Comments on: Garmin: Chat, Navigate and Steer — But Don’t Drive Distracted

By: bc

bc — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:10:45 +0000

lawyers signing off on something does nothing to protect that company from a lawsuit, it’s not a shield. If that were true, as you said in reverse, no company would ever be subject to a lawsuit.

By: The Dynamic Mumeshantz

The Dynamic Mumeshantz — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:02:34 +0000

Kaja – surprise! – lawyers sign off on things incorrectly all the time.

This ad is bad. The problem is every driver thinks distracted driving is something all the other drivers do. We don’t need to add more and more items that distract the driver.

By: Kaja

Kaja — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:55:25 +0000

> I any event, if Kaja is right that the lawyers “signed off on it”

Every single ad which airs is reviewed by the lawyers. There is not a single ad that’s not. This happens systematically because otherwise, lawsuits like you describe would be flying in every direction. Advertising agencies have their own counsel, as do the clients, making for double review.

Driving, I spend at least 20% of my time checking mirrors and glancing into the periphery of my vision; far more when I’m making a turn. Often I turn my head to check a blindspot, taking my eyes “off the road” for far longer than Miss Garmin here does. Having a heated argument with a passenger is more dangerous.

She doesn’t narrow her field of vision, she narrows her focus. Go look at an object forty feet away, and note what you can see in your periphery; then hold your finger up in front of your face, don’t turn your head, and note what you can see in your periphery. Hint: THE SAME THINGS.

This is specious whining and makes us all look bad.

By: cochon

cochon — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:22:47 +0000

i read that texting while driving increases the chance for an accident by 23 times. i wonder what the odds are for gpsing and driving.

and if someone is yelling at their significant other on their cell phone, because they are late to so an so’s party and simultaneously using the gps to figure out how to get there, what then are the odds? 100 times more likely.

By: gecko

gecko — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:21:48 +0000

Small vehicles are much more suitable for electronic devices like this since people can easily stop and use them safely.

GPS and with electronic communications, data processing, etc. are perfect for networked small vehicle in systems with lots of hands free-automation.

By: BicyclesOnly

BicyclesOnly — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 06:42:58 +0000

I think Mark’s spot on; that screenshot above would be damning in the eyes of a jury regardless of any clever arguments about how putting the distraction in the field of vision is less disruptive. And what about the fact that it has a touch screen–using that pretty much requires the driver to narrow her field of vision to the screen, so that eye and hand can coordinate. She is expected to use residual or peripheral vision during this maneuver to avoid a crash, hmmm?

In any event, if Kaja is right that the lawyers “signed off on it”–which I highly doubt–then the company can turn around sue them for malpractice, but it won’t stop the products liability suits against the company.

By: Kaja

Kaja — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:40:03 +0000

Oh please. The passenger answers the call, and the thing’s mounted in her field of view, precisely where it’ll least obstruct her view.

> every single choice, down to the tiniest detail, has been considered and discussed.

Yes the lawyers signed off on it, that’s why you won’t be able to “sue this company into oblivion.”

By: ddartley

ddartley — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:11:13 +0000

In commercials, every single choice, down to the tiniest detail, has been considered and discussed. The fact that they chose to show the driver *actually taking her eyes off the road while driving* shows some astounding gall, or perhaps astounding ignorance shared by the many people who had authority over the content of this spot. Shame on Garmin and their ad agency.

By: Mark Walker

Mark Walker — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:43:15 +0000

Memo to personal-injury lawyers: Put this on your radar. You can make serious money from this. When this product is implicated in a crash involving fatal or life-changing injuries — as it inevitably will — that will be your moment to shine. Take this commercial into court and sue this company into oblivion. Let the legal feeding frenzy begin. Bon appetit!