# Killer browsing facebook at 85mph



## stowpirate (Sep 6, 2014)

In our attention seeking behaviour on facebook it makes you wonder if we all in some small way contributed towards this death?
http://www.cnet.com/news/driver-browsing-facebook-at-85-mph-kills-89-year-old-say-police/


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 6, 2014)

Anyone who's texting or bookfacing whilst driving is a cunt, and should be locked up and banned from driving for life.


----------



## Geri (Sep 6, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> In our attention seeking behaviour on facebook it makes you wonder if we all in some small way contributed towards this death?
> http://www.cnet.com/news/driver-browsing-facebook-at-85-mph-kills-89-year-old-say-police/


 
Er, no. It doesn't make me wonder that at all.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Sep 6, 2014)

Nope, I ain't guilty of contributing towards his death at all


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 6, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Anyone who's texting or bookfacing whilst driving is a cunt, and should be locked up and banned from driving for life.



I agree. But what most people don't acknowledge is that the whole mobile network was set up along main trunk routes to encourage this type of behaviour, except for the speeding. I was heavily involved in the R&D teams that tested mobile cell hand overs. To start with we had drivers holding the phones solo with the equipment loose on the passenger seat!


----------



## killer b (Sep 6, 2014)

So you're saying the mobile phone networks bear some responsibility then?


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 6, 2014)

killer b said:


> So you're saying the mobile phone networks bear some responsibility then?



Both users and networks,  albeit it does depend on how you use your mobile?  Interesting local rag story:

http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/p...ned_or_sent_a_text_behind_the_wheel_1_3760046


----------



## killer b (Sep 6, 2014)

so people who choose to use their phones while driving are responsible for the resulting crashes? 

gotcha.


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 7, 2014)

killer b said:


> so people who choose to use their phones while driving are responsible for the resulting crashes?
> 
> gotcha.



Not quite. The networks also have some responsibility as the impact of the technology was never considered until people started being killed? It was never discussed at any R&D meetings I attended. They was more interested in share price, corporate image and how you dressed. Or managers joking about sharing pornography than the serious issues raised by the team


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Sep 7, 2014)

Was voice it was set up for though surely? Hands free sets have been about for a while now.


----------



## keybored (Sep 7, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> I agree. But what most people don't acknowledge is that the whole mobile network was set up along main trunk routes to encourage this type of behaviour, except for the speeding. I was heavily involved in the R&D teams that tested mobile cell hand overs. To start with we had drivers holding the phones solo with the equipment loose on the passenger seat!


I can't help suspecting that the networks happen to have been set up along major trunk routes because they tend to pass through or near major conurbations, which is where customers would be concentrated. Also it would have been long and hard work checking the network if they'd sent you out on foot over fields to test handover.


----------



## sim667 (Sep 10, 2014)

Global Stoner said:


> Was voice it was set up for though surely? Hands free sets have been about for a while now.


 
Even hands free still distracts you.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 10, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Even hands free still distracts you.


Listening to the radio, talking to passengers, checking directions all distract you, but none including talking on a hands free distract nearly as much as talking on a handset or checking texts or similar on a smart phone.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 10, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Not quite. The networks also have some responsibility as the impact of the technology was never considered until people started being killed? It was never discussed at any R&D meetings I attended. They was more interested in share price, corporate image and how you dressed. Or managers joking about sharing pornography than the serious issues raised by the team


This is the most thoroughly and embarrassingly stupid idea I've encountered in a long time.

Address any ripostes to O2.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2014)

surely any distraction that causes you to pay less due care and attention to throwing your half ton chunk of metal and plastic around at speeds faster than most land mammals in hunting mode is bad and killerish?

I mean, we've all seen in Soprano's where Tony stacks his motor while Chris's mrs gives him a blowie. Thats far more of a distraction I'd have thought


----------



## weltweit (Sep 10, 2014)

Driving without due care and attention can apply to all sorts of situations. Basically if you should have been able to see and react to an event but failed to causing an accident then you may be guilty.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 10, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> The networks also have some responsibility


No, they really don't.

The responsibility starts and stops with the twat who uses a phone whilst doing 85mph.


----------



## sim667 (Sep 10, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Listening to the radio, talking to passengers, checking directions all distract you, but none including talking on a hands free distract nearly as much as talking on a handset or checking texts or similar on a smart phone.



No, but hands free still distract people more than the radio or having some (who isn't trying to be distracting) in the car.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 10, 2014)

sim667 said:


> No, but hands free still distract people more than the radio or having some (who isn't trying to be distracting) in the car.


I can only assume you have some research in mind when you say that.
Personally I find talking to a passenger or listening to the radio can be very distracting.


----------



## sim667 (Sep 10, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I can only assume you have some research in mind when you say that.
> Personally I find talking to a passenger or listening to the radio can be very distracting.



It's quite well documented and researched 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130612092949.htm


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 11, 2014)

sim667 said:


> It's quite well documented and researched
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130612092949.htm



Nobody ever considered the consequences of the technology. Sat nav is a good one stick it in the middle of your windscreen so that it blocks your view?


----------



## weltweit (Sep 11, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Nobody ever considered the consequences of the technology. Sat nav is a good one stick it in the middle of your windscreen so that it blocks your view?


Satnav being there, as something one glances at from time to time, is much less dangerous than people trying to adjust their satnavs while on the move. As I understand it, Japan had satnavs a lot longer than we, and they decided to make all new models disable any adjustment while the vehicle is on the move. Assuming that is correct I think we should also adopt that here.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 11, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Nobody ever considered the consequences of the technology. Sat nav is a good one stick it in the middle of your windscreen so that it blocks your view?


Yeah, coz that's what you do. Stick it right in the middle so you can't see anything else.

Did you swallow a whole bottle of stupid pills this week or something?


----------



## sim667 (Sep 11, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Nobody ever considered the consequences of the technology. Sat nav is a good one stick it in the middle of your windscreen so that it blocks your view?



Yeah but that is actually better than people trying to use a map on their knee whilst driving alone.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 11, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Listening to the radio, talking to passengers, checking directions all distract you, but none including talking on a hands free distract nearly as much as talking on a handset or checking texts or similar on a smart phone.



They have actually researched this. IIRC using a hands free mobile phone rates as slightly less distracting than using a handheld phone, slightly more distracting than being drunk, massively more distracting than listening to the radio or talking with passengers. Argue the mechanisms of how it works all you want, that it is seriously dangerous is pretty solidly established from several entirely different and independent sets of solid evidence.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 11, 2014)

ericjarvis said:


> They have actually researched this. IIRC using a hands free mobile phone rates as slightly less distracting than using a handheld phone, slightly more distracting than being drunk, massively more distracting than listening to the radio or talking with passengers. Argue the mechanisms of how it works all you want, that it is seriously dangerous is pretty solidly established from several entirely different and independent sets of solid evidence.


I know they have researched this and I have seen some of it, but that does not make my statement incorrect. In fact I think my statement is correct.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 11, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> I agree. But what most people don't acknowledge is that the whole mobile network was set up along main trunk routes to encourage this type of behaviour, except for the speeding. I was heavily involved in the R&D teams that tested mobile cell hand overs. To start with we had drivers holding the phones solo with the equipment loose on the passenger seat!


What you seem to be suggesting is that companies should be responsible for misuse of their products, and consider this misuse in their considerations whether to produce their product.

While there are certainly cases where I think this is true, I _really_ don't think this is one of them. There's a point where misuse simply becomes the twattishness of the user, not the responsibility of the person who made the product.


----------



## Plumdaff (Sep 11, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Nobody ever considered the consequences of the technology. Sat nav is a good one stick it in the middle of your windscreen so that it blocks your view?


I regularly use sat nav even on familiar motorway routes, mainly because it feels a hell of a lot quicker, safer, and less distracting to monitor my speed on that small screen at motorway speeds than down on the dashboard speedometer.


----------



## wiskey (Sep 11, 2014)

that article said:
			
		

> Sletten has been charged with negligent homicide. The maximum sentence is five years. *She appeared in court Wednesday and was released on her own recognizance*. She allegedly claims to have no recollection of the accident at all.



what does that mean?


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 12, 2014)

Lord Camomile said:


> While there are certainly cases where I think this is true, I _really_ don't think this is one of them. There's a point where misuse simply becomes the twattishness of the user, not the responsibility of the person who made the product.



The mobile phone network was built on trunk transport routes. Anyway I was there during development of most of the key communication technolgies we now use and raised a few safety issues which fell on death ears. Hands free was a later development that came from pressure outside of the industry. One thing that is a bit odd is that Mobile Amatuer Radio use with a hand held mike and as far as I can make out is not against the law or considered dangerous? Holding a mic, changing settings and chatting is just as dangerous as using a mobile? Myself I do not use a mobile in the car or radio ham equipment.


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 12, 2014)

Plumdaff said:


> I regularly use sat nav even on familiar motorway routes, mainly because it feels a hell of a lot quicker, safer, and less distracting to monitor my speed on that small screen at motorway speeds than down on the dashboard speedometer.










It obsure the view so can conceal a number of things easily like pedestrian, motorcycle etc? I have used mine sitting on the passenger seat with voice dirrections only, albeit on a motorway or any long journey I cannot see the point of using it? It just gives obvious dirrections. I get my passenger to turn it on when I get near the destination?


----------



## hash tag (Oct 9, 2015)

Facebookers son drowns

East Yorkshire mother jailed after son drowns in garden pond - East Yorkshire mother jailed after son drowns in garden pond - BBC News


----------



## dervish (Oct 13, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yeah, coz that's what you do. Stick it right in the middle so you can't see anything else.
> 
> Did you swallow a whole bottle of stupid pills this week or something?




Obviously I wouldn't but I have seen many people with the satnav in a position obscuring their view.


----------



## dervish (Oct 13, 2015)

And you don't need to be using facebook on the phone to be a killer. 

Families release crash video to prevent further speeding deaths - CNET

 <- Not especially graphic, but that video scared me, I used to live near there.


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 13, 2015)

wiskey said:


> what does that mean?



Basically it means released without bail on the understanding she recognises her obligation to appear again before the court on a certain date.


----------



## wiskey (Oct 13, 2015)

dervish said:


> And you don't need to be using facebook on the phone to be a killer.
> 
> Families release crash video to prevent further speeding deaths - CNET
> 
> <- Not especially graphic, but that video scared me, I used to live near there.



might not be graphic but the end of that is pretty chilling


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Oct 13, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Satnav being there, as something one glances at from time to time, is much less dangerous than people trying to adjust their satnavs while on the move. As I understand it, Japan had satnavs a lot longer than we, and they decided to make all new models disable any adjustment while the vehicle is on the move. Assuming that is correct I think we should also adopt that here.


They deffo have had sat nav longer than we have. However my brother in law does not seem to have a problem flipping between that and the telly on the kanana.


----------



## keybored (Oct 13, 2015)

wiskey said:


> might not be graphic but the end of that is pretty chilling


This one isn't at all graphic (despite the warning; all you can see are other vehicles and a windscreen from a dash-cam perspective) but it's still one of the most tragic moments I have seen/heard online. And there were no drugs/speeding etc. involved, just rotten bad luck.

Edit: Forgot link.


----------



## wiskey (Oct 14, 2015)

keybored said:


> This one isn't at all graphic (despite the warning; all you can see are other vehicles and a windscreen from a dash-cam perspective) but it's still one of the most tragic moments I have seen/heard online. And there were no drugs/speeding etc. involved, just rotten bad luck.
> 
> Edit: Forgot link.



I don't really get what happens ... Does the brick kill the passenger?


----------



## keybored (Oct 14, 2015)

wiskey said:


> I don't really get what happens ... Does the brick kill the passenger?


Yeah, it hit her in the head and she died later in hospital.


----------



## wiskey (Oct 15, 2015)

keybored said:


> Yeah, it hit her in the head and she died later in hospital.



OH


----------



## twentythreedom (Oct 15, 2015)

Shit, that's horrible


----------

