Yep that's us--maybe half of us have CS degrees.

The funny thing is that the pushback is coming from the "regular" development folks. At least we're using git too :)

I am on an on-call schedule for a hospital and i need to be able to answer my phone when it rings, even if I'm driving. If I don't, it may negatively effect people in a real way. I can pull over, and doing so on the freeway may be more dangerous than simply answering the call. My reason for posting this post is to help understand how folks are using hands free technology and other strategies to stay safe while also doing what they need to do. Entertainment is there too because I, honestly, want to get better at not being distracted while driving, I have terrible ADHD.

I didn't mean to offend with my response above, pardon me. I was trying to understand how this ties into other equity vs safety vs freedom topics more generally.

I don't think anyone thinks that folks should be recklessly endangering each other for no benefit but entertainment. People do endanger themselves and others for all kinds of reasons, including entertainment--folks motorcycle in the rain, they drive tall heavy cars, they don't run their headlights 100% of the time, etc.--should all of these things be illegal too, because they are less safe than convenient alternatives? Is that "reckless endangerment"? Honestly, I would probably say yes--but it's not like I'm an expert.

If we say "there is 0 tolerance for making our roads less safe", even for "good" reasons, then why not say men under 24 may not drive, and anyone over 80 can't drive at all. The safest thing for everyone would be to never drive, and that seems silly to say...not that I wouldn't love to walk to work, my kids' preschool, and the grocery.