Woman Killed By Pokémon Go Driver

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Something like this was bound to happen. I'm just waiting for everyone to start screaming about a ban on Pokémon Go when we should just be banning stupid people in general.

Last night at around 7:25pm in the Japanese city Tokushima, two women were hit while crossing the street, fatally injuring one of them. The driver, 39 year-old Keiji Goh, admitted he wasn’t watching the road ahead, because he was playing Pokémon Go.
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,432
Distracted drivers. Has nothing to do with the game. People die from texting or fiddling with their radio (or reading, shaving, putting makeup on... I've seen a lot). It's just another distraction.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
31,700
Distracted drivers. Has nothing to do with the game. People die from texting or fiddling with their radio (or reading, shaving, putting makeup on... I've seen a lot). It's just another distraction.


I mostly agree.

When it comes to distracted driving people tend to get OUTRAGED when others do it, and then turn around and do it themselves and think its perfectly fine, because they do it safer, or better or are a better driver or some nonsense like that. it's absolutely insane, but appears to be innate human behavior as far as I can tell. We do have to find a way to combat this, I'm not sure what the solution is though.

That being said, if you know your product is addictive in nature, and that a certain percentage of people might not be able to resist using the product and driving, aren't you at least partially liable? At least if there is something you could do technically to prevent it? Like make the app shut down if speeds above typical walking speeds are detected, or something like that?
 

SoulHunter

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2008
Messages
148
I mostly agree.

When it comes to distracted driving people tend to get OUTRAGED when others do it, and then turn around and do it themselves and think its perfectly fine, because they do it safer, or better or are a better driver or some nonsense like that. it's absolutely insane, but appears to be innate human behavior as far as I can tell. We do have to find a way to combat this, I'm not sure what the solution is though.

That being said, if you know your product is addictive in nature, and that a certain percentage of people might not be able to resist using the product and driving, aren't you at least partially liable? At least if there is something you could do technically to prevent it? Like make the app shut down if speeds above typical walking speeds are detected, or something like that?
Maybe it is addicting but there are warnings when you load not to play while driving and there is a prompt that appears after you go over 10-20 KPH where you have to click "I am a passenger". The lawyers called the developers and they put in all the warnings. If the people are then stupid enough to drive while looking at a screen then there is nothing that the company can do.
On another note, the usual headline would be "Woman killed by texting driver" or calling driver or makeup driver. Should we disable phones and make makeup and food explode if they go over a certain speed also?
 

Gigus Fire

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,275
I mostly agree.

When it comes to distracted driving people tend to get OUTRAGED when others do it, and then turn around and do it themselves and think its perfectly fine, because they do it safer, or better or are a better driver or some nonsense like that. it's absolutely insane, but appears to be innate human behavior as far as I can tell. We do have to find a way to combat this, I'm not sure what the solution is though.

That being said, if you know your product is addictive in nature, and that a certain percentage of people might not be able to resist using the product and driving, aren't you at least partially liable? At least if there is something you could do technically to prevent it? Like make the app shut down if speeds above typical walking speeds are detected, or something like that?
It's not addictive in nature. You're dealing with stupid people with no impulse control. The same thing would have happened if he was busy texting instead of playing pokemon.

So if i'm a passenger and want to play a game, i should be subjected to rules pertaining as if i was operating a vehicle? If i was sitting on a train or a bus i guess the same rules apply? How stupid is that?
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
31,700
Maybe it is addicting but there are warnings when you load not to play while driving and there is a prompt that appears after you go over 10-20 KPH where you have to click "I am a passenger". The lawyers called the developers and they put in all the warnings. If the people are then stupid enough to drive while looking at a screen then there is nothing that the company can do.
On another note, the usual headline would be "Woman killed by texting driver" or calling driver or makeup driver. Should we disable phones and make makeup and food explode if they go over a certain speed also?

I think it would make sense to lock a game intended to get you out and walking if it is apparent you are in a vehicle.

It is true there are other distractions as well, but a one size fits all approach is not always appropriate. There are real consequences to disabling cell phones while traveling at speed, most of which involve passengers either in cars or in mass transit, as well as impairing the ability to call 911, etc. Exploding makeup is just plain silly.

Again, a one size fits all does not make sense. Every safety feature has to balance the risks involved vs the consequences of the risk mitigation, and the feasibility of said risk mitigation.

Sure the risk may be the same with Pokemon go, text messaging or makeup, but if Pokemon go doesn't work when in motion it's not a big deal, and a fix like that would be relatively easy to implement, and would save lives.

Don't let the inability to implement life saving features in product A stop you from implementing them in product B.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
31,700
So if i'm a passenger and want to play a game, i should be subjected to rules pertaining as if i was operating a vehicle? If i was sitting on a train or a bus i guess the same rules apply? How stupid is that?

Except it's a GPS enabled location based game that makes little sense on a train in the first place, so there isn't much if any loss.

From a pure risk perspective, It doesn't really matter if the risk is caused by individual users or not. If the company knows stupid people with poor impulse control exist (which they should) and they are putting a product out that presents risks when these people use it, they should at leas consider what they might be able to do in order to mitigate those risks, and in the case of Pokemon Go, this mitigation is relatively simple and with few side effects, so it makes sense to do it. With another product, (lets take makeup or a newspaper) it may not be as straightforward to mitigate, so it's not going to be held to the same standard.

Why does the argument that essentially boils down to "well we can't save ALL victims of distracted driving, so we shouldn't try to save ANY" always come up? It's really the dumbest argument I've ever heard.

I'd argue rather strongly that if it is easy to do so, and there are low to no negative consequences we should implement life saving risk mitigation EVERY time, because we live in a world with impulsive and stupid people, so any product you release will eventually wind up being used by an impulsive or stupid person.
 
Last edited:

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
I mostly agree.

When it comes to distracted driving people tend to get OUTRAGED when others do it, and then turn around and do it themselves and think its perfectly fine, because they do it safer, or better or are a better driver or some nonsense like that. it's absolutely insane, but appears to be innate human behavior as far as I can tell. We do have to find a way to combat this, I'm not sure what the solution is though.

That being said, if you know your product is addictive in nature, and that a certain percentage of people might not be able to resist using the product and driving, aren't you at least partially liable? At least if there is something you could do technically to prevent it? Like make the app shut down if speeds above typical walking speeds are detected, or something like that?

Well, you can't change the animal, we are what we are. You can say that not everyone acts like this but some will and it's that deviance that is the problem, but it's also a strength in the species that allows us to remain viable.

So if you want to fight this behavior, don't waste time trying to change it. Instead do what we always do, engineer our environment around the behavior to reduce the risk to what is considered an acceptable level. This is how humans do things. We don't grow a thicker coat, we buy a thicker coat, turn the heat up, insulate the home better. We modify our environment to meet our needs.

So that's where you start.
 

Quix

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
3,710
The game already detects driving, just disable the app entirely when it detects driving. Sorry passengers, that includes you.
 

SoulHunter

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2008
Messages
148
I think it would make sense to lock a game intended to get you out and walking if it is apparent you are in a vehicle.

It is true there are other distractions as well, but a one size fits all approach is not always appropriate. There are real consequences to disabling cell phones while traveling at speed, most of which involve passengers either in cars or in mass transit, as well as impairing the ability to call 911, etc. Exploding makeup is just plain silly.

Again, a one size fits all does not make sense. Every safety feature has to balance the risks involved vs the consequences of the risk mitigation, and the feasibility of said risk mitigation.

Sure the risk may be the same with Pokemon go, text messaging or makeup, but if Pokemon go doesn't work when in motion it's not a big deal, and a fix like that would be relatively easy to implement, and would save lives.

Don't let the inability to implement life saving features in product A stop you from implementing them in product B.

The thing is, it works very well in motion. I play it all the time when I'm not the driver of the vehicle. While driving in the city it is easy to click on them as you pass by. It's not the way it was meant to be used but when have we ever used anything only the way it was meant. If we did we would never have made it far enough to have to worry about this. The risk is the same with Pokemon, text messaging or any other activity people do while driving. At some point we will have to decide if we want to lock down phones completely when motion is detected only allowing for 911 calls so that that danger is mitigated or if we just need to actively punish people behaving dangerously on the road.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
I think it would make sense to lock a game intended to get you out and walking if it is apparent you are in a vehicle.

It is true there are other distractions as well, but a one size fits all approach is not always appropriate. There are real consequences to disabling cell phones while traveling at speed, most of which involve passengers either in cars or in mass transit, as well as impairing the ability to call 911, etc. Exploding makeup is just plain silly.

Again, a one size fits all does not make sense. Every safety feature has to balance the risks involved vs the consequences of the risk mitigation, and the feasibility of said risk mitigation.

Sure the risk may be the same with Pokemon go, text messaging or makeup, but if Pokemon go doesn't work when in motion it's not a big deal, and a fix like that would be relatively easy to implement, and would save lives.

Don't let the inability to implement life saving features in product A stop you from implementing them in product B.

There is the first problem. There is no reason for the developer to change the game so that it enforces behavior. They produced a game and what's the difference if I walk, run, skateboard, bike, or drive, as long as I am not stupid about it.

As was said earlier, the problem isn't the game or the phone, it's drivers who are not paying attention to what they are doing. Instead of playing whack-a-mole with each new potential distraction how about we look at our environment and our technology and work toward keeping drivers more aware of their surroundings and hazards. If that car was fitted with an object detection radar and impact alert system, like the ones that are being developed for self driving cars, is it possible that the driver could be alerted regardless of the distraction, weather conditions, etc?

Solutions that are not applied to actual problems are no solution at all.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
31,700
There is the first problem. There is no reason for the developer to change the game so that it enforces behavior. They produced a game and what's the difference if I walk, run, skateboard, bike, or drive, as long as I am not stupid about it.

As was said earlier, the problem isn't the game or the phone, it's drivers who are not paying attention to what they are doing. Instead of playing whack-a-mole with each new potential distraction how about we look at our environment and our technology and work toward keeping drivers more aware of their surroundings and hazards. If that car was fitted with an object detection radar and impact alert system, like the ones that are being developed for self driving cars, is it possible that the drive could be alerted regardless of the distraction, weather conditions, etc?

Solutions that are not applied to actual problems are no solution at all.

Well, one could argue that having non-essential distractions automatically disabled could be part of the technological solution, no?

And you can push a new version of a game app a hell of a lot quicker than you can get everyone in the country to buy a car with a collision detection radar :p
 

Gigus Fire

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,275
Except it's a GPS enabled location based game that makes little sense on a train in the first place, so there isn't much if any loss.

From a pure risk perspective, It doesn't really matter if the risk is caused by individual users or not. If the company knows stupid people with poor impulse control exist (which they should) and they are putting a product out that presents risks when these people use it, they should at leas consider what they might be able to do in order to mitigate those risks, and in the case of Pokemon Go, this mitigation is relatively simple and with few side effects, so it makes sense to do it. With another product, (lets take makeup or a newspaper) it may not be as straightforward to mitigate, so it's not going to be held to the same standard.

Why does the argument that essentially boils down to "well we can't save ALL victims of distracted driving, so we shouldn't try to save ANY" always come up? It's really the dumbest argument I've ever heard.

I'd argue rather strongly that if it is easy to do so, and there are low to no negative consequences we should implement life saving risk mitigation EVERY time, because we live in a world with impulsive and stupid people, so any product you release will eventually wind up being used by an impulsive or stupid person.
Most trains are above ground and get gps... not sure what you were getting at.

The argument isn't about saving anyone. It's about improperly blaming the distraction instead of the person. You aren't saving anyone, nor should a game manufacturer/developer ever think about saving people. It's not their job. Any distraction can end up costing someone their life or others around them if they're not paying attention.

All your advocating is catering to the lowest common denominator. 99.99999% of the people that play this game in particular do not kill themselves or others. Why even bother with the ones who do?
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Well, one could argue that having non-essential distractions automatically disabled could be part of the technological solution, no?

And you can push a new version of a game app a hell of a lot quicker than you can get everyone in the country to buy a car with a collision detection radar :p


The game has been out for months and a single death has been attributed to it. I think the casualty rate is low enough that we don't have to rush to change anything. But we have had this type of technology for several years now. Cadillac was one of the first I remember advertising that heads up display and sensor system. Do you remember the commercial with the car alerting the driver to a deer in the road?

Pushing a new version of the game will not stop people from being run over by distracted drivers. Changing all mobile games won't stop it. The problem isn't with the game, or the phone, or the paperback book. The problem lies between the ears of some people most of the time, and all people some of the time, and a solution is available that works whether a driver is distracted, or sleepy, or has the sun in his eyes, or in bad weather. We just have to recognize that it's worthwhile and develop an affordable deployment scheme.

You never know, if it had been available and in my 1976 New Yorker back in 1980, I might not have run over two kids who never should have been crossing the highway after dark pushing a shopping cart with their little baby brother in it. I might not have killed an 8 year old girl even though I wasn't distracted, drunk, speeding, or doing anything wrong at all.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
31,700
The game has been out for months and a single death has been attributed to it.

That is a good point. Occurrence rate is a major input to risk management and mitigation activities. If you look at the occurrence per use hour, it has to be pretty damned low.


Pushing a new version of the game will not stop people from being run over by distracted drivers. Changing all mobile games won't stop it. The problem isn't with the game, or the phone, or the paperback book.

But now we are going down the "If we can't prevent all deaths we shouldn't prevent any deaths" line of reasoning again, which I patently reject. No, we can't get rid of all distractions. That doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of those distractions we can get rid of.

The problem lies between the ears of some people most of the time, and all people some of the time, and a solution is available that works whether a driver is distracted, or sleepy, or has the sun in his eyes, or in bad weather. We just have to recognize that it's worthwhile and develop an affordable deployment scheme.

That is true, but since we recognize that this is a problem with humanity, when we design products for humans, we should have to consider the least common denominator, and consider how they might misuse something and design around it, and if we CANT design around it, do an assessment of risk vs benefit, and decide if it is appropriate to release a product at all.

But maybe I am biased. I work in the medical device industry. This is what FDA forces us to do for medical devices, and I truly do believe it is appropriate, and that this approach should be used in all industries.

You never know, if it had been available and in my 1976 New Yorker back in 1980, I might not have run over two kids who never should have been crossing the highway after dark pushing a shopping cart with their little baby brother in it. I might not have killed an 8 year old girl even though I wasn't distracted, drunk, speeding, or doing anything wrong at all.

These systems are great, and I believe they ought to be in every single car out there, especially knowing human nature and how both drivers (and in your example, non-drivers) do stupid things and fail to pay attention.

The problem is, cars stay on the road for a VERY long time. Decades in most cases. Cadillac may have had this system years ago as you point out, but what percentage of vehicles on the road are actually equipped with it or something similar at this point? 0.1% 0.2%? In the 20-30 years it might take to first get these systems as standard equipment in all cars, and then wait for old cars to get off the road and be replaced by new ones, how many people need to be killed by distracted drivers? In the interim, we should be looking at what short term fixes can be done now. Software can be pushed quickly and start preventing deaths instantly. New car technology can't.

Now as you point out up top. The incidence rate of PokeMan Go deaths is low enough that it may not require any action, but the overall distracted driving fatality figures are absolutely exploding off the charts. A comprehensive tech solution (like collision avoidance radar) is of course ultimately a better solution, but in the meantime if we can take a million different small and immediate actions that take a million different tiny chunks out of the problem, by the time collision avoidance radars are in all cars on the roads, we will have saved many many many lives. One of them might even be one of us, or someone we know.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
That is a good point. Occurrence rate is a major input to risk management and mitigation activities. If you look at the occurrence per use hour, it has to be pretty damned low.




But now we are going down the "If we can't prevent all deaths we shouldn't prevent any deaths" line of reasoning again, which I patently reject. No, we can't get rid of all distractions. That doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of those distractions we can get rid of.



That is true, but since we recognize that this is a problem with humanity, when we design products for humans, we should have to consider the least common denominator, and consider how they might misuse something and design around it, and if we CANT design around it, do an assessment of risk vs benefit, and decide if it is appropriate to release a product at all.

But maybe I am biased. I work in the medical device industry. This is what FDA forces us to do for medical devices, and I truly do believe it is appropriate, and that this approach should be used in all industries.



These systems are great, and I believe they ought to be in every single car out there, especially knowing human nature and how both drivers (and in your example, non-drivers) do stupid things and fail to pay attention.

The problem is, cars stay on the road for a VERY long time. Decades in most cases. Cadillac may have had this system years ago as you point out, but what percentage of vehicles on the road are actually equipped with it or something similar at this point? 0.1% 0.2%? In the 20-30 years it might take to first get these systems as standard equipment in all cars, and then wait for old cars to get off the road and be replaced by new ones, how many people need to be killed by distracted drivers? In the interim, we should be looking at what short term fixes can be done now. Software can be pushed quickly and start preventing deaths instantly. New car technology can't.

Now as you point out up top. The incidence rate of PokeMan Go deaths is low enough that it may not require any action, but the overall distracted driving fatality figures are absolutely exploding off the charts. A comprehensive tech solution (like collision avoidance radar) is of course ultimately a better solution, but in the meantime if we can take a million different small and immediate actions that take a million different tiny chunks out of the problem, by the time collision avoidance radars are in all cars on the roads, we will have saved many many many lives. One of them might even be one of us, or someone we know.


I easily understand why you see things the way you do. Completely understandable. I am a very pragmatic person. people have been driving cars for a hundred years now and they have been having accidents and killing people since the beginning. I am less concerned that we come up with an immediate solution than I am that we get started in the first place. It is what it is, it's what it's always been. Get things started and address the real problem at it's source with a correct solution that provides a reasonable level of improvement and be happy with what you achieve, and continue to improve that track record.

Over time, the only thing people will remember is that "In the old days, sometimes people got killed by distracted drivers, but that doesn't happen today".
 

nutzo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
7,380
That being said, if you know your product is addictive in nature, and that a certain percentage of people might not be able to resist using the product and driving, aren't you at least partially liable? At least if there is something you could do technically to prevent it? Like make the app shut down if speeds above typical walking speeds are detected, or something like that?

So my then my kid couldn't play Pokemon Go while riding in the car?
The game does detect if you are going too fast and you have to click the button saying you are a passenger.
 

Zion Halcyon

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
2,108
"When quoted on the accident, the driver said, 'Yeah, that sucks, but it was totally worth it because I finally got that Magikarp.'"
 

nutzo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
7,380
And you can push a new version of a game app a hell of a lot quicker than you can get everyone in the country to buy a car with a collision detection radar :p

I predict that as more cars have collision detection radar with automatic braking, there will be more rear-end accidents since the car behind them (without the radar) can't stop as fast.

I've had too many close calls where I've had to slam on my brakes, and I've looked in the rear view mirror hoping the person behind me can stop in time.
When possible I've allowed my car to get as close as possible to the car in front just to give them more room to stop.
A few years ago it didn't work as the guy hit me and pushed my into the car in front of me. :(
Since I had my brakes on, it only put a few scratches on my front bumper and bent the license plate, but his SUV caused a lot of damage to my back bumper and hatch.
 

AliceCooper

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 25, 2007
Messages
1,476
Cool, same logic could be applied to everything. Hmm lets use this scenario. A guy buys a hot cup of coffee and goes driving that has warnings all over it "HOT COFFEE". Yet he still tries to drink it while driving and ends up spilling it on himself crashing into someone on the sidewalk and kills them. Obviously the risk could have been mitigated by only brewing cold coffee for those driving. Regardless of the fact that the idiot who drank the coffee knew it was hot, it had warnings that it was hot, but did it anyways. Granted yes it is horrible someone lost their life, but this goes back to the it only takes a couple to ruin it for everyone else who are responsible with their actions. Eventually we will live in a utopia where there are restrictions on everything so we can be safe.
 

travbrad

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Messages
1,253
In some ways I think it would be better if cars were more difficult to drive, like all of them being manual transmission. They are just so easy to use and we are so disconnected from what our cars are actually doing that it's too easy to "space out" and forget how inherently dangerous it is driving around at high speeds in something that weighs thousands of pounds. We are terrible at risk assessment too always thinking bad things will never happen to us.

Plus it's a lot harder to text/play games/etc while shifting. Of course nothing will ever solve the "people being stupid" problem, and even without it cars are still dangerous...but maybe it would help?
 

wizzi01

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
3,065
Most trains are above ground and get gps... not sure what you were getting at.

The argument isn't about saving anyone. It's about improperly blaming the distraction instead of the person. You aren't saving anyone, nor should a game manufacturer/developer ever think about saving people. It's not their job. Any distraction can end up costing someone their life or others around them if they're not paying attention.

All your advocating is catering to the lowest common denominator. 99.99999% of the people that play this game in particular do not kill themselves or others. Why even bother with the ones who do?

But, if it only saves one life. Have you seen his gun control arguments? They are the exact same arguments add he is trying to lay out here. There is no fixing his train of thought.
 

Nobified[H]

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
1,095
I mostly agree.

When it comes to distracted driving people tend to get OUTRAGED when others do it, and then turn around and do it themselves and think its perfectly fine, because they do it safer, or better or are a better driver or some nonsense like that. it's absolutely insane, but appears to be innate human behavior as far as I can tell. We do have to find a way to combat this, I'm not sure what the solution is though.

That being said, if you know your product is addictive in nature, and that a certain percentage of people might not be able to resist using the product and driving, aren't you at least partially liable? At least if there is something you could do technically to prevent it? Like make the app shut down if speeds above typical walking speeds are detected, or something like that?

Built in car wifi and 4g jammer within 10 feet LOLOLOL!
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
But, if it only saves one life. Have you seen his gun control arguments? They are the exact same arguments add he is trying to lay out here. There is no fixing his train of thought.


That's OK, Z and his train of thought doesn't need fixing. He's in the medical profession to a degree. His focus is on saving people's lives and from what I recall he has strong feelings in that regard. Now if I need to fight a war I am not going to ask doctors or people who work in the medical device industry how to do it, I'm going to go get myself a General. But if I am close to death or have a serious condition that requires a heart monitor I'm not looking for any help from a General, I want a guy like Z on the job. Someone who is focused on saving lives, in this case, my own.

So give Z some slack.

Wasn't it Wesley Snipes in Blade that said,

Blade: When you understand the nature of a thing...you know what it's capable of.

Give Z some slack to be who he is. We do need people like him as well.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
No, no, no, no....you misunderstood. I mean a standard approved federal regulated device required to be built in all cars.

Ahh, IC. But I am kind of thinking nothing like that exists cause I think a bunch of those rolling down the highway is going to have a cumulative effect of blocking every signal on the road. The FCC exists to make sure communications happens, not the other way around, though I'll admit, sometimes it doesn't seem that way.
 

wizzi01

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
3,065
That's OK, Z and his train of thought doesn't need fixing. He's in the medical profession to a degree. His focus is on saving people's lives and from what I recall he has strong feelings in that regard. Now if I need to fight a war I am not going to ask doctors or people who work in the medical device industry how to do it, I'm going to go get myself a General. But if I am close to death or have a serious condition that requires a heart monitor I'm not looking for any help from a General, I want a guy like Z on the job. Someone who is focused on saving lives, in this case, my own.

So give Z some slack.

Wasn't it Wesley Snipes in Blade that said,



Give Z some slack to be who he is. We do need people like him as well.

if you give people slack when their argument is if it saves one life. the next thing you know your rights are taken from under your nose.
 

pothb

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
4,997
if you give people slack when their argument is if it saves one life. the next thing you know your rights are taken from under your nose.
Too late.
aren't you at least partially liable?
Instinct tells me to say FUCK NO. But then I think about some US laws and lawsuit.

It really depends, if you can't easily tell it's dangerous, like say selling a a power supply that has charge in it, or that it can store charge even after it's unplugged. No one would know that just by looking at it or anything.... not like buying a hot coffee cup and not expecting it to be hot or that it would spill if you fuck up opening it.
 

Gigus Fire

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,275
That's OK, Z and his train of thought doesn't need fixing. He's in the medical profession to a degree. His focus is on saving people's lives and from what I recall he has strong feelings in that regard. Now if I need to fight a war I am not going to ask doctors or people who work in the medical device industry how to do it, I'm going to go get myself a General. But if I am close to death or have a serious condition that requires a heart monitor I'm not looking for any help from a General, I want a guy like Z on the job. Someone who is focused on saving lives, in this case, my own.

So give Z some slack.

Wasn't it Wesley Snipes in Blade that said,



Give Z some slack to be who he is. We do need people like him as well.
It does need fixing.
That line of thought is why we have airbags mandated for every single car that does more harm than good. It's because jumping on the bandwagon onto safety without properly thinking about it does a lot more harm than good.
His line of thought would shift blame onto game manufacturers for a really really low percentage of human trash that cannot control themselves. It would litigate people out of jobs and we already have too many laws which blame others instead of the ones causing the problem.
In his previous example he wanted to mandate $1500 for thermal imaging in cars. That adds a huge cost and weight to an already expensive system into cars, let alone the maintenance costs. It's questionable how many lives that would save a year. Clearly the FTA doesn't think it's worth while technology to pursue.
Even in the medical profession we have concepts such as triage which is to treat the patients who have the highest chance of saving first. That's how you save the most people is to figure out ways to address the problems affecting the most people, then move on to the unlikely chances.
This pokemon go issue is a very unlikely chance. It's outright silly to treat it like a epidemic.
 
Top