Morning TV on my MFD during commute to work

I've listened, it's just not a good point. Politeness sometimes goes out the window in the fight against blatant ignorance!

Doesn't seem very funny to me. Obviously the TV will be used to watch TV SHOWS. I don't think that needs much more definition. And to me, and many other people, this is obviously more dangerous than glancing at fuel consumption data.

 

How much does this "radio" you speak of cost?

 

Chris --

I'll try to make this my last post on the topic. (Aren't you glad?)

You keep on asking us "nay-sayers" (or, as others have preferred, "haters" ... ad hominem: "i've heard of it!") to provide proof that television (meaning, as you put it in the topic, "morning tv", so likely talk shows, news shows, etc) is more distracting than the standard MFD displays (nav, consumption, energy).

Well, perhaps we can't. Because you are sure to keep asking for proof until we have two complete case studies, one with, and one without the TV input. How many drivers? What conditions? How many miles?

How many deaths?

2. To put it a different way, consider Pascal's Wager. We have an unknown decision: TV on the MFD creates a more dangerous driver than just standard MFD displays, or it doesn't. Second, we have two choices of action: we can watch (or at least allow) TV on MFD, or we can not watch (or actively discourage / ban) TV on the MFD.

The first question has two answers, the second option has two answers. Taken together, there are four possible situations. Let's examine the outcomes:

1. TV on MFD is safe, and we allow it:
pros: you're not bored on your morning commute
cons: everyone else is as safe as TV-on-MFD is.

2. TV on MFD is unsafe, we allow it anyway:
pros: you aren't bored on your morning commute.
cons: people get killed.

3. TV on MFD is safe, yet we discourage/ban it:
pros: people are safe
cons: you're bored on your morning commute

4. TV on MFD is unsafe, we discourage/ban it:
pros: people are safe
cons: you're bored on your morning commute

This is where I come to the conclusion that the most ethical path is to not try to watch TV while your car is moving.

Notice that I phrase that carefully. I do not object to people having video screens that can display video input (be it DVD, OTA, SlingBox, whatever); I do object, most strenuously, to having live video being available to a driver of a moving vehicle.

As other posts have indicated, quite a few other state legislatures agree.

And it's not a personal freedom issue, as problemchild's "volvo seats" situation was. His decision impacted only those within the car; your choice here could very easily impact those outside the car (in an all-too-literal fashion).

(Although, regarding problemchild, does he explain to all of his passengers that he's made his vehicle measurably less safe, and that they're about to go for a drive in a vehicle that has not been safety tested by national standards organizations? Somehow, I doubt it.)

Your strawmen have all been knocked down:
1. glass cockpit when flying == more distraction.
a. show me your FAA license and the thousands of training / flying hours behind a commercial jetliner license
b. pilots have ATC watching them closely (at least in controlled airspace and on jetways, which is where you've spent all your time unless you use general aviation / private jets).
c. as others have pointed out, separation is vastly greater (100ft at 60mph vs. 5mi at 600mph. you do the math.)
d. modern large jets have advanced collision-avoidance electronics; similar-in-spirit devices are just now starting to hit the ultra-luxury automotive market.

2. standard MFD == just as distracting as TV on MFD
a. TV content is designed to attract, capture, and keep your attention; that's what advertisers pay for. MFD displays are constant, with indicators of vehicle status, or slowly and predictably varying displays of map data.
b. the number of controls and options on TV (which video source, which chapter/channel, which angle, etc) are much higher than that on the MFD; for MFD displays that have more options, most of them are locked out (for better or for worse) when the vehicle is moving.

Finally, we're simply asking you to obey the golden rule (or, if you like, the categorical imperative, but hey...): do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Do a bit of role-playing: it's 5 years later, you have a lovely wife sitting next to you and two young kids in the back seat. You're driving down the freeway at 70mph, and a car is tailgating you. An accident appears as you crest the hill; you put on your brakes.

Would you want the person behind you to be watching TV?

 

Sorry, Chris, I just couldn't resist. Not when the very first post in this entire thread was originally:

Yes, you eventually added "... my passenger ..." in there, but the intent was crystal clear.

Please think about how your choices affect other people. Would you want someone driving just behind you to be making the same choices?

 

One would hope the police catch you with the TV on before you crash. Yes I know you don't want people to post about how stupid the idea is and I don't want to see you reminding me.

 

@ tkil - I recall he also said he intended to listen in the periphery and glance over when it’s safe.

I understand why there is so much negativity about this idea, but I think most should look at themselves more closely before posting these venomous responses.

AAA put cameras in cars and watched how people behave when they’re distracted. From THIS REPORT, they start out by saying that EVERYONE gets distracted and that “most of the driver distractions are neither new nor technological.†They’re referring to things like eating, drinking, smoking, talking, dealing with kids, etc… These are the things that are more likely to cause accidents.

The study shows that drivers were more likely to engage in more distracting activities, like reading/writing (at the top of the list), when the car was stopped. I’ll go out on a limb and guess the OP probably understands that watching TV intently and driving at the same time might be as dangerous as reading/writing – and he’ll probably glance over when the car is still (although it’s probably at the same level as having navigation in the car). They go on to say that there should be less impact on driving performance because people choose to do these types of activities at “safer†times while in the car.

I think everyone will agree a TV in the car would be distracting, but I can also think of times when it would be useful…I’d choose one if it came as an option. There are a lot of other things that cause more distraction; I’m more afraid of bratty kids and the grape juice you’re trying to wipe off the seat while on the road.

The main page for the report is HERE.

 

Can we all agree to disagree. I think this post has gotten old.

 

well, anyone who would write this:

"-not asking for help to break the law or reduce driving safety. "


i do not want you to kill someone or even kill yourself while you are being brainwashed by greatest propaganda network since Soviet Pravda.

and, if you are unable to see how insanely dangerous is what you are trying to accomplish then i am sorry to say -- but you ARE completely brain dead. and i mean it!


do you understand how dangerous and illegal is this?
and it is illegal because it is dangerous!

 

No, they only make laws to make money from fines don't they?

 

chrisspaulding check your PM

 

At first, I was thinking, why can't you people respect the OP's question and leave out the safety lectures which he clearly already understands and tried to preempt? But I have to say, if his primary desire is to watch Fox and Friends while driving, he needs more than driving lectures.

 

Would this work? Boss Audio BVTS4 TV Tuners

or any of these? Best deals and prices on TV Tuners

 

You asked for any ideas, here's an expensive option also.
TracVision by KVH - Get Live Satellite TV...anyhere you go!