Bit extreme!

[TheInsanity1234]

I typed in Sat-navs to try and find reviews of sat-navs, and this news article came up:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... iving.html

He says:

He says sat navs should be programmed to switch to sound only when the car is moving

and

but if we want to completely prioritise road safety above all else then we should completely change our sat nav devices, remove the screen when the vehicles is moving.

This is going to help DEAF drivers, how?

I know it was in November last year, and nothing has happened, but it does seem mental how little he has thought this through, especially since he's a "celebrity lawyer" (who?).

[Ancient]

Read in context it isn't extreme, he is simply pointing out the potential dangers of distraction. One difference between drink driving and sat-nav / hands free phoning is that you can stop focusing on the instrument* when things get tricky (i.e. when there are any other hazards in your vicinity) - but you cannot suddenly do away with the alcohol in your system.

*The problem is of course, people don't, they don't even (for the most part) realise that the extra work they are asking of their brains is not possible; they feel they can multi-task without a lessening of effectiveness and assume that feeling is correct. As Mr Freeman (a sat-nav and hands free phone user himself) says, education is key here, in what constitutes a distraction and how to avoid using up more concentration than you have available.

[TheInsanity1234]

I understand what he is saying, but I suspect if he successfully changed the legislation to have the screen turn off whilst moving, then how on earth could deaf people be able to understand sat-navs?

[Ancient]

They wouldn't.
As you quoted, he said:

but if we want to completely prioritise road safety above all else then we should completely change our sat nav devices, remove the screen when the vehicles is moving.

(my italics)
The implication being that we do not choose to prioritise road safety above all else. One of the choices we make is that deaf people can use satnavs as they are currently designed; there are other choices we make.

When reading comments by such as Mr Freeman, it pays to read in detail what is said. A conditional statement is used for a reason, not just because he thought it sounded better (it's rather like reading contracts and (for a sad geek like me) rather fun).

[TheInsanity1234]

So, therefore, what he is implying is that deaf people don't want to prioritise road safety above all else?
It's risky using statements like that. I'm able to just think "pah, another silly person just forgetting the needs of some!", but I'm sure that some of my deaf friends would've torched him if the lawyer said that to them

[GJD]

So, therefore, what he is implying is that deaf people don't want to prioritise road safety above all else?

Don't worry. "...prioritise road safety above all else..." is a silly thing to say if you intend to be taken absolutely literally. Prioritising road safety above all else would mean not using roads. Deaf people don't want to do that, and neither do non-deaf people. What he was really saying was, "if we want to completely prioritise road safety above the benefits of having the sat nav screen on when the vehicle is moving then we should completely change our sat nav devices, remove the screen when the vehicles is moving", which is stating the bleedin' obvious really.

Obviously the benefits of having the screen on are different for deaf people and non-deaf people. And the "if" is still important.

As an aside, I'm not entirely convinced that sound only would make a sat nav less distracting. What's less distracting - having to concentrate on only the words and build a mental picture of what's coming and what I've got to do before I've forgotten what was said, then holding that picture in mind until I can see the road I need to take, or glancing at a screen that is already showing me the picture I need and will continue to show it so I can easily glance back and refresh my memory if I need to?

[waremark]

As an aside, I'm not entirely convinced that sound only would make a sat nav less distracting. What's less distracting - having to concentrate on only the words and build a mental picture of what's coming and what I've got to do before I've forgotten what was said, then holding that picture in mind until I can see the road I need to take, or glancing at a screen that is already showing me the picture I need and will continue to show it so I can easily glance back and refresh my memory if I need to?

I find it far more difficult and distracting to take in the words than the picture. Does he think the cars speedo should only give an audio report, not be visible?

It is safer to find your way when you know it. Of methods of navigating roads you don't know, I find that a good sat-nav screen is the least distracting.

[TheInsanity1234]

As an aside, I'm not entirely convinced that sound only would make a sat nav less distracting. What's less distracting - having to concentrate on only the words and build a mental picture of what's coming and what I've got to do before I've forgotten what was said, then holding that picture in mind until I can see the road I need to take, or glancing at a screen that is already showing me the picture I need and will continue to show it so I can easily glance back and refresh my memory if I need to?

I find it far more difficult and distracting to take in the words than the picture. Does he think the cars speedo should only give an audio report, not be visible?

It is safer to find your way when you know it. Of methods of navigating roads you don't know, I find that a good sat-nav screen is the least distracting.

I note that a lot of the latest models offer the ability to give you a split screen view at complex motorway junctions, one of a bird's eye view, and another with the different lanes, and the arrow to suggest which lanes you should be in.
This is far more useful than
"Please keep left in either the first or second lanes that will leave the M4, then continue in the second lane when you have left the slip road so that you may join the M25 travelling South, and immediately after joining the M25, please keep right in the third or fourth lane to remain on the M25".
Yeah, I'll have a picture, thanks.

[Gareth]

I'm not entirely convinced that sound only would make a sat nav less distracting.

Although my experience is from a few years ago - I rarely use a satnav now - I found the voice prompts were sometimes incorrect and while at the same time the junction plan images tended to be accurate.

[Rick999]

Let's just go back to a large road map on the knee for navigation, especially good at night... the deaf are not discriminated against and we could have a Braille version for blind drivers

[Ancient]

So, therefore, what he is implying is that deaf people don't want to prioritise road safety above all else?
It's risky using statements like that. I'm able to just think "pah, another silly person just forgetting the needs of some!", but I'm sure that some of my deaf friends would've torched him if the lawyer said that to them

No, he is implying nothing whatsoever about deaf people.

He is saying that if we (as a society) wanted to prioritise road safety above anything else, we would <do something that most would find daft and would possibly be counterproductive*>, but (read the rest in context) as a user of sat-navs and mobile phone whilst driving, he has learned how to deal with the potential distraction (choosing when to use them and by driving extremely carefully, fully aware that he isn't giving his whole attention to the driving task) "people are not aware and education is needed" etc.

There's a large difference between a conditional statement ("if") and the above absolute ("people are not aware and education is needed") - one which is ignored by the reporter who takes him out of context deliberately to wind up people who then skim read (as you have I'm afraid).

16 eh? In my day we'd have called it 'an exercise in reading comprehension' . No offence 'insanity', but if you think he's saying anything like you are posting here, you will always be vulnerable to this type of media propaganda, which deliberately gives partial quotes out of context.

[TheInsanity1234]

No, he is implying nothing whatsoever about deaf people.

He is saying that if we (as a society) wanted to prioritise road safety above anything else, we would <do something that most would find daft and would possibly be counterproductive*>, but (read the rest in context) as a user of sat-navs and mobile phone whilst driving, he has learned how to deal with the potential distraction (choosing when to use them and by driving extremely carefully, fully aware that he isn't giving his whole attention to the driving task) "people are not aware and education is needed" etc.

There's a large difference between a conditional statement ("if") and the above absolute ("people are not aware and education is needed") - one which is ignored by the reporter who takes him out of context deliberately to wind up people who then skim read (as you have I'm afraid).

16 eh? In my day we'd have called it 'an exercise in reading comprehension' . No offence 'insanity', but if you think he's saying anything like you are posting here, you will always be vulnerable to this type of media propaganda, which deliberately gives partial quotes out of context.

I must admit, I had my suspicions when I saw the article, and I read through it about 3 times, and it seemed like there was a possibility that he wasn't saying things in the way the article was trying to make him say it, but I did miss that "if" completely

Ah well. Apparently it's an issue with a lot of my teachers. They all say that I read exceedingly fast, to the point I miss only one or two words that completely change the meaning of the sentence

[Ancient]

Ah well. Apparently it's an issue with a lot of my teachers. They all say that I read exceedingly fast, to the point I miss only one or two words that completely change the meaning of the sentence

understood. I too tend to read fast having been taught to read by my parents before going to infant's school (I struggled to get the teachers to understand that by the time they thought I should have been reading 'Janet and John', at home I was reading Enid Blyton and basic engineering textbooks). It is fun taking a gestalt view of a text - even useful at times if the text is well written and if the text is not designed to deceive. Unfortunately many modern texts are neither and journalists in particular are prone to using misleading words and out of context quotes. In such cases it pays to instead examine each part of the text and see whether it actually agrees with the rest (it often doesn't). Working out their tricks is an interesting mental exercise in itself.

[TheInsanity1234]

Ah well. Apparently it's an issue with a lot of my teachers. They all say that I read exceedingly fast, to the point I miss only one or two words that completely change the meaning of the sentence

understood. I too tend to read fast having been taught to read by my parents before going to infant's school (I struggled to get the teachers to understand that by the time they thought I should have been reading 'Janet and John', at home I was reading Enid Blyton and basic engineering textbooks). It is fun taking a gestalt view of a text - even useful at times if the text is well written and if the text is not designed to deceive. Unfortunately many modern texts are neither and journalists in particular are prone to using misleading words and out of context quotes. In such cases it pays to instead examine each part of the text and see whether it actually agrees with the rest (it often doesn't). Working out their tricks is an interesting mental exercise in itself.

I tend to avoid the news when I can.
Not knowing what's going on is an excellent feeling at times

[TripleS]

As an aside, I'm not entirely convinced that sound only would make a sat nav less distracting. What's less distracting - having to concentrate on only the words and build a mental picture of what's coming and what I've got to do before I've forgotten what was said, then holding that picture in mind until I can see the road I need to take, or glancing at a screen that is already showing me the picture I need and will continue to show it so I can easily glance back and refresh my memory if I need to?

I find it far more difficult and distracting to take in the words than the picture. Does he think the cars speedo should only give an audio report, not be visible?

It is safer to find your way when you know it. Of methods of navigating roads you don't know, I find that a good sat-nav screen is the least distracting.

Exactly. Where you need navigational assistance, brief glances (fairly frequent, if necessary) at the screen are far less detrimental to safe driving than trying to spot and read direction signs and relate them to the turnings you need to take.

....and then of course, in the absence of sat-nav, there is the alternative of trying to glance at a map or street plan while on the move! Of course that shouldn't happen; but it will, as one method of navigating.

I'm inclined to feel that the use of sat-nav, including glancing at the screen display, is an aid to safety, rather than being detrimental.

Best wishes all,
Dave.