this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
52 points (98.1% liked)

Australia

3592 readers
253 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 40 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To save you a click:

Mr White says part of the problem is there are still many public misunderstandings around phones and driving.

"A good example is the view that if you're using a hands-free phone — if you've got it in a cradle — then that's taking the risk away. And that's not true," he says.

"There's plenty of scientific evidence that says the level of distraction, using a phone hands-free or hand-held, is exactly the same. It doesn't change."

[–] Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

But one of these is legal and the other is not, why is that?

[–] Marsupial@quokk.au 9 points 1 year ago

Big Hands Free doesn’t like it when you ask questions.

[–] samson@aussie.zone 7 points 1 year ago

The level of distraction is one thing, but the level of dexterity is different. It's a lot easier to drive straight looking at a phone (or even interacting with one) that's in a cradle.

[–] settoloki@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago

How would you police it? Can't know if someone is using their device if they're not holding it, they could be singing to the radio or talking to themselves.

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The seatbelt people can kill themselves off, nothing to worry about there. Mobile phones definitely continue to be a big concern though. The number of people who are suspiciously glancing down at their lap every few seconds out on the road is pretty crazy.

[–] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 year ago

I disagree with the first part of this take for a few reasons. Aside from not wanting people to die unnecessary, not wearing seat belts increases the chance of injury. If you're injured in a car accident, someone is probably going to call an ambulance. There are only so many of those to go around so not wearing a seatbelt does impact others as well. That said we already have laws around that so not much more we can do.

[–] Salvo@aussie.zone 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I can’t believe the amount of people who are arguing over this.

If you are in control of 1.5 tonnes of something travelling at 60km/h you should;

  • concentrate on what you are doing, exclusively!
  • not get into physical argument with someone else in control of 1.5 tonnes of something.

If you are emotionally unable to leave your fucking phone alone, you shouldn’t be fucking driving!

[–] AOCapitulator@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Its a good thing everyone who shouldnt be driving can just decide to not drive and will not have their lives destroyed as a result!

[–] Salvo@aussie.zone 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No that is a problem with our society that we can do something about.

Unfortunately there are too many dinosaurs fighting for FrEeDoM and preventing any progress on Walkable Neighbourhoods.

[–] AOCapitulator@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

is it the people who are currently old who are doing that? or is a system that creates people to perpetuate the system which does that?

[–] Salvo@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You don’t have to be an old person to be regressive.

In my opinion, the people with the most world experience have always been the most progressive. It is a shame that The Silent Generation were not able to pass on their knowledge and experience to the current batch of misguided Millennials, Gen Y, Gen X and boomers who want things to be like they were in “The Old Days”, even though they don’t know how terrible “The Old Days” actually were.

[–] AOCapitulator@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

My point was generations are not a viable way of expressing political issues, it’s capitalism the system not the dudes in charge

[–] Redhotkurt@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It is a shame that The Silent Generation were not able to pass on their knowledge and experience to the current batch of misguided Millennials, Gen Y, Gen X and boomers

They would have, but the Silent Generation (born between 1928-1945), born and raised in a period of extreme mass unemployment, starvation, and death in the form of the Great Depression (1929-1939) followed immediately by World War II (1939-1945), took out their trauma on their Boomer offspring, so any lessons or messages they might have been trying to convey were lost in the cacophony of abuse. Keep in mind their parents, the so-called "Greatest Generation" (1901-1924), also survived the Great War (1914-1918) prior to that and already had a really warped view of the world. That's a lot of generational trauma heaped onto the Boomers, both directly and indirectly.

Those fuckin Boomer kids suffered through some pretty horrific abuse; they never stood a chance, man. It wasn't at all acceptable to talk about mental issues or even entertain the idea of asking for help (a norm established by their Silent Gen parents), so as they grew up they just buried that shit and went into eternal denial mode. Worse, they reinforced their fucked up worldviews by abusing their own kids, the Gen Xers and Millennials, who in turn passed on that same generational trauma to...sigh, you get my point. I mean, each generation does seem to get a little better at shedding that old toxic "stop complaining / fuck you, I got mine" mindset, but it's a slow process. Look at how far-reaching that shit is, FFS. That "Greatest Trauma" period was a hundred years ago, and we're still suffering from the effects.

TL;DR they were incapable because trauma

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago

For sure, but also phone have been deliberately engineered on the hardware and software level to be as addicting and habit forming as possible.

From attention grabbing chimes (not insane, you want to know when you're messaged normally) to notification spam to superstimuli applications. We need to shift some responsibility on manufacturers for exploiting holes in human psychology.

Anti litter campaigns get you so far, putting bins everywhere gets you further. Work safety videos get you so far, lock out tag out systems take you further

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The specific use of phones is barely discussed but worth doing so.

For example talking on a phone, or even in a car, is highly distracting and delays reactions. Passengers are generally more sensitive to context and weirdly somehow less distracting than phones. So that's something important to consider.

Listening to the radio is slightly distracting, and likewise listening to the radio played through the phone with notifications off. Doing this is probably fine and we should design roads and cars around the idea that people will listen to music, or sing, or whatever.

Fiddling with the radio is extremely dangerous, I'm sure we've all been rear ended or nearly so by someone doing it, and probably had a couple of "oops shouldn't have done that" moments ourselves. Likewise fiddling with phones.

The idea of banning all phone usage is a non starter, but we can probably introduce regulations like phones disabling certain features while cars are in motion but leaving them as useful for navigation and music etc.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 19 points 1 year ago (16 children)

phones disabling certain features while cars are in motion

A non-starter, unless it's an option made available to the user in the way that "car mode" already is. You can't just have it be automatic, because not everyone in a car is driving (even if the vast majority are). And if you were going purely on speed, you'd end up catching bus and train users too, which are almost entirely not driving.

[–] Salvo@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would love if it was disabled for everyone in my car. It is even pretty distracting when someone else (or more than one other person) is trying to have a conversion when I am driving, listening to music, audiobook or podcast.

Please shut the fuck up when I’m driving!

[–] nybble41@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago

Phone calls are not the feature they would be most likely to disable. You're more likely to have passengers talking to you with their phones stuck in "driving mode" as they can't use them to quietly pass the time playing a game or reading or browsing social media or whatever else the driver shouldn't be doing with their phone.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Marin_Rider@aussie.zone 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

introduce regulations like phones disabling certain features while cars are in motion but leaving them as useful for navigation and music etc.

my phone spotify goes into 'car mode' when driving, which is even more of a distraction to me, where the usual app i can operate almost in my sleep, the different layout means it takes me more concentration how to figure out how to change songs or whatever, despite all the icons being bigger and technically 'easier' to use.

not that im encouraging using it at all when in the car, im guilty and im sure a lot of people are too, but theres an example where the attempt to make something safer in my case actually made it more dangerous

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AnagrammadiCodeina@feddit.it 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In Italy whatever active use of a phone is banned already by the law. If an officer sees you with a phone they can stop you and issue a fine. Stil its not enforced enough

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

banning stuff doesn't stop it. see tax evasion or fascism

[–] AnagrammadiCodeina@feddit.it 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It helps, the world isn't white or black. Many people stops doing things because those things are illegal. Then I agree that there will always be some people doing the bad and some people doing the good regardless of the law.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

phone usage is already illegal. Obvs more is necessary

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] samson@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

Banning stuff does stop it, see Hitler (existing) or horses on highways.

[–] unoriginalsin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah. Shouldn't even bother with laws against murder. Doesn't stop people killing each other.

[–] Tau@aussie.zone 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's a real show of how much road safety discussion is fixated on lowering speed limits when you've just talked about how significant numbers of people are now not wearing seatbelts and the topic you move straight into is decreasing speed limits and driving more slowly instead of how to increase the number of people wearing seatbelts...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] root@aussie.zone 6 points 1 year ago

We should start by having all learner drivers go through proper driving school taught by proper licensed instructors. Allowing a family member do the teaching just invites bad / dangerous habits to be taught / learned.

[–] LineNoise@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

In Victoria I’d be amazed if the terrible state of our road surfaces aren’t a contributing factor, particularly regionally. There’s a backlog of work that runs back before COVID because of changes to road maintenance funding and staffing.

The other grim factor is that with our mental health crisis, cost of living pressures etc. not all single vehicle accidents without seatbelts will be accidental.

[–] abhibeckert@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

According to federal government, there were 0.63 deaths per 100 million kilometres travelled in 2010, and 0.44 in 2020.

That's a 30% improvement in actual road safety (nationwide) over the last ten years. I'm not sure what the numbers are for Victoria, but I'm sure it's in the same ballpark (VicRoads publishes "per capita" stats, which is a shitty way to measure road safety).

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] gabbagabbahey@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

"road toll remains flat"

Fails to account for increasing population

[–] SLfgb@feddit.nl 3 points 1 year ago

The solution is not to chide people. Their behaviour is not gonna change. The solution is to urban plan the need for car use away for most people. Less urban sprawl. More urban centers. More medium-density housing. Better public transport. You name it.

load more comments
view more: next ›