US Agency Aims To Regulate Map Aids In Vehicles

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Agency Aims To Regulate Map Aids In Vehicles

Posted by samzenpus on Monday June 16, 2014 @07:30AM from the the-right-way-to-go dept.

An anonymous reader writes in with news about proposed rules regarding mapping technology used in cars.Many are in favor of rules that prevent texting while driving, but in-car navigation is a murkier legal area — how do you minimize distractions without limiting the ability to get from point A to point B? Like it or not, the US government may settle that debate before long. The proposed Grow America Act would let the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) set rules for dash-mounted GPS units, smartphone mapping apps and anything else you'd use for driving directions. While it's not clear what the NHTSA would do with its power, the Department of Transportation's voluntary guidelines ask for limits on eye-catching visuals (think videos) and interaction times; don't be surprised if these enter the rulebooks.

216 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

We want driverless cars TODAY! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 07:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

This will all be wasted time once Google perfects the self driving car.
1. Re:We want driverless cars TODAY! by darkain · 2014-06-16 07:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Much in the same way regulations for fuel efficiency are wasted because we have fully electric cars now....
2. Re:We want driverless cars TODAY! by pr0fessor · 2014-06-16 07:42 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  We've had electric cars since the late 1800s they were even more popular than gas until cost outweighs the benefit.
3. Re:We want driverless cars TODAY! by ArcadeMan · 2014-06-16 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  And the first diesel cars were run on vegetable oil and alcool.
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
4. Re: We want driverless cars TODAY! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 07:49 · Score: 0
  
  See woodgas
5. Re:We want driverless cars TODAY! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 08:12 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  We already have driverless cars today. Between women putting on make-up, men eating, and teens texting, quite a few cars on the roads today are driverless.
6. Re:We want driverless cars TODAY! by Mister+Liberty · 2014-06-16 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  You got some already -- though, granted, not enough.
  They're called trains.
7. Re: We want driverless cars TODAY! by FatdogHaiku · 2014-06-16 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  See woodgas
  I do not want to see, hear, or smell woodgas...
  getting the image out of my head is bad enough!
  
  --
  You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
8. Re:We want driverless cars TODAY! by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · 2014-06-16 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  We already have driverless cars today. Between women putting on make-up, men eating, and teens texting, quite a few cars on the roads today are driverless.
  And don't even get me started on goth teenagers with eating disorders!
  
  --
  "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
9. Re:We want driverless cars TODAY! by PopeRatzo · 2014-06-16 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  And before that...
  http://img.timeinc.net/time/ph...
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
10. Re:We want driverless cars TODAY! by Grishnakh · 2014-06-16 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  From some numbers I've seen, trains are not very efficient for short or medium-distance commuting. If you're worried about energy efficiency, you're actually better off with a car than with light rail or heavy rail, according to some sources.
  Here's a table on Wikipedia which gives numbers with rail (both kinds) edging out cars, but with buses doing far, far worse.
11. Re:We want driverless cars TODAY! by westlake · 2014-06-16 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  We've had electric cars since the late 1800s they were even more popular than gas until cost outweighs the benefit.
  The electric car of the late 1890s and beyond was most likely to be a literal horseless carriage or coach-and-four, and, with handcrafted body work priced in the thousands, unadjusted for inflation. City cars with a maximum range of 25 miles at speeds of 5 to 15 mph.
  In the states, you don't see anything like mass production and a middle class market for the electric.
12. Re: We want driverless cars TODAY! by Bartles · 2014-06-16 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  Trains just are not efficient for moving light bulky cargo like humans. Especially when they are not capable of taking them to the final destination, and additional means of transportation are still required.
13. Re:We want driverless cars TODAY! by recharged95 · 2014-06-16 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, and the regulation mess will shift to the DOT/NHSTA/B, which is already knee deep in the drones world (think: FAA appeal) and causing havoc to drone users. Oh also an autonomous car is essentially... a ground drone.
  We're not going to get rid of this regulation interest: basically, gov't has a regulation itch to the current mobility and drone/autonomous robot scratch that the public has. And unless they show some flexibility to let these technologies grow--it will be DOA. Gov't is obviously playing catchup.
14. Re:We want driverless cars TODAY! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 12:48 · Score: 0
  
  Whoosh!
  Also, for double-whoosh, let's add a comment about how electricity production still requires fuel of some sort, so fuel efficiency is still relevant.
15. Re: We want driverless cars TODAY! by Grishnakh · 2014-06-16 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  They are efficient, if there's very high ridership and all the people are going to the same place. They work pretty well in NYC, for instance (they're called "subways"), because the layout of the densest part of the city is long and narrow, and the population density is very high, so the ridership is high, and alternate modes of transport aren't needed as much.
  The problem is that most of America isn't much like that, so trains don't work very well. I live not far from NYC, and there's heavy-rail commuter trains nearby that would take me to Manhattan. However, that "additional means of transportation" is a big problem, not on the Manhattan side, but here where I live. The nearest train station is "only" 2 miles away, but how do I get there? I could drive, but then where do I park? The parking garage there has reserved spaces and it costs a fortune to get a monthly pass (like double my car payment). Walking is just too far if I had to commute every day. I could take a bus, but now between the bus and the train the transit time gets really high, and you can't count on the bus to be on time, and when it's late, you'll miss the train and that'll add another 30 minutes to your commute. Of course, (if I had a job there, which I don't) I could just move into Manhattan, but the cost of living there is outrageous.
16. Re: We want driverless cars TODAY! by Zordak · 2014-06-16 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  Bicycle?
  
  --
  
  Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
17. Re: We want driverless cars TODAY! by Grishnakh · 2014-06-17 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  There's no bike lanes, the streets are narrow, and people drive fast. Riding a bike around here would be suicide.
18. Re: We want driverless cars TODAY! by q4Fry · 2014-06-17 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  Hearty agreement to all of this. Plus your bike ends up stripped of all its parts when you get back.
  
  I used to commute by bicycle when I had an enclosed bike storage room, but parking it on the sidewalk lands you up a street without a pedal. (or a seat, or sometimes even brakes, and this is assuming you locked both wheels, together, to something permanent. And I mean permanent: there's a bike parking structure across the street from where I sit right now that was literally uprooted.)
19. Re: We want driverless cars TODAY! by Grishnakh · 2014-06-17 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the theft thing probably isn't much of a problem here. This is a rather affluent area and there doesn't seem to be much crime at all (strangely, we're not that far from Newark, which of course has one of the highest murder rates in the nation. Odd how crime can be so well confined to certain places.). Too bad they can't spend some of these enormous property taxes on building some proper bike lanes so people can get around better and safer that way. There's even an abandoned century-old railroad near my house that goes to one of the nearby towns with a train station; it would be perfect for converting into a rail trail.
20. Re:We want driverless cars TODAY! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-23 16:56 · Score: 0
  
  http://linux.slashdot.org/comm...
What The?!? by realperseus · 2014-06-16 07:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Our government has better things to do than waste MY tax dollars on such nonsense! Sigh..

--
"Trusting every aspect of our lives to a giant computer was the smartest thing we ever did.." Homer Simpson
1. Re:What The?!? by micahraleigh · 2014-06-16 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  Washington DC, a train wreck, wants to prevent car wrecks.
2. Re:What The?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 07:47 · Score: 0
  
  Be happy that You don't have European parliament nearby.
3. Re:What The?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 08:00 · Score: 0, Funny
  
  "ARE"? Really?
4. Re:What The?!? by i+kan+reed · 2014-06-16 08:06 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  There should be an exemption to disliking grammar nazis any time someone goes out of their way to emphasize a word, and uses it completely incorrectly.
  (or if your failure at grammar introduces serious ambiguity problems)
5. Re:What The?!? by Gothmolly · 2014-06-16 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  No, they don't. Not anymore. Not since people swallowed the premise of the "Federal Family". Because 51 > 49, bread and circuses will always win. And because Commerce Clause.
  
  --
  I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
6. Re:What The?!? by DougOtto · 2014-06-16 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  They are not your tax dollars. They are ARE tax dollars. NHTSA has a pretty good track record.
  
  Our ewe shure?
  
  --
  Solving Unix problems since 1989...
7. Re:What The?!? by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-06-16 08:12 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The rate of US car fatalities has plummeted 75% over the past 45 years, largely due to government mandates and the NHTSA. The hundreds of thousands of people who are alive today because of those actions probably don't consider it "nonsense".
8. Re:What The?!? by x_t0ken_407 · 2014-06-16 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't you know? Even more regulation is all we need to a happier and more prosperous life.
9. Re:What The?!? by mbeckman · 2014-06-16 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  You must be a product of "are" education system, another good example of government spending money "ifishintly'
10. Re:What The?!? by CreatureComfort · 2014-06-16 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  Look, those dollars are gone. It's over. You're never getting them back. Let them go.
  
  Now, if the government is going to waste the dollars they take I wish they would spend MORE money on silly stuff like this rather than blowing craters in the sand or giving it for free to big banks. Yes, it would be great if this money went to NASA, or disease prevention and cures, or creating a more educated populace, but really, there are so many worse areas they could have spent this time and money, you should be grateful.
  
  --
  "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
  Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
11. Re:What The?!? by fisted · 2014-06-16 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, get off are lawn
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
12. Re:What The?!? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2014-06-16 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  They are ARE tax dollars.
  It depends on what the word IS is. -- Bill Clinton
  I think you meant to write:
  Argh, matey! They are, argh, tax dollars. Thirty days at sea, and not a wench to be seen. Grease up the monkey!
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
13. Re:What The?!? by sjames · 2014-06-16 08:40 · Score: 2
  
  So, when you're going down a crowded highway you're fine with it if the GPS app in the truck next to you goes to a commercial break featuring boobies?
14. Re:What The?!? by Dishevel · 2014-06-16 08:40 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Because if Honda were allowed to sell cars without seat belts and airbags you would buy them.
  Regulations are rarely a good thing. Massive regulation is always a bad thing.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
15. Re:What The?!? by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-06-16 08:42 · Score: 2
  
  It's weird how Libertarians never cite any data to support their statements.
16. Re:What The?!? by Dishevel · 2014-06-16 08:43 · Score: 2
  
  I like that argument. Let me break that one down.
  The government SHOULD waste our money on a thing because you found a thing that is even a bigger waste of our money.
  Perfect.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
17. Re:What The?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 08:50 · Score: 0
  
  I suspect that most /.ers are too young to remember the days when there'd be reports of hundreds of people killed statewide on the roads during a single holiday weekend. Those numbers didn't go down since then because drivers magically became more skilled over the years. Government-mandated safety features -- along with pressure from the insurance industry -- were the main reason.
  I'm wary of any optional (oh, excuse me... wrong term nowadays. I meant "available" [1]) toy that auto manufacturers sell as being a convenient thing to have in a car if it'll take my eyes off the road even for a bit [2].
  [1] -- "Optional" means you don't really need it. "Available" means our marketing people will convince you that it's a gotta-have device that you didn't know you wanted.)
  (2] -- Call me old-fashioned, but I plan my auto trips so I don't have to have live directions given to me in real-time by something in my dashboard. My solution: buy a f**king map. Need detailed turn information to your destination? Look up the directions on Google Maps (or similar), print them out, and refer to them while you're at a stop light/sign or have your significant other read them.
18. Re: What The?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 08:55 · Score: 0
  
  100 percent of cars without map aids have never had their drivers cause a map aid related accident.
  Libertarians are smart enough to know the government will try and regulate paper maps if they could.
19. Re:What The?!? by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · 2014-06-16 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't you know? Even more regulation is all we need to a happier and more prosperous life.
  Didn't you know? All we need for a happier and more prosperous life is to go completely Thunder Dome!
  
  --
  "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
20. Re:What The?!? by Shakrai · 2014-06-16 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  The rate of US car fatalities has plummeted 75% over the past 45 years, largely due to government mandates and the NHTSA.
  None of which argues in favor of NHTSA sticking its nose in the Google or Apple stores, imposing mandates on mapping apps, mandates that will invariably be shaped (see regulatory capture) to the benefit of incumbents at the expense of would-be upstarts.
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
21. Re:What The?!? by Shakrai · 2014-06-16 09:03 · Score: 2
  
  My solution: buy a f**king map. Need detailed turn information to your destination? Look up the directions on Google Maps (or similar), print them out, and refer to them while you're at a stop light/sign or have your significant other read them.
  Because taking my eyes off the road to refer to maps/printed directions is so much safer than listening to audio directions and occasionally glancing at a TomTom that's mounted right below my rear view mirror, in a position where my eyes don't leave the roadway?
  1. Maps suck. Road atlases are only useful for the 20,000 foot view, i.e., which combination of interstates and/or state highways will get me to my destination city. Once I'm in that city I need a street level map if I'm going to find my destintion and I don't have the money to equip my car with street level maps for every city within driving distance of my house.
  2. Printed directions are even worse. You've got to constantly take your eyes off the road to refer to them, and god help you if you miss a turn either by accident or because of detour. Those directions are predicated on the assumption that you can follow them perfectly and there are no road closures. Once you're off the path they're useless.
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
22. Re:What The?!? by Dishevel · 2014-06-16 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  I am sorry. Was that a statement saying that you would or would not buy them?
  I am unclear as to what your point was. What statistics were you looking for?
  Maybe your problem was with my statements. How would you amend them?
  Regulations are always a good thing. Massive regulation is even better.
  or
  Regulations are almost always a good thing. Massive regulation usually works.
  or
  Regulations are never a good thing.
  or
  Regulations are rarely a good thing, but massive regulation is how you fix things.
  What exactly are you arguing about?
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
23. Re:What The?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 09:03 · Score: 0
  
  Because if Honda were allowed to sell cars without seat belts and airbags you would buy them.
  
  History shows that consumers did exactly that, until regulation forced manufacturers to stop making grenade-like rolling sarcophagi, so there goes that argument from incredulity...
24. Re: What The?!? by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-06-16 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  Was that supposed to make sense? Because it did not.
25. Re:What The?!? by dnavid · 2014-06-16 09:15 · Score: 2
  
  (2] -- Call me old-fashioned, but I plan my auto trips so I don't have to have live directions given to me in real-time by something in my dashboard. My solution: buy a f**king map. Need detailed turn information to your destination? Look up the directions on Google Maps (or similar), print them out, and refer to them while you're at a stop light/sign or have your significant other read them.
  I generally keep printed maps as a stand by, but I find automated turn by turn navigation to be vastly safer than periodically glancing at a printed map while driving, and often far less stressful than having someone attempt to read a map and give directions verbally. Most people just aren't very good at that.
  I'm curious to see what the NHTSA discovers the risk factors are to having significant others attempt to give drivers directions. Or for that matter what the risk factors are for having car stereos, or screaming babies. I'm generally in favor of regulations like seat belt usage, or car seats for children, where the safety benefits vastly outweigh any inconvenience, but the risks should be weighed not as an absolute but against alternatives and other accepted risks. Dashboard GPS shouldn't be judged based on its distraction effect, but compared to using folding maps or just plain wandering around lost. For that matter what's the risk associated with taking one's eyes off of the traffic to look at highway signs. Audio directions should be compared to the distraction generated by listening to the radio, which I doubt anyone would allow the government to ban.
  In cars without dashboard GPS, I generally use my phone. But instead of just glancing at the dash, I'm sometimes glancing down at my phone, which can't possibly be better. In a world where dashboard GPS was eliminated from cars, I would switch to phone GPS, and which would be almost impossible to regulate effectively. That's not likely to be a better situation.
26. Re:What The?!? by Dishevel · 2014-06-16 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  Actually history shows that normally people start getting riled and this is when government steps in and acts.
  After quality of living started going up people started to no longer feel comfortable with child labor as more people started feeling this way government started to move. When safety is important to the people they get government to start moving. Very rarely does the government get ahead of the people unless it is bad for the people. (Bank bailouts, Government run healthcare) ,/p> When the government does do well with a few initial regulations it never leaves well enough alone. (EPA, AQMD) I have never heard once a government institution set up to solve a proble hold a press conference and state that they have pretty much reached their goals and can now be defunded. Have you? Ever? Once?
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
27. Re: What The?!? by CanHasDIY · 2014-06-16 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  He's saying that you can't get into an in-car-map-aid related accident if your car does not have in-car-map-aids.
  AC's statement is bit convoluted, but not that hard to parse if you actually bother to try.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
28. Re:What The?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 09:22 · Score: 0
  
  Because if Honda were allowed to sell cars without a 5-point harness, you would buy them?
  Because if Honda were allowed to sell cars without a backing-up collision detectors, you would buy them?
  Because if Honda were allowed to sell cars without a blind-spot mirror, you would buy them?
  Because if Honda were allowed to sell cars without run-flat tires, you would buy them?
  Because if Honda were allowed to sell cars without automatic fire suppression, you would buy them?
29. Re:What The?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 09:23 · Score: 0
  
  They are not your tax dollars. They are ARE tax dollars.
  NHTSA has a pretty good track record.
  You never post anything worthwhile, and you are an annoying little prick.
  Let me be the first to wish you terminal cancer this year.
30. Re:What The?!? by CanHasDIY · 2014-06-16 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  It's weird how Libertarians never cite any data to support their statements.
  Says the guy whose premise essentially boils down to, "Regulations are good because I'm pretty sure they're the reason some people still exist."
  That sounds a lot more like unfounded opinion than supporting data to me, Mr. Pot.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
31. Re:What The?!? by CanHasDIY · 2014-06-16 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't you know? Even more regulation is all we need to a happier and more prosperous life.
  Didn't you know? All we need for a happier and more prosperous life is to go completely Thunder Dome!
  Why not? I already run Barter Town...
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
32. Re:What The?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 09:40 · Score: 0
  
  The rate of US car fatalities has plummeted 75% over the past 45 years, largely due to government mandates and the NHTSA. The hundreds of thousands of people who are alive today because of those actions probably don't consider it "nonsense".
  Not sure we even have a XOR situation here; it could be both. It can be nonsense that also happens to have an upside. Imagine if every citizen had to have a cop within ten feet of them all times. It would be hideously expensive and a horrific invasion, yet might prevent many crimes.
  So sure, more people are alive, but at a cost. Then you get to have flamewars over whether or not the cost was worth it, and each side can rightly say they're right and the other is wrong. Totally arbitrary. You say a life is worth i dollars and j freedom units; I say it's worth k dollars and l freedom units.
33. Re:What The?!? by Grishnakh · 2014-06-16 09:41 · Score: 2
  
  Why not? The western European nations enjoy a significantly better standard of living than the US, so they're obviously doing something right. Their main problem seems to have been including some southern and eastern European nations like Greece with crappy economies into their union.
34. Re: What The?!? by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-06-16 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  He's saying that you can't get into an in-car-map-aid related accident if your car does not have in-car-map-aids.
  Yeah. But what does that have to do with any of the previous posts?
35. Re:What The?!? by Wookact · 2014-06-16 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  OK, I am a bit unsure of what you expect. Lets say an organization's goal is to reduce waste of truffula trees. They have reduced waste to the point that the harvest of trees is sustainable. If they were to hold a press conference and say we could be defunded, mission accomplished, do you believe the industry would stick to the sustainable practices or revert to ways that are more profitable.
  
  How about this question, what government institution do you think has a goal that is permanently attainable? I mean once attained it no longer needs to be monitored or regulated.
36. Re:What The?!? by sacrilicious · 2014-06-16 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  The hundreds of thousands of people who are alive today because of those actions probably don't consider it "nonsense".
  Actually, yes we do.
  
  --
  - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
37. Re:What The?!? by Zxern · 2014-06-16 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  Hey at least he used more than one letter.
38. Re:What The?!? by Zxern · 2014-06-16 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  Just look at all the people ticketed for not wearing their seat belt every year. You don't think they'd buy a car without one if it were available?
39. Re:What The?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 11:18 · Score: 0
  
  Didn't you know? Even more regulation is all we need to a happier and more prosperous life.
  Didn't you know? All we need for a happier and more prosperous life is to go completely Thunder Dome!
  Can't we get beyond thunder dome?
40. Re:What The?!? by Lehk228 · 2014-06-16 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  the risk factors are to having significant others attempt to give drivers directions.
  
  that study would be a joint venture between NHTSA and the FBI to account for domestic violence crimes.
  
  --
  Snowden and Manning are heroes.
41. Re:What The?!? by nephilimsd · 2014-06-16 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  Much like the main problem in the U.S. is our inclusion of economically crappy states, like Mississippi (https://bber.unm.edu/econ/st-gdp5.htm).
42. Re: What The?!? by R3d+M3rcury · 2014-06-16 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  ...and most libertarians don't have them because the gub'mint can use them to track you and feed the info to the UN's black helicopters.
43. Re:What The?!? by khellendros1984 · 2014-06-16 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  Except that CreatureComfort wasn't arguing what the money *should* be spent on, they were arguing that in the case that the most desirable things don't get funded, that at least we aren't funding the *least* desirable things. Essentially "the new status quo isn't bad enough that I can be assed to fight it". You're putting words in their mouth that are strikingly different than what it sounds like they intended.
  
  --
  It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
44. Re:What The?!? by mjwx · 2014-06-16 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  Because if Chevrolet were allowed to sell cars without seat belts and airbags you would buy them.
  Fixed that for you. When picking an example, pick one that makes sense. And yes, yes a lot of people will because car manufacturers would make seatbelts an expensive option if they even offered them at all.
  
  When Volvo introduced the seatbelt in 1959, most manufacturers didn't even offer them as an option and continued not to offer them until they absolutely had to in the 70's and 80's. If not for seatbelt regulations, a lot of manufacturers would still not offer them..
  
  You massively underestimate both the greed of corporations and the stupidity of the masses.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
45. Re:What The?!? by Grishnakh · 2014-06-16 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, but no. Even the blue states like New York and New Jersey are chock-full of corruption, with extremely high costs of living and very poor standards of living to match. It's actually cheaper to live in Brussels than in NYC, for instance, but in Belgium there's excellent and very affordable healthcare, unlike anyplace in the US. And the crime rate in NYC (or anyplace in the US) is much, much higher than in the northern or western European countries.
  Kicking out the shitty southern states isn't going to fix these problems. The US is just fundamentally broken.
46. Re:What The?!? by geezer+nerd · 2014-06-16 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  I have seen this happen before. Such a misuse is jarring, particularly if done by someone you think should know better. But, in the end, for that person it was phonetic.
47. Re:What The?!? by ElderKorean · 2014-06-16 16:35 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't you know? Even more regulation is all we need to a happier and more prosperous life.
  Didn't you know? All we need for a happier and more prosperous life is to go completely Thunder Dome!
  Why not? I already run Barter Town...
  I guess you two are in Australia, seeing as Thunderdome was on TV last night - still fresh in your mind.
48. Re:What The?!? by Rosyna · 2014-06-16 20:54 · Score: 1
  
  Just look at all the people ticketed for not wearing their seat belt every year. You don't think they'd buy a car without one if it were available?
  We had those. People died.
49. Re:What The?!? by hendrips · 2014-06-17 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that's sort of the point. I'd rather see the NHTSA spend its time (and my money) testing, say, the structural integrity of the aluminum in the new Ford F-150. They seem to be surprisingly good at that sort of thing. I'd rather not see them regulating smartphone apps because I think they could be doing something more useful, like regulating cars.
50. Re:What The?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-17 02:10 · Score: 0
  
  I am sorry. Was that a statement saying that you would or would not buy them?
  I am unclear as to what your point was. What statistics were you looking for?
  Maybe your problem was with my statements. How would you amend them?
  Regulations are always a good thing. Massive regulation is even better.
  or
  Regulations are almost always a good thing. Massive regulation usually works.
  or
  Regulations are never a good thing.
  or
  Regulations are rarely a good thing, but massive regulation is how you fix things.
  What exactly are you arguing about?
  It's rather telling that you omit the obvious middle ground: "Regulations are sometimes good and sometimes bad." You're the one arguing for only the logical extremes, that should tell you something about the quality of your thought on the matter.
51. Re:What The?!? by Dishevel · 2014-06-17 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  So from my original post ...
  
  Regulations are rarely a good thing. Massive regulation is always a bad thing.
  This would be a middle ground. Unless of course you think the last one I posted was correct. Or did you read the word rarely as never?
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
52. Re:What The?!? by CanHasDIY · 2014-06-17 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  Nope and nope, although it does make me happy to know they air the Mad Max films in Aussieland. I hope that trilogy is kind of a national treasure down under.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
53. Re: What The?!? by CanHasDIY · 2014-06-17 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  Er, good point.
  Because something something Libertarians?
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
54. Re:What The?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-17 06:48 · Score: 0
  
  I'm pretty sure that disease eradication is potentially one of them. If you eradicate polio then you don't need to do any more work after you're sure that it won't have an outbreak again someplace obscure. That is a very definitive mission accomplished.
55. Re:What The?!? by Wycliffe · 2014-06-17 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  How about this question, what government institution do you think has a goal that is permanently attainable? I mean once attained it no longer needs to be monitored or regulated.
  Maintenance should cost less than attaining the goal to begin with so there should certainly be departments that
  can be reduced in size once some measure of sucess is achieved but I don't know of any agency that has ever
  been set up that way or have ever been reduced in size. And then there are departments that should never have
  existed at all like the federal dept of education. It's bad enough that we have state departments but I can kindof
  see the point of them but there is very little if anything that the federal dept of education can do that couldn't be
  better done by states and communication between states.
56. Re:What The?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-19 02:07 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously!!! My phone tells me when to turn. I dont' even look at it. That is far safer than trying to navigate a paper map!!
  And how do they know if you or your passenger are using the phone? This is completely ridiculous.
Perhaps.... by pablo_max · 2014-06-16 07:38 · Score: 2

Maybe they should consider getting all of the various other areas they "oversee" under control before they start trying to expand their power even further.
Re: by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 07:42 · Score: 0

Great....more intrusion from government
Overreach much? by russotto · 2014-06-16 07:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

They want to regulate mapping apps on smartphones, including those not installed in vehicles? Seems like more than a bit of a stretch.
1. Re:Overreach much? by geekoid · 2014-06-16 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  Probably vehicle guidelines; which is a good thing.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
2. Re:Overreach much? by BasilBrush · 2014-06-16 07:55 · Score: 2
  
  I can understand the motivation. People who are entering a new destination to their satnav whilst driving are paying very little attention to the road and are a big hazard.
  But the only way to implement it on a handheld device is to restrict by speed. And I quite often like to monitor where I am with GPS when I'm on public transport. So I'd lose that. As would people who are navigating from the passenger seat of a car.
  Tricky one.
3. Re:Overreach much? by mellon · 2014-06-16 08:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This latter bit is a real problem in our Prius: you can't enter a destination without stopping. It lets you do other things, just not that. Really annoying, because it's almost always the case that when we need to enter directions, we're driving somewhere together. It would be nice if the NHTSA rules allowed for passengers.
4. Re:Overreach much? by tysonedwards · 2014-06-16 08:07 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  They want to have the authority to regulate apps that after release have been linked to "safety related issues" that have an intended purpose of being used primarily while driving on a road. They're not asking to regulate all cell phones, or twitter, or Facebook use while in a car (yet), what they are asking for is the ability to bitch-slap developers after the fact who create apps that are designed for use while driving yet lead to distractions, ergo creating safety issues for those likely using said app while driving, presumably on a highway. To that end, is someone more likely to be using Navigon, Garmin, TomTom, or the multitude of other apps while going for a walk, or when driving somewhere?
  
  And if they incorporated a "Thank you for using MotionX GPS Lite, before giving your your directions, please watch this YouTube video and answer this quick survey!", should NHTSB or anyone else for that matter have the authority to tell them that that is morally wrong, and potentially unsafe behavior, let alone compel them to take corrective action?
  
  Their request for oversight over this area doesn't seem like a "major" stretch at this point, but it does set a quite unusual precedent that can be used to expand their powers in the future. And as we all have seen in the past, if Government has the potential to grow, it will do so.
  
  --
  Thirty four characters live here.
5. Re:Overreach much? by richlv · 2014-06-16 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  which is still way more safe than messing with a paper map, trying to find the correct page or unfold an elephant's sheet. i'd hate to see navigation features being deliberately made less usable
  
  --
  Rich
6. Re:Overreach much? by pr0fessor · 2014-06-16 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  My 2006 buick detects if someone is not wearing a seatbelt and turns off the passenger side airbag if no one is in the passenger seat {it didn't come with GPS}. If the GPS is built into the car I see no reason why it couldn't do the same.
  You need bricks to put in the car for traction? No, to trick the car into thinking there is someone in the passenger seat so the GPS works when it's not in park.
7. Re:Overreach much? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  Everyone who is entering a new destination will use some form of a map. If I can't have my GPS or phone verbally tell me where and when to turn, then I am back to the huge folded up maps that are bigger than my windshield when unfolded. Much safer.
8. Re:Overreach much? by TubeSteak · 2014-06-16 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  They want to regulate mapping apps on smartphones, including those not installed in vehicles? Seems like more than a bit of a stretch.
  The FAA regulates the use of your (smart)phone on planes.
  Is that also a stretch?
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
9. Re:Overreach much? by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-06-16 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  They're going to regulate my cell's mapping app, eh?
  Not to worry, I can still open the old Rand-McNally while driving if I really need to find a route.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
10. Re:Overreach much? by Golddess · 2014-06-16 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  My 2006 buick detects if someone is not wearing a seatbelt and turns off the passenger side airbag if no one is in the passenger seat
  .....WHY??? Sure, it might be unnecessary if no one is sitting there, but what possible benefit is conferred by disabling an airbag?
  
  --
  "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
11. Re:Overreach much? by LookIntoTheFuture · 2014-06-16 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  what they are asking for is the ability to bitch-slap developers after the fact who create apps that are designed for use while driving yet lead to distractions
  Like the ads that pop up on the MapQuest app during navigation. (Yes, yes, I know I'm the only one that uses it.)
  
  --
  Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")
12. Re:Overreach much? by pr0fessor · 2014-06-16 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  That way if you are in an accident you don't have to pay for it to be repacked/replaced if not needed? I have no idea I didn't design the car.
13. Re:Overreach much? by NatasRevol · 2014-06-16 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Cost & not sending things flying at ~200mph
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
14. Re:Overreach much? by flink · 2014-06-16 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  My 2006 buick detects if someone is not wearing a seatbelt and turns off the passenger side airbag if no one is in the passenger seat
  .....WHY??? Sure, it might be unnecessary if no one is sitting there, but what possible benefit is conferred by disabling an airbag?
  It might be a child safety thing. An airbag can kill someone below a certain size, especially if they are not wearing a seat belt, so it's likely programmed to disable itself if there is less than e.g. 80 lbs in the passenger seat, or if the belt is not buckled. In those scenarios an airbag deploying would do more harm than good by turning an otherwise low risk slow speed crash into potentially fatal one.
15. Re:Overreach much? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 08:55 · Score: 0
  
  FCC, actually.
16. Re:Overreach much? by NatasRevol · 2014-06-16 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wire...
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
17. Re: Overreach much? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 08:58 · Score: 0
  
  The environment is saved from a wasteful airbag deployment.
18. Re: Overreach much? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 09:01 · Score: 0
  
  They don't if its YOUR plane.
19. Re:Overreach much? by BasilBrush · 2014-06-16 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  And that's way more safe than wearing a blindfold whilst driving.
  What's the matter with you? If you need to set a destination, do it before you start driving. If you need to change destination, pull over.
20. Re:Overreach much? by drinkypoo · 2014-06-16 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  And if they incorporated a "Thank you for using MotionX GPS Lite, before giving your your directions, please watch this YouTube video and answer this quick survey!", should NHTSB or anyone else for that matter have the authority to tell them that that is morally wrong, and potentially unsafe behavior, let alone compel them to take corrective action?
  In short, yes.
  Slightly longer answer, the roads are for use in the public interest. It's not in that interest to have people distracted in this fashion while driving.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
21. Re:Overreach much? by fustakrakich · 2014-06-16 09:16 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, the NHTSA (and what's NHTSA with out the TSA?) should outlaw passengers, especially small children and mothers in-law. They are the biggest distractions.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
22. Re:Overreach much? by BitterOak · 2014-06-16 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  They want to have the authority to regulate apps that after release have been linked to "safety related issues" that have an intended purpose of being used primarily while driving on a road.
  Ultimately though, they only have the authority to regulate what features are sold in cars as they leave the factory (this power derives from the Interstate Commerce Clause). It's up to state governments to set the rules of the road and penalize drivers for breaking those rules. As to whether or not the Constitution allows them the authority to regulate apps isn't so clear. If they are sold commercially in interstate commerce, then they might have such authority, but there might also be First Amendment issues as software has been classified by at least some courts as a form of protected speech. And I'm not sure how freeware would fit into all this. Personally, I think it would be best if the NHTSA stuck to offering guidelines and leave it up to the states to pass the actual laws.
  
  --
  If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
23. Re:Overreach much? by CanHasDIY · 2014-06-16 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  This latter bit is a real problem in our Prius: you can't enter a destination without stopping. It lets you do other things, just not that. Really annoying, because it's almost always the case that when we need to enter directions, we're driving somewhere together. It would be nice if the NHTSA rules allowed for passengers.
  Question: Is pulling over for 30 seconds to reprogram your toy really that big a deal?
  I tend to work around this problem by planning my trips to unknown territories - this includes Googling my intended route, alternate routes, and taking a bit to study the roadmaps of my destination, to give me a general sense of direction when I get there. If I end up needing to alter the destination address, I always find somewhere safe to pull over, as piloting 2 tons of rolling steel death kind of takes precedent over pretty much any other activity I could be doing.
  Honestly, the only thing I ever use a GPS app for is verifying the route I already know.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
24. Re:Overreach much? by Grishnakh · 2014-06-16 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  Why should you have to waste time and energy pulling over, potentially creating a dangerous situation, just so your passenger can enter a new destination on the GPS? Are people really this stupid?
25. Re:Overreach much? by Grishnakh · 2014-06-16 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  I entirely agree that such distractions should not be allowed. However, is this really a problem? Admittedly, I've only been using Google Maps so far, but there's no ads on that. If it isn't actually a problem, then I don't think any regulation is needed.
26. Re:Overreach much? by rogoshen1 · 2014-06-16 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  You cannot legislate common sense while driving. the same person who is irresponsible enough to enter in satnav coords at inopportune times while driving is the same mother fucker who'll let his big mac and fries flub his driving. It doesn't make sense to single out one form of distraction because it's new, while grandfathering in other tried and true ways to get people killed on roads (makeup, food, screaming children, pets, sleepiness, daydreaming, boredom etc)
  Driving exams are too easy, and drivers ed isn't mandatory... as such there are many many drivers out there who simply shouldn't be behind the wheels of anything other than a big-wheel.
  And not all driving is equal in terms of concentration.. an empty, straight away stretch of road is probably fine for sending a quick text or whatever you need to do (IE, don't take your eyes off the road for more than a second at a time). The problem comes with the above mentioned people who will *not* grasp the difference between open road and busy freeway. Their carelessness brings the nanny state down in full force, fucking things up for the rest of us.
27. Re:Overreach much? by BasilBrush · 2014-06-16 10:18 · Score: 2
  
  And not all driving is equal in terms of concentration.. an empty, straight away stretch of road is probably fine for sending a quick text or whatever you need to do
  And there you proved that you are not a responsible adult and so your opinion is worthless.
28. Re:Overreach much? by BasilBrush · 2014-06-16 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  Read the fucking thread. Pay attention to what I said.
29. Re:Overreach much? by rogoshen1 · 2014-06-16 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  Oh Jesus Christ Nancy. Depending on the situation, looking away from the road for a second or two at a time is fine.
  I'm sure you've taken your eyes off the road at least once or twice while driving. Whether it is caused by a screaming child, a tomtom or an ipod -- it is truly and utterly irrelevant. My point was that there is some degree of situational awareness needed, and the people who lack this are the ones causing accidents.
  Nice selective quote by the way. By leaving off "IE, don't take your eyes off the road for more than a second at a time" you make what I said look completely foolish! Har Har. You should consider a career in punditry.
30. Re:Overreach much? by dgatwood · 2014-06-16 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  Question: Is pulling over for 30 seconds to reprogram your toy really that big a deal?
  When you're driving along an interstate and are trying to figure out what exit has food, yes. Yes, it is. There's no valid reason not to allow a passenger to change the destination while the vehicle is in motion. It's an unnecessary safety misfeature that reduces usability while providing no benefit whatsoever. (The in-dash GPS is pretty much useless for the driver anyway, because it isn't readily visible, and there's no way that any driver could feasibly program it while driving, so if somebody is reprogramming it while the vehicle is in motion, it is almost guaranteed to be a passenger, not the driver.)
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
31. Re:Overreach much? by R3d+M3rcury · 2014-06-16 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  what's NHTSA with out the TSA?
  New Hampshire.
  Live free or die, bitches!
32. Re:Overreach much? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 12:29 · Score: 0
  
  As to whether or not the Constitution allows them the authority to regulate apps isn't so clear.
  You are unclear as to what an app is and what not "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" means?
  Regulating what is done on the roads is sketchy. Regulating speech because it might be used on the roads is tyranny.
33. Re:Overreach much? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 12:55 · Score: 0
  
  To add to that argument, some exists only have "exits" and no entry back onto an interstate---gotta drive at least 10 miles of country roads to get back. Upper NYS on I87 has a bunch of those.
34. Re:Overreach much? by Richy_T · 2014-06-16 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  Pulling over at the side of an interstate/motorway is both dangerous and illegal.
35. Re:Overreach much? by Richy_T · 2014-06-16 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  (Not illegal in an emergency, obviously)
36. Re:Overreach much? by Richy_T · 2014-06-16 14:37 · Score: 1
  
  Have you seen how fast deer move? Even with 100% attention to the road, they can still get you.
37. Re:Overreach much? by Richy_T · 2014-06-16 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe they'll just use the standard overreach and make the state implement the policy or not receive highway funds.
38. Re:Overreach much? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 20:23 · Score: 0
  
  I can understand the motivation. People who are entering a new destination to their satnav whilst driving are paying very little attention to the road and are a big hazard.
  If you think that's a big hazard, you're too young to remember folded maps laid out over the steering wheel.
  GPS naviagion systems are a huge improvement, even if not perfect.
39. Re:Overreach much? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 22:09 · Score: 0
  
  This is probably the correct answer.
  I am currently renting a Ford Fusion. If the seat is unoccupied, the airbag is on. If the seat senses weight, but it's not high enough to be an adult, it disables the airbag. If I put my bookbag or laptop on the seat, the car disables the air bag.
40. Re:Overreach much? by CanHasDIY · 2014-06-17 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  So find an exit.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
41. Re:Overreach much? by Richy_T · 2014-06-17 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  You may miss your turn waiting for that exit.
42. Re:Overreach much? by CanHasDIY · 2014-06-17 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  You may miss your turn waiting for that exit.
  Huh? That doesn't make any sense...
  Here's what I'm suggesting, for clarification purposes:
  - when you "need" to alter route directions but can't when the vehicle is in motion, and you're on a highway, just wait until you come up to the next exit (or off ramp or turn or whatever term you want to use), pull off the highway (using the off ramp/exit/turn/whatever), pull over, make your changes, then re-enter the highway. Pretty simple stuff.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
43. Re:Overreach much? by BasilBrush · 2014-06-17 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  You've stated your opinion. And it's an irresponsible one. Obviously you won't change your mind. But it's people like you that cause accidents. I sincerely hope you are caught texting and are fined.
44. Re:Overreach much? by Wycliffe · 2014-06-17 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  You may miss your turn waiting for that exit.
  Huh? That doesn't make any sense...
  Here's what I'm suggesting, for clarification purposes:
  - when you "need" to alter route directions but can't when the vehicle is in motion, and you're on a highway, just wait until you come up to the next exit (or off ramp or turn or whatever term you want to use), pull off the highway (using the off ramp/exit/turn/whatever), pull over, make your changes, then re-enter the highway. Pretty simple stuff.
  Great in theory but I've taken many exits that exit to another highway going a different direction with no way to "get right back on"
  and still no where to pull over. To make things worse, it might take 4-5 miles to actually find a turn around to go back to the
  original road. Exiting then reentering the highway is not always a reasonable option. And the OP was talking about finding food,
  a gas station, etc... in which case being taken 10-20 miles out of your way is not a very attractive option.
45. Re:Overreach much? by Richy_T · 2014-06-19 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly this.
46. Re:Overreach much? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-21 17:20 · Score: 0
  
  I seriously hope you burn to death in a fire.
  If you can't safely send a text on an arrow straight road with no traffic around, you should not be driving. If you think other people's lives should be made miserable just because they can do something you can't, you are a piece of shit who hopefully will get the fuck out of America and move to North Korea, where you belong.
see ya by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 07:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

So long speed trap alerts in Waze.
1. Re:see ya by GuB-42 · 2014-06-17 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Speed trap alerts of any kind are already forbidden in some countries.
  A common workaround is to relabel speed traps as "danger zones" or some kind of point of interest, which are legal.
Can they start regulating back-seat driving, too? by OSULugan · 2014-06-16 07:44 · Score: 5, Funny

I'd love for them to limit the type and amount of distractions from my wife telling me where to go, too.
Re:Can they start regulating back-seat driving, to by Enry · 2014-06-16 07:49 · Score: 3, Funny

Wait, your GPS can give directions to Hell?
Drive Up Trucking Costs Act by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 07:50 · Score: 0

Re: Ministry of "Truth"
Except for the cops by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 07:51 · Score: 0

Except for the cops, of course. They'll be able to anything they fuckin' want. Wheeeeeeee!
All about the symptoms by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 07:52 · Score: 1

The relevant literature points to a sad fact: People who are a danger behind the wheel because they're not paying attention to the road will be as dangerous driving while phoning, driving while texting, driving while fumbling with the radio, driving while... you get the picture. Of course, much easier to make an explicit rule "while driving you cannot use $device!" moreso because with the advent of some other device you can have a jolly good debate showing off to your voters about the next device. When for safety's sake you need people to be paying attention to the road. Some people are responsible about this, others less so. How do you discern? You can't, and anyway, the debating is what the politicians do, so going Don Quichotte on symptoms it is.
Well, if that's the way it is I want a blanket ban on touchscreens. Need physical buttons with tactile discernability so you can fumble while you keep your eyes on the road.
1. Re:All about the symptoms by suutar · 2014-06-16 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  I will cheerfully support this. Any function that should work for a driver in motion should not be touchscreen. You can put a touchscreen in front of any/all passengers if you want.
  Maybe this is the solution to the GPS issue too. The passenger seat can program at speed (if there is a passenger in the seat who is buckled up), the driver seat can only program while stopped.
always exceptions by MooseTick · 2014-06-16 07:58 · Score: 2

There will likely always be an exception. The car doesn't know that you are the only person in the car, and there is no reason that a passenger can't input nav data while the vehicle is in motion.
This will make for some great action movies though. Imagive the hero doesn't know where he needs to be, but can't stop the vehicle for GPS to work because there is a carload of mafia terrorists chasing him.

--
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
1. Re:always exceptions by Jason+Levine · 2014-06-16 08:42 · Score: 2
  
  Don't worry. The plucky geek sidekick will - via phone - talk him through reprogramming his entire GPS operating system by pushing five buttons in the right order. The sidekick will then try to help more by remotely hacking into and reprogramming the mafia terrorists' car to disable the steering. The hero will berate the sidekick after the car nearly crashes into a bus filled with sweet, innocent children. Thankfully, the hero was able to aim his gun (which only had one bullet left) behind him and hit the tire of the mafia terrorists' car causing it to explode and flip up and over the bus.
  Physics? Reasonable technology? A movie craves not these things.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
2. Re:always exceptions by CanHasDIY · 2014-06-16 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry. The plucky geek sidekick will - via phone - talk him through reprogramming his entire GPS operating system by pushing five buttons in the right order. The sidekick will then try to help more by remotely hacking into and reprogramming the mafia terrorists' car to disable the steering.
  Through a 3D VR interface! Running NMap in a terminal! Using Nintendo PowerGloves for the input, of course.
  OT: I kind of miss those terrible moments from 90's hacker movies, don't you?
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
3. Re:always exceptions by sacrilicious · 2014-06-16 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry. The plucky geek sidekick will - via phone - talk him through reprogramming his entire GPS operating system by pushing five buttons in the right order.
  "This is Unix. I know this."
  
  --
  - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
4. Re:always exceptions by OSULugan · 2014-06-16 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  There will likely always be an exception. The car doesn't know that you are the only person in the car, and there is no reason that a passenger can't input nav data while the vehicle is in motion.
  This will make for some great action movies though. Imagive the hero doesn't know where he needs to be, but can't stop the vehicle for GPS to work because there is a carload of mafia terrorists chasing him.
  If you have any experience with Toyota's in-dash Nav solution, then you would know that this system is already in existence. With Toyota's system, you can choose preset destinations whenever, but you can't enter an address or do more advanced searches.
  I wondered why the system doesn't use the passenger-side airbag detector to figure out that there's a passenger in the car to allow these options. But, sadly, they didn't implement it that way. There have been a few times we've had to pull into a nearby parking lot for me to place the car in "Park" to allow access to the functionality.
5. Re:always exceptions by Jason+Levine · 2014-06-16 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  The fun part is re-watching those old "hacker" movies and marveling at the old technology mixed in with the ridiculous. Ok, so she's taking the security camera footage, enhancing it way beyond what is physically capable and.. oh, no... someone's coming... and it is taking time saving to a 3.5" floppy disk!
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
6. Re:always exceptions by Richy_T · 2014-06-16 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  That's pretty awful. One of the primary advantages of a GPS is the ability to tell it to find an alternate route if there is an obstruction up ahead. This is often in traffic that is moving slowly enough to operate the GPS safely and still pay attention but not slow enough to stop and park.
7. Re:always exceptions by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-17 02:18 · Score: 0
  
  Via phone? That won't work - the call function of phones will be disabled while inside a vehicle in motion!
8. Re:always exceptions by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-17 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  The car doesn't know that you are the only person in the car, and there is no reason that a passenger can't input nav data while the vehicle is in motion.
  Of course my car knows I'm not the only one in it; my wife's car does too.
  It nags about a seatbelt with a passenger. They disable/enable passenger side airbag; they disable airbag for underweight passenger.
  It knows you've got a passenger.
WTF by kwiecmmm · 2014-06-16 07:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

So what if someone else in the car is looking at the directions while you are driving? Will their ability to look at directions be significantly hampered?
It is a good thing that these Congress people don't have any important things to worry about so they can focus on this ridiculous crap.
In the mean time my car might just drive on an interstate with failing bridges, or into a tunnel with ceiling tiles that could fall at any moment, but focusing on this is obviously the best thing for Congress to do.
1. Re:WTF by NatasRevol · 2014-06-16 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, the tunnel with ceiling tiles is a local corruption issue of Boston.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
2. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 09:49 · Score: 0
  
  Or balance a budget for once...
Open Source my car dashboard by jlv · 2014-06-16 08:02 · Score: 1

I really want the code running in my dash board to be open source, so that I can *replace* the crud the auto maker put in there with something with dumb limits and restrictions.
1. Re:Open Source my car dashboard by Richy_T · 2014-06-16 14:55 · Score: 1
  
  Go Raspberry Pi or Android. As long as too much crap isn't integrated with the audio which is an unfortunate trend.
2. Re:Open Source my car dashboard by jlv · 2014-06-17 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  Of the two (I've programmed for both), I'd go with Android (and not "CarPlay").
  But, my car is a Leaf and far too much crap is integrated into their existing dashboard systems.
3. Re:Open Source my car dashboard by Richy_T · 2014-06-17 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  That is a shame. But perhaps an opportunity for someone sufficiently technically inclined.
Re:Can they start regulating back-seat driving, to by Megahard · 2014-06-16 08:02 · Score: 1

Yes, it takes you on the Road to Perdition.

--
I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
Driving distractions. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 08:04 · Score: 1

Talking on Cell Phone
Texting
Radio
Silly people!
None come close to a having a 4 year old in the car... Are they going to ban driving with a child in the car?
1. Re:Driving distractions. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 19:21 · Score: 0
  
  Congratulations, you have committed the false equivalence fallacy.
Re:Can they start regulating back-seat driving, to by neminem · 2014-06-16 08:06 · Score: 1

Why wouldn't it be able to? Michigan isn't *that* confusing...
stupid by Charliemopps · 2014-06-16 08:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

As stupid as this is, it will save more lives than any firearms regulation ever will.
Keep in mind how you feel about this regulation, then re-evaluate your stance on gun control. You don't have to change your mind, just think about it long and hard. Cars kill far far more people every year than guns ever could. Why allow people to have cars? There's no constitutional right to drive... Banning them would significantly reduce global warming pollutants... Ban cars, force public transport and foot traffic.
1. Re:stupid by jratcliffe · 2014-06-16 08:24 · Score: 2
  
  Sigh. Assessing a regulation requires you to look at the benefits AND costs. Banning cars would certainly save a lot of lives, but at huge societal costs. Requiring registration of firearms, and tracking transfers, to allow the sources of illegally used firearms to be determined, would have very modest financial cost, and place minimal burdens on the vast majority of law-abiding firearm owners, while making significant progress toward keeping guns out of the hands of people (criminals and the mentally ill) who _shouldn't_ have them.
2. Re:stupid by wiggles · 2014-06-16 08:38 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  > minimal burdens on the vast majority of law-abiding firearm owners
  In your eyes perhaps, but not in the eyes of the gun holding public.
3. Re:stupid by Shakrai · 2014-06-16 09:09 · Score: 0
  
  to allow the sources of illegally used firearms to be determined
  Because criminals would never think to deface serial numbers. Oh, wait.....
  
  and make it easier for future governments to confiscate now banned firearms
  Fixed it for you.
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
4. Re:stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 09:09 · Score: 0
  
  That's because they get their 'facts' from Fox News. Who sued FOR the ability to lie to the public.
5. Re:stupid by CanHasDIY · 2014-06-16 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  That's because they get their 'facts' from Fox News.
  No, actually, we don't.
  FYI, quickest way to prove yourself wrong? Generalize about people you disagree with.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
6. Re:stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 12:52 · Score: 0
  
  As a matter of record, the number of gun deaths per year in the USA is actually very close to the number of traffic deaths. The two have been converging for years, and are on a trajectory to cross over (gun deaths > traffic deaths) by the end of 2015.
  Citation.
7. Re:stupid by david_thornley · 2014-06-17 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  And a large number of drivers seem to think that being restricted from texting while driving is not a minimal burden.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Mapping users with aids in cars is great.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 08:07 · Score: 0

Stop the disease lol.
Dear federal government: GTFO by nurb432 · 2014-06-16 08:09 · Score: 1

Of my life. Leave me the hell alone.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
1. Re:Dear federal government: GTFO by Walter+White · 2014-06-16 08:52 · Score: 2
  
  Your point would be better taken if you (and I mean the generic you, not you specifically) did not risk others lives by the actions that you take. I'd be perfectly happy to let you do whatever you wish in your vehicle but when a mistake on your part can kill me, then I'm happy to have the government interfere with your ability to do so.
2. Re:Dear federal government: GTFO by nurb432 · 2014-06-16 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  You assume i take actions that risk others. You assume wrong. My statement was not "let me continue to do this" my state meant was " get out of my life "
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
3. Re:Dear federal government: GTFO by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 09:54 · Score: 0
  
  Dear citizen: What are you gonna do about it, vote? Ha! Put your money where your mouth is.
  People are a waah waah, bad government waah waah. And then the Republicrats win the next election so close to unanimously, that you might as well just call it unanimous. You people are all talk, and quite reliably sell out in the voting booth, every single time.
Just what we need! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 08:10 · Score: 0

The federal government will have its grubby fat fingers in even more pies? Fan-friggin-tastic.
He's Right by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 08:11 · Score: 0

We have enormous amount of regulation on this subject from the FAA already, and it has been demonstrated to save lives. Done adequately, this regulation will save more lives than are lost to guns in the US each year.
My Ford does it fine by kannibal_klown · 2014-06-16 08:12 · Score: 3, Informative

I may have issues with my Ford, but I think they got it right in terms of Navigation. I have little-to-no reason to have to look at my media center. Everything is done by voice (including asking for an address) and the next-step-direction-guide is on my speedometer where I have to glance on occasion anyway.
The only improvement I can think of is a really small projection on the windshield saying "Turn right in 0.7 miles onto Main st"
All voice controlled, so I don't have to even try typing while driving (if I were so inclined). Click my tumb-button on the steering wheel and say "Destination Address" and then state the address when prompted.
The system's voice prompts me on where to turn, and when. Including the street names and exit number.
And instead of having to look too far down at my media player (which I COULD), instead there is a mini direction-reminder on my speedometer. Just saying the name of the next turn's street, distance, and a left-arrow / right-arrow / etc. Since I tend to have to glance down at that every couple of minutes anyway it's no big deal.
No fuss, no typing, no looking too far away from the windshield.
1. Re:My Ford does it fine by MildlyTangy · 2014-06-16 08:48 · Score: 2
  
  unless you miss hearing the last instruction due to external factors or voice text to speech mispronounciation....no nav unit ive seen allows you to just say "say it again" or something, and have the last voice instruction repeated without having to look at and physically interact with the nav unit while driving.
2. Re:My Ford does it fine by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 09:07 · Score: 0
  
  unless you miss hearing the last instruction due to external factors or voice text to speech mispronounciation....no nav unit ive seen allows you to just say "say it again" or something, and have the last voice instruction repeated without having to look at and physically interact with the nav unit while driving.
  That's why there is a "mini direction-reminder" on the speedometer.
3. Re:My Ford does it fine by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 15:54 · Score: 0
  
  no nav unit ive seen allows you to just say "say it again" or something, and have the last voice instruction repeated without having to look at and physically interact with the nav unit while driving.
  The voice command "Repeat" will cause most voice-enabled Garmin-based GPS systems (portable PNDs, or some Chrysler cars) to re-speak the last guidance direction.
  Of course, it is much quicker and less distracting to quickly glance at the banner at the top of the screen telling you the next turn rather than pushing the Push-To-Talk button, waiting for the voice prompt, then speaking "Repeat," but it is possible to get it all through voice.
4. Re:My Ford does it fine by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 17:20 · Score: 0
  
  My Ford is a piece of shit. Voice recognition doesn't work. And it disables the keyboard so the passenger can't input directions.
5. Re:My Ford does it fine by kannibal_klown · 2014-06-17 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  Umm, my current 2011 Ford has this. Heck my older 2006 GM car had this.
  On my 2011 Ford I have like 4 buttons next to both thumbs on my steering wheel. Pressing one with my right thumb will repeat the next step in the directions, with the updated distance. Including stating the street name.
  On my 2006 GM, there was a button on the dash easily reachable, without needing to look at the dash, that did the same thing. Except the "dictionary" on that car wasn't as great so it wouldn't say the names of all roads outside of the obvious / easy ones like exit numbers, Main st, or other simple words.
  Meanwhile, as I said, the mini next-step instructions are on my speedometer on my Ford. Arrow (left/right) street name / x miles.
Can this apply to billboards too? by MobyDisk · 2014-06-16 08:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Can we also get rid of animating billboards? Those slideshow transitions are distracting when driving since the brain pays attention to movement.
1. Re:Can this apply to billboards too? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  Or radio ads with horns/sirens.
2. Re:Can this apply to billboards too? by hurfy · 2014-06-16 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  LOL, Salvation Army sign is full-color animated display consisting of Name, Time, and Temp. Didn't know they really needed to drum up new business and a totally unneeded use of color/motion not to mention money. Maybe it is there to create a few more poor disabled people :/
3. Re:Can this apply to billboards too? by CanHasDIY · 2014-06-16 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  Especially the ones with the super-bright LEDs. Those things damn near give me seizures, and I'm not even epileptic.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
4. Re:Can this apply to billboards too? by Richy_T · 2014-06-16 14:58 · Score: 1
  
  Those are the worst. Makes me mad.
Cue Mr. Heston by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 08:17 · Score: 0

'You can have my map aid/gps when you can pry it from my cold dead fingers, Mr. President...'
1. Re:Cue Mr. Heston by aix+tom · 2014-06-16 08:50 · Score: 2
  
  Ah, but Mr. Heston could shoot people trying to take his gun. You could only throw your map aid/gps at them. ;-> (OK, Or possibly run them over with your car)
First ever car video game by MobyDisk · 2014-06-16 08:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

The NHTSA has finally caught up with me.
Around 2001 or so I rigged a pair of laptops with GPS and Wifi (high tech!) so they relayed coordinates to each other and ran a star-trek esque battle game. The passenger would hold the laptop which showed the opponents position and shields as well as weapons fire. They would feed information to the driver who would dodge virtual torpedoes.
A few friends of mine tested this out, but I abandoned the project because this surely would have killed people.
1. Re:First ever car video game by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-17 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah that's only potentially safe in a wide open area like salt flats or something. With obvious rules that prevent you from going too close to other cars.
I don't have problem with this... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 08:21 · Score: 0

Probably a good idea to set standards like this. I do, however, realize the libertarians will be positively howling over this and the tea partiers will think it's part of some secret Obama plot to force eveyone to convert to Islam or something.
Need law against contrived, misleading law titles by mbeckman · 2014-06-16 08:24 · Score: 1

The "Grow America Act"? Sheesh! That worse than the Patriot Act. I propose a bill entitled "Stop The Idiotically Forced Law Embellishments".
Easy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 08:25 · Score: 1

Just disable the screen but keep the voice instruction on while the car is on drive. That would be a reasonable measure.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2014-06-16 08:29 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Just what we need. by X-Ray+Artist · 2014-06-16 08:36 · Score: 0

We are going to allow ourselves to be regulated into oblivion.

--
I would have a sig but I am too busy updating programs and restarting my computer
More big brother by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 08:37 · Score: 0

To best evaluate the issues with these apps, "anonymized" location data shall be collected. The government database will anonymize, the developer can send the raw user info....
Re:Need law against contrived, misleading law titl by orion205 · 2014-06-16 08:41 · Score: 1

The "Grow America Act"? Sheesh! That worse than the Patriot Act. I propose a bill entitled "Stop The Idiotically Forced Law Embellishments".
Come on, you know that STIFLE would never make it out of committee...
Interaction Times by MildlyTangy · 2014-06-16 08:45 · Score: 2

Please dont do stupid things like regulate that these devices must disable user interaction when the vehicle is travelling over a speed limit.
Unless the device can accurately detect if there is a passenger or not. This "safety feature" of my cars factory nav/media unit drives me up the wall...the passengers! the passengers! why wont *somebody* please think of the passengers!
1. Re:Interaction Times by Arker · 2014-06-16 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  "Unless the device can accurately detect if there is a passenger or not." She prefers to be called the 'navigator.'
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:Can they start regulating back-seat driving, to by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 08:47 · Score: 1

Not to mention..if one needs a map in michigan, one only needs to use one's hand.....
Welcome to the new USA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 08:48 · Score: 0

Land of the insufficiently regulated, and home of knee-jerk reflexive.
I'm curious: to those of you who think this is a good idea, which car manufacturer is it that you think is trying to kill its customers by poor map design? If there is none, why is such a law necessary? If it's not car manufacturers, which GPS manufacturers are these murderers? Not them either? Then cellphones... is there going to be some kind of federally mandated "driving mode", or is the age of being free to be able to code whatever you want onto your phone dead forever because you weenies think that it MIGHT save some jackass who's trying his best to win a Darwin Award - and consequences for everyone be damned [and the death of portal/wearable computing be damned too]?
America, what have you become? And why are you not ashamed of yourselves?
For Republicans,... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 08:57 · Score: 0

it's always about making government bigger and adding more control. It's just yet another power grab for the Republicans.
1. Re:For Republicans,... by 517714 · 2014-06-16 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, a Republican power grab sounds very plausible. We were all just wondering when the President would let his true colors show.
  From the second link: "Earlier this year in St. Paul, Minnesota, President Obama and Secretary Foxx promised to present Congress with a multi-year surface transportation reauthorization proposal, and with the unveiling of The GROW AMERICA Act today, they have fulfilled that promise." It is the first sentence on the web page.
  IDIOT!
  
  --
  The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Re:Can they start regulating back-seat driving, to by houghi · 2014-06-16 09:00 · Score: 1

Sure it can Hell, MI 48169
FYI if you add &output=classic at the end of the URL, you get back the old Google Maps. Don't you love it how they change things around all the time?

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
They will take the easy way out... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 09:12 · Score: 0

UI not to function while device is in motion.
Done, and done.
1. Re:They will take the easy way out... by 517714 · 2014-06-16 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  Solution on my smartphone: 1) Turn off GPS 2) Enter data into UI 3) Turn GPS on. It would add about ten seconds to the process since I have a widget to make it easier.
  
  --
  The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
What about map data? by Joe_Dragon · 2014-06-16 09:17 · Score: 1

They should fix it even more so with auto drive cars.
so you can not get lost in Death Valley
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/26/...
directs drivers to trun on to runway at an airport
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/20...
The road looked clear, at low tide - but the map forgot to show the 9 miles of water and mud between the island and the mainland
http://news.yahoo.com/gps-trac...
takes goat trail up mountain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
sending cars down an private road that has no thru access.
Re:Interaction Times - someone has by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 09:32 · Score: 0

My Garmin Quest (cica 2005) came with a default setting to disable user input when the car is moving. It was easily disabled from the menu so a passenger (or a distracted driver) could enter commands. Just saying common sense would allow (and has allowed) overriding the UI block when moving.
Re:Can they start regulating back-seat driving, to by suutar · 2014-06-16 09:36 · Score: 1

And (infrequently) a stuffed rabbit.
Re:Can they start regulating back-seat driving, to by Warhawke · 2014-06-16 09:58 · Score: 1

Mine does. Hell is pretty common for most all GPS units and apps, nowadays. Although it's actually pronounced "Detroit."
Great Timing by 517714 · 2014-06-16 10:08 · Score: 1

They waited until the competition was (largely) eliminated by smartphone apps, and Google and Apple were finally in a position to start monetizing the service again (you used to pay for navigation hardware and/or programs) so we will undoubtedly see worsening map quality since there won't be enough revenue for those greedy sumbitches once the regulations are slathered on.
Call your congress critter and tell him to think long and hard before voting for this act.

--
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Re:Can they start regulating back-seat driving, to by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 11:03 · Score: 0

Wait, your GPS can give directions to Hell?
Which country / US state?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell,_California
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell,_Michigan
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell,_Grand_Cayman
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell,_Norway
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hel,_Poland
Protectionism by any other name by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-16 12:58 · Score: 0

What's the betting the regulations, when they're finally drafted, will (entirely coincidentally, of course) make US-branded GPS aids legal and imported ones (Navman, Tomtom) illegal?
I don't know for sure, but I'm 84% confident that a regulation like this is just begging to be hijacked by special interests as a way to cut down their own competition.
Re:Google's Turn-by-Turn Voice Instructions by Richy_T · 2014-06-16 15:02 · Score: 1

Depends where you are. There's a few places here where being able to see where you're actually supposed to be going is essential and at least one or two where even if you do, you can still end up on the wrong road. Tom Tom's lane guidance can be helpful there.
Re:Interaction Times - someone has by Richy_T · 2014-06-16 15:03 · Score: 1

common sense
Which is why we need to keep government the heck away from this.
Exactly what the name implies by QilessQi · 2014-06-16 15:46 · Score: 1

The GROW AMERICA Act, or Generating Renewal, Opportunity, and Work with Accelerated Mobility, Efficiency, and Rebuilding of Infrastructure and Communities throughout America, will do exactly what its name implies...
...cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, merely for the time that public officials have spent devising its cutesy yet vague, forgettable, and [therefore] pointless acronym.

--
Koans and fables for the software engineer
hidden bullshit by AndyKron · 2014-06-17 00:21 · Score: 1

I wonder what other bullshit is hidden away in the Grow America Act?
Enough Already! by gelfling · 2014-06-17 00:40 · Score: 1

Just pass a fucking law outlawing driving and forcing everyone to employ a Federal civil servant to drive your car for you.
Yawn by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-17 01:18 · Score: 0

Headlines: "US Government agency decides to give itself the power to do what it wants!"
Is this kind of thing even news anymore?