I'm bored so....heres a "Survey"...What if you were a dictator, what would you outlaw???

the model rocket show
Onebadhawk
Advertise with us
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
1. Stupidity would become a felony.

2. Have a REAL driver's test- to include bad weather driving, entering a freeway on ramp, and tailgating. And, of course, just a little common courtesy to other drivers.

3. Ban of under educated voters. I don't mean lack of a degree or something like that, but really researching the issues. Too many people depend on inaccurate and untrue advertising for this.

Phil L.
 
boatgeek said:
sad trombones
Click to expand...

Unlike almost everything else on this thread, this is something I could get behind:

Toilet flushes- sad trombones
email in your inbox- sad trombones
it's sunny outside- sad trombones
thursday- sad trombones

etc....
 
1 Having bar room discussions while not actually being in a bar.
2 Being in a bar and trying to have a serious discussion.
3 Spelchek and fouroom spellen poleece.
 
Back to smokers for a moment... Anyone who smokes in a nonsmoking area would have their head encased in a box. They would get air, food and water, and then they would need to smoke enough cigarettes to make them nauseous at the thought of smoking ever again. In China, I have to put up with people that think that the bog/loo/crapper (or whatever you want to call a latrine/lavatory) is the perfect place to take a smoke break. Seeing that the "toilets" are often little more than holes in the ground, you can imagine the smell (or if you were around in the 70's just remember the smell of the toilets at gas stations).
 
"For the children" laws that apply to adults as well as kids. As an adult I should be able to toss jarts, light off bottle rockets, or a fat firecracker without the government being a moral arbiter.
 
Force all cellphone manufacturers to disable input on phones when velocity detected >=10mph. You can still see/hear a map, still talk on a conversation started before 10mph, etc. I know those with a chauffer will complain, but it has just gotten too out of hand so all must suffer for the errant ways of the few!

The Dic-tater has spoken...

:)
 
1. Government regulations, permits, and taxes on anything Rocketry related.
2. Hazmat shipping
3. Altitude restrictions (probably falls under #1, but I feel it needs repeated)
 
TimothyG said:
I’d make it so drivers couldn’t use phones while driving in any capacity. I don’t care if it’s hands free or not because it means drivers not paying attention.
Click to expand...
That is an interesting problem to address using technology, so I just did a little research.

Apple is wanting to use a system that uses scenery analysis and motion sensing in the phone to avoid vehicle hardware, but I can think of a possible easy workaround to defeat that - cover the cameras. Another system costing about $150 mounts on the windshield under the rear view mirror, but uses an app that anyone could disable, perhaps easily or with the help of software designed by hackers to do that.

Many modern cars allow Bluetooth connection of the phone to the car's audio system using a vehicle mounted microphone for the transmit side. The phone conversation is fully hands off which is better, but still not perfect, perfect being NO phone use allowed by the driver while moving. The prohibition of phone use while the vehicle is moving could easily be done by muting the Bluetooth link, but that wouldn't be a very good marketing move since it wouldn't make any sense. It would effectively be nearly the same as using the phone manually since the driver's hands are free while stopped.

I think a cheaper solution which should be mandated for all cars, also outlawing hands free phone systems, would be to use a Bluetooth Near Field Communication (NFC) chip implementing the newer ISO 15693 standard which offers a maximum range of about 3 feet instead the usual NFC range of inches. The range could easily be reduced to, say, 2 feet to avoid disabling the phones of passengers. That chip would be placed in the steering wheel column and would transmit whenever the vehicle was moving. The phone's Bluetooth would pick that up and a mandated capability of the phone's firmware, NOT an app, would disable the phone. Of course, this would all need to be required by regulation or few would buy the vehicles and phones so equipped.

Although I dislike regulation when it serves little or no purpose as it often does, this sort of regulation definitely would serve a purpose since it is of the kind that, unlike seat belt laws for instance, protects ME from stupid drivers who don't think driving a multi-ton vehicle at speed is job #1. That's something that seat belt laws do not do. They only attempt to protect fools who wouldn't wear seat belts voluntarily from themselves. Since seat belt laws most likely exist because of the insurance lobby, maybe they can pull of this cell phone disabling stuff, too. Unfortunately, I think the cell phone hardware and service providers have even richer lobbies, so I'm not holding my breath.
 
H_Rocket said:
With apologies to Hoyt Axton & Three Dog Night.

If I were the king of the world
Tell you what I'd do
I'd throw away the cars and the bars and the war
Make sweet love to you
Sing it now
Click to expand...

Joy to the world....
 
Winston said:
That is an interesting problem to address using technology, so I just did a little research.

Apple is wanting to use a system that uses scenery analysis and motion sensing in the phone to avoid vehicle hardware, but I can think of a possible easy workaround to defeat that - cover the cameras. Another system costing about $150 mounts on the windshield under the rear view mirror, but uses an app that anyone could disable, perhaps easily or with the help of software designed by hackers to do that.

Many modern cars allow Bluetooth connection of the phone to the car's audio system using a vehicle mounted microphone for the transmit side. The phone conversation is fully hands off which is better, but still not perfect, perfect being NO phone use allowed by the driver while moving. The prohibition of phone use while the vehicle is moving could easily be done by muting the Bluetooth link, but that wouldn't be a very good marketing move since it wouldn't make any sense. It would effectively be nearly the same as using the phone manually since the driver's hands are free while stopped.

I think a cheaper solution which should be mandated for all cars, also outlawing hands free phone systems, would be to use a Bluetooth Near Field Communication (NFC) chip implementing the newer ISO 15693 standard which offers a maximum range of about 3 feet instead the usual NFC range of inches. The range could easily be reduced to, say, 2 feet to avoid disabling the phones of passengers. That chip would be placed in the steering wheel column and would transmit whenever the vehicle was moving. The phone's Bluetooth would pick that up and a mandated capability of the phone's firmware, NOT an app, would disable the phone. Of course, this would all need to be required by regulation or few would buy the vehicles and phones so equipped.

Although I dislike regulation when it serves little or no purpose as it often does, this sort of regulation definitely would serve a purpose since it is of the kind that, unlike seat belt laws for instance, protects ME from stupid drivers who don't think driving a multi-ton vehicle at speed is job #1. That's something that seat belt laws do not do. They only attempt to protect fools who wouldn't wear seat belts voluntarily from themselves. Since seat belt laws most likely exist because of the insurance lobby, maybe they can pull of this cell phone disabling stuff, too. Unfortunately, I think the cell phone hardware and service providers have even richer lobbies, so I'm not holding my breath.
Click to expand...

The problem with implementing this sort of technological solution is that it could potentially disable the ability to make and emergency call. As a parent, we have taught our children to never use cell phone while driving but I WANT my daughter to be able to call for help if some creepy guy is following her.
 
Peartree said:
The problem with implementing this sort of technological solution is that it could potentially disable the ability to make and emergency call. As a parent, we have taught our children to never use cell phone while driving but I WANT my daughter to be able to call for help if some creepy guy is following her.
Click to expand...
Sure, rare situations can result in negative consequences from legislation that has otherwise positive results that vastly outweigh the negative ones. She should pull over in a public place, even illegally parking right in front of the entrance with her drivers side door toward it so she can dash inside. Far more likely than your scenario, I wonder how many people have burned to death because they couldn't get their seat belts off because vehicle deformation had pinched it, made the latch inaccessible, or they were too dazed and tried to get out without disconnecting it.
 
Winston said:
Sure, rare situations can result in negative consequences from legislation that has otherwise positive results that vastly outweigh the negative ones. She should pull over in a public place, even illegally parking right in front of the entrance with her drivers side door toward it so she can dash inside. Far more likely than your scenario, I wonder how many people have burned to death because they couldn't get their seat belts off because vehicle deformation had pinched it, made the latch inaccessible, or they were too dazed and tried to get out without disconnecting it.
Click to expand...
I was only thinking that the phone could be disabled with the exception of allowing 911 calls.
 
First thought: wouldn't a phone-disabling system which relies on a Bluetooth link be easily defeated by switching off Bluetooth?

Second thought: why is talking to a hands-free phone more distracting than talking to a passenger in the seat next to you? Especially if you're in the habit of turning to face the passenger while you talk, whereas you're less likely to turn to face the phone.

Third thought: back to thinking of light-hearted bans. I support the ban on apostrophe abuse, another example being "it's" versus "its". The former does not mean "belonging to it". The penalty for a first offence is to be made to search Youtube for "Apostrophe Song" and listen to the first thing which shows up. The penalty for further offences is to listen to all the other hits.
 
adrian said:
Second thought: why is talking to a hands-free phone more distracting than talking to a passenger in the seat next to you? Especially if you're in the habit of turning to face the passenger while you talk, whereas you're less likely to turn to face the phone.
Click to expand...

There's a summary of a study from 2008 here: https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/chatty-driving-phones-vs-passengers/ Basically, their contention was that when talking to someone in the car, the passenger will stop talking if driving conditions change and can sometimes alert you to things you missed.

A more recent study reviewed here: https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/03/0...passengers-both-lead-distracted-driving-12663 says that talking to someone in the car is distracting but not as much as talking on a cell phone. Interestingly, this one says that there is very little difference between hands-free and hand-held phone conversations, at least as far as distraction is concerned.
 
adrian said:
First thought: wouldn't a phone-disabling system which relies on a Bluetooth link be easily defeated by switching off Bluetooth?
Click to expand...
NFS Bluetooth RX is extremely low power, so it could be mandated to be on at all times and could not be turned off.

Second thought: why is talking to a hands-free phone more distracting than talking to a passenger in the seat next to you? Especially if you're in the habit of turning to face the passenger while you talk, whereas you're less likely to turn to face the phone.
Click to expand...
Perhaps only texting would be disabled then.

Actually, if we're talking about disabling cell phone voice conversations for driving safety, disabling the cell conversations of passengers would be preferable. I saw a TV series on the brain where it was shown that hearing such conversations is extremely distracting because the brain unconsciously tries to fill in the unheard part of the conversation. That is why people often find it so annoying.

Third thought: back to thinking of light-hearted bans. I support the ban on apostrophe abuse, another example being "it's" versus "its". The former does not mean "belonging to it". The penalty for a first offence is to be made to search Youtube for "Apostrophe Song" and listen to the first thing which shows up. The penalty for further offences is to listen to all the other hits.
Click to expand...
I'll agree to support you if the swap of "then" and "than" is also severely punished.
 
Interestingly, after a very short search I can find no studies that compare the distraction of cell phone use with carrying on a conversation with someone in the car. I thought I read something about that once, but could be mistaken.
 
Last edited:
boatgeek said:
There's a summary of a study from 2008 here: https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/chatty-driving-phones-vs-passengers/ Basically, their contention was that when talking to someone in the car, the passenger will stop talking if driving conditions change and can sometimes alert you to things you missed.

A more recent study reviewed here: https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/03/0...passengers-both-lead-distracted-driving-12663 says that talking to someone in the car is distracting but not as much as talking on a cell phone. Interestingly, this one says that there is very little difference between hands-free and hand-held phone conversations, at least as far as distraction is concerned.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I thought I read something somewhere about that. So, final verdict, disable driver voice calls other than 911 and disable text. Now, how do we deal with the extremely distracting passenger cell phone conversations? :)
 
TimothyG said:
Just based off of who I see either nearly running me over or actually running me over when I'm on my motorcycle. Not saying all do this but it's absolutely amazing how many people that pull out in front of me and freeze solid are older. I was in a head on collision just a few months back and it was an older couple that said both that they didn't see me and that they thought they had right of way. Neither of which explains why they stopped dead in the middle of the road in front of me instead of completing their turn. Also the state of Utah's drivers exam is an OPEN BOOK exam, meaning everyone passes.

Thinking it over more, I'd replace state to state requirements with a federal minimum standard for operating a motor vehicle that would be more akin to the process CDL drivers go through to maintain their license. This is for everyone not just the older. Annual physical by your doctor, including eyesight requirements, mental acuity requirements(those with sleep apnea couldn't drive without proving they use their machine etc) as well as a much more in depth course for operating a motor vehicle with a proctored exam. This would apply for any motor vehicle of any power/size operated on public roadways.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of this except...sleep apnea? If I'm at the wheel and fall asleep: whether I snore or not, or whether I'm getting oxygen or not, are pretty much immaterial, aren't they?;)
 

Similar threads

Woody's Workshop
Fun Fact of the Day 2/20/20
Replies
0
Views
865
Woody's Workshop
Woody's Workshop
luke strawwalker
Went to JSC today...
Replies
2
Views
1K
luke strawwalker
luke strawwalker
UncMikesRktShk
For all you Trekies out there
Replies
18
Views
1K
LtSharpe
L
Elapid
Fliskits Fireside Chat Transcript
Replies
4
Views
2K
jetra2
jetra2

Latest posts

Back
Top