is building, while interesting, isn't necessarily safer.

I agree with what you are saying and you shouldn't be reading messages or w/e when driving, but surely looking away from the road is more dangerous than not? In the very least it takes more time. Again I'm not encouraging the behavior, just saying not all distraction are equivalent...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com