A&Q about 350Z
Q:
put me on the list to buy one of those premier bumper stickers.
2003 350Z LeMans Sunset Track with Nav
No mods
A:
Ill host thunder if u want
------------------
04.5 DB Performance
Typhoon Intake
Injen SES Straight Tip Exhaust
Blue Z-Xtreme Grounding Kit
Kenwood MP3 Player
EBC V4 Greenstuff Pads
Clear Lens
Carbon Fiber Piller Covers
20% Tint
5 Coats of Zaino
......
'01 Yamaha R6
A:
Christ a lot of you are hand-wringers. The fact is, the fault isn't/wouldn't be with a TV in the dash, it would be hard-wired into the DRIVER! If the driver is an inattentive personality, what makes you think they wouldn't be sufficiently distracted by a myriad of other things in/around the car while driving to be a hazard anyway?
Putting a TV in the dash is a useful improvement IMO. Any good driver would remain so, and any bad one would likewise remain so. So quit trying to impose your idea of 'safety' on the rest of us.
A:
If you need to lower the level of discourse here by assuming that I don't know the inherent differences between Radio and TV, then your arguments are obviously more insulting and personal than they are substantive. I said that you can be distracted by MANY things. What: you're saying it's worse that you're distracted by a picture that makes noise?? Perhaps you need to drive with a screaming KID in your back seat. Want to make those illegal too? Oh: and they can THROW POPCORN at the back of your head too. Let's see a TV do THAT! BTW: like many I assume, I have TV on for background, not just for video, so your assertion that I need to LOOK at the TV to have it work is offmark. Many is the time I have tuned in ABC MNF, something that I suppose I could simply have had a TV audio TUNER to accomplish, but there ARE times between appointments when parked that I CAN watch too. Here's another factoid: despite Nissan's 'advisories' not to use the Nav system while driving, I KNOW that most (including me) actually attempt to move that stupid cursor ON SPECIFIC STREETS to get it to display the name of the street WHILE DRIVING, and we ALL KNOW that the damn thing only scrolls slowly and smoothly while stopped. You want to lessen road hazards from inattentive driving?? Have personalities such as yourself as well as the engineers (with instructions from lawyer-whipped corporations) who designed the dumb NAV system understand human nature well enough to know NOT to make it HARDER to scroll the stupid thing while driving, BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA ATTEMPT TO DO IT ANYWAY.
You missed the core point of my post. If you support making TVs in dashes illegal, you ARE imposing upon my rights and freedoms. With rights come responsibilities. I WANT the right to have a TV in my dashboard, because I can make use of it WITHOUT being a danger to others. I also have to have the RESPONSIBILITY to have it as well. Your post applauding not allowing MY right to have one assumes that I don't have the RESPONSIBILITY needed to have one. Who said a thing about being distracted by it? Why is it not possible to have it responsibly? Am I supposed to give UP my right because of your worries that you can't control what I'd do with it? I shouldn't have it because it is POSSIBLE to be distracted by it? C'mon! If that is the case, then my earlier point stands: no loud KIDS either then! No FOOD then! No NAV then! No cell phone with pictures/cameras then! No passengers in short skirts then! No pedestrians walking on the sidewalk that look HOT then! I know this: If I'm watching/listening to my TV while driving, and I see a hot woman on the road, I'm lookin' at HER! THAT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL, no? hehe
Far too many people in this country want to micromanage other's lives. The least of my problems would be the police or insurance? Right back AT you! So? Is this news? Gimme a BREAK. I have had a TV in my dash for going on 5 years. IN that time I've driven over a quarter million miles - apparently it IS possible to have one and not be a moron. How about approaching this the RIGHT way: SURE: you have the freedom to have a TV there - but the penalty for inattentive driving should be punitive, equal across the board. Bottom line is this: there should be NO difference in penalty if I hit you because I was fishing for a McDonald's French Fry I dropped on my floorboard or if I hit you because I was watching Days of Our Lives.
Point? Don't take your eyes off the ROAD when the road calls for your attention (which obviously is most of the time). DO keep your eyes outta my CAR, and my BUSINESS, or my ilk gets pissed. hehe.
A:
drama
such drama bluztrk
gawd you're into the drama today
2003 350Z LeMans Sunset Track with Nav
No mods
A:
ps: so you have removed the safety device from your vehicle for your TV? that seems a reasonable assumption based upon your rant.
2003 350Z LeMans Sunset Track with Nav
No mods
A:
in reading my "Learning To Drive" manual from the DMV, i come across the following phrase:
"Anyone wishing to apply for and become a certified driver in the state understands that driving is a privelege and not a right. As such, the state reserves the authority to determine who ..."
Therefore, it's not really about freedom so much, as it is about public safety. You have a right to free speech, but not the right to yell FIRE in a crowded theatre. You have a privelege granted by the state to drive, but you still must wear your seatbelt or be cited.
2003 350Z LeMans Sunset Track with Nav
No mods
A:
Bluztrk:
You're correct in defending freedom. A lot of blood was spilled to ensure the freedom we have today. You're also correct when you say with rights come responsibilities. Freedom without laws and rules is anarchy.
You are however wrong in assuming driving is a "right." The ability to drive is a "Privilege." That is why one has to take a driving test to obtain a drivers license. When that license is revoked, you lose your privilege to drive. Can you still drive, yes. Although, God help you if you hit me on a suspended drivers license. <Not a physical, more legal and financial.
How this should be measured is this:
If you went to the DMV to take a test, would you have your TV on? Would you eat your burger while the instructor is sitting next to you evaluating your driving?
What 350Newbie is saying is we have too many idiots out there with licenses that practice poor judgement and negligence while driving. If you're able to have your TV on while driving, fine. If you hit me, and I survive, watch out. Most insurance policies will cover only to a certain amount for damages. There is so much room for lawsuits in civil court though...especially with negligence. $$$$$ (hehehe)
'04 Silverstone Enthu
A:
Well said 350ZNewbie.
Ant350, the best thing is a hookup which allows your DVD to play only when the parking brake is on. If you got into an accident with me and I knew you had a LCD screen in there; I would definitely try to see if the screen was "bypassed." I would then go after you and whoever helped (car audio shop, etc.) you bypass the parking brake safety.
'04 Silverstone Enthu
Post Edited (Jul 9, 3:50pm)
A:
I think he was refering to the right to have his TV on, not the right to drive. Regardless, I see the point.
A:
I was referring to my right to have my TV on, not the 'right' to drive. However, once I have passed my exam, EARNING the privilege to drive, what I do in my car if operated safely is MY business. I seriously doubt that anyone who is taking a driver's exam would be talking on the phone either, but we ALL know that we ALL do that. We also ALL scarf down a burger now and then, and we ALL know that that is quite distracting. What if you had to make an evasive manuever when you have your hands full of a quarter-pounder and a large Coke? Would YOU be in a position to do so? You think I'm actually going to risk my OWN life with my eyes glued to a TV and run right into a bridge abutment (much less you)? This is about things in moderation, and intelligent employment of the priviledge of driving, along with my right to do in my automobile inside of it what I wish.
This is about granting each of us the latitude to have to freedom to be responsible. There is risk in this world simply walking in it. I'm about living with risk in order to assure freedoms. I'm also about punishing irresponsibility. This issue strikes me as one of freedom, because it is obvious that you can have a TV in your car and not risk the safety of others. As I know that, I also defend a person's right (mine and others) to enjoy this particular freedom.
I think we've exhausted the subject, and I'm quite sure your mind remains unmoved. It is hypocritical to judge the degree of the distraction using yourself as the litmus. It is obvious to you apparently that you'd find a TV too distracting to be a safe driver. Bravo, you've found your level, and used your God-given common sense to determine that you can't handle it.
Now leave that same determination about myself TO myself.
A:
bluztrk, i know where you're coming from, but don't rap yourself in old glory or bring out the big guy to defend "freedom" yet.
freedom is always trampled in the interest of public safety. that is the nature of a republic. this notion you have of how we run our country... well, i know what it is, but that isn't what we actually are.
therefore, i think the most relevant statements are those concerning how you would drive when you take your test, and how you would drive the rest of the time.
i myself do not eat, smoke, or shave and read the newspaper while driving in my car. i have used my cell phone, and felt so guilty that i went handsfree the next time i used it. i have told senior vice presidents in my company i would call them back in a few minutes because i do not talk on the phone while driving if my handsfree unit is not hooked up or unavailable. total talk time: 10 seconds, total eyes off road time, 1 second.
an assertion that "everyone does something" is inherently a generalization. and it won't help this discussion.
you conveniently ignored my question: did you remove the safety device that keeps your car TV off while driving?
it is this question alone that i seek an answer to. it talks to intent. you might be able to dodge it by answering that you hooked the unit up yourself, and then simply never hooked up the safety device and "defeated" it some other way. in either case, again, it comes down to intent.
everyone one i know who goes out on the weekend to drink does not plan to get in their car and mow down a nun pushing a baby carriage on the way home. however, how do we judge this case? was it an accident? sure. but, could it have been avoided if there was no alcohol involved (assuming one is above the legal limit). this is where it gets so dicey. statistically and scientifically, the proof says "yes" this could have been avoided. some feel however that it's impossible to predict, therefore even sober the accident might have occurred.
my assertion: you can reduce or eliminate certain aspects of equations by following the laws, many of which are based on actuarial evidence.
2003 350Z LeMans Sunset Track with Nav
No mods
A:
Newbie: we're both against inattentive driving. I posted because my irritation stemmed from you immediately jumping down Ant350's throat, wishing his desired install 'illegal'. Why should it be? He never even addressed disabling the park switch. To answer your question: I installed myself. I never enabled it, prefering to use my own reason and responsibility to determine when I use my TV. Hell: if the only point of the disable switch is to not allow use of the TV when I already never intended to use it during driving, what is the point of the switch?
Ben Franklin said that those willing to give up a little freedom to ensure a little safety deserve neither.
I have a question for you: if someone had a TV in their dash and it was already illegal to do so, and he hit you due to inattentive driving, would the knowledge that his action was illegal comfort you? It wouldn't me. Point? We cannot insulate ourselves from human nature, nor from actions taken irresponsibly, legal, or not.
So: would watching a TV while driving (inattentively) be more egregious an infraction than putting a TV in a dashboard knowing that it is illegal, but having no desire to watch it while driving and sacrifice responsibility and safety? The crux of the difference of our opinions lies in your answer to this question. And there IS a correct answer. It is failure to really delve into the truth of this whole subject - this subject of freedom and responsibility - to merely say that 'both' are egregious.
Because both aren't. Overly restrictive laws are violated all the time.
Unless you happen to also only drive 55.....
When you say I generalize about what people do in their own vehicles, I'd say in response that your explanation of what YOU do is sooo atypical it is almost weird. Well...not almost weird...it IS weird. I'd put it out there and say that if you polled the surfers of this chat board, you'd find that 95% of them can will and do use their phones in their car while driving, and feel comfortable doing so. That fact that you can't/don't/feel quilty about it shouldn't also give you the power to enact laws restricting our ability in our cars (but should never take away your right to try, of course, hehe). So, if my generalization covers 95% of us, then I'd say it isn't a generalization, it is accurate. 'nuf said on this point.
A:
i would never agree with your assertion of "'nuf said."
however, like politics, this is where we always end up.
i feel the TV is ok in the car with the safety device the manufacturer insists must be in place. others feel it's not their duty to follow the directions, but their personal freedom reigns over all. that seems a bit greedy to me.
i feel my position has always been a centrist perspective.
2003 350Z LeMans Sunset Track with Nav
No mods