Laws against cell phone use while driving can’t curb teen texters

“Distracted driving” laws mean fewer injuries, but haven't solved the problem.

Read the whole story

 

[tpl]

I would think that a modern car with Bluetooth should have enough spare computing power to be able to a) read text messages to you...that is easy and b) enable you to speak something like text: message to contact name or number and let the electronics in the car and in the phone do the work.

Shouldn't need much compute to do this.

 

[tkioz]

I know people that can't put their phone down while they take a dump, let alone while drive.

I don't know why the feel the need to constantly be connected.

 

[KitsuneKnight]

There is technology to block cell phone use - why not make that mandatory in all cars such that the cell signal will be defeated if the engine is running. Sure, there are rare instances, such as "unintended" acceleration, where the driver might want to call for help, but compare the number of those to the deaths/accidents caused by mindless use of cells while driving - the math is compelling.

Considering the low number of cell phone induced fatalities each year (400 in 2011, according to the numbers in this article), your proposal would almost certainly result in an increase in the number of deaths each year. Whether it's due to more distraction from bored passengers, the jammer remaining online after an accident occurred, or many other scenarios.

Quite frankly, I'm shocked that there's so few deaths. There's likely many easier things we can do to save even more lives than going after cell phone usage (but it wouldn't be as sexy... we fixate on unlikely but scary things, like shark attacks, over common things).

 

[alevin]

Distracted driving is a problem. The source of distraction is a red herring. Banning devices leads to incoherence like making it legal to look at directions on paper but not on a tablet.

Today, if a driver hits someone, it is considered an unfortunate "accident." If the driver was not intoxicated and didn't leave the scene, they get off with a slap on the wrist. Others empathize with the driver who had an unavoidable misfortune.

A car can be a deadly weapon, and a driver has a lot of responsibility to pay attention and not collide with other things and people. There should be a higher standard for paying attention, regardless of the source of distraction.

The commenter who said that speed is safe if the driver is skilled - that leaves out the fact that at a higher speed, the consequences of collision are more severe. If a driver hits a pedestrian or cyclist, the chance of death or serious injury are much higher at 45mph than at 20mph. And stopping time is longer at a higher speed. If something goes wrong - even if a pedestrian or cyclist does something unexpected - the driver will cause more damage if they are speeding, and that extra damage is caused by that driver's excess speed.

 

[Death_wish01]

does this include headset devices?

 

[AngryChris]

Distracted driving is a problem. The source of distraction is a red herring. Banning devices leads to incoherence like making it legal to look at directions on paper but not on a tablet.

Today, if a driver hits someone, it is considered an unfortunate "accident." If the driver was not intoxicated and didn't leave the scene, they get off with a slap on the wrist. Others empathize with the driver who had an unavoidable misfortune.

A car can be a deadly weapon, and a driver has a lot of responsibility to pay attention and not collide with other things and people. There should be a higher standard for paying attention, regardless of the source of distraction.

The commenter who said that speed is safe if the driver is skilled - that leaves out the fact that at a higher speed, the consequences of collision are more severe. If a driver hits a pedestrian or cyclist, the chance of death or serious injury are much higher at 45mph than at 20mph. And stopping time is longer at a higher speed. If something goes wrong - even if a pedestrian or cyclist does something unexpected - the driver will cause more damage if they are speeding, and that extra damage is caused by that driver's excess speed.

While your comments on speeding are objectively true (you do more damage if you collide at 45 MPH than 20 MPH), you're using an extreme example. Your 45 MPH is 120% faster than the speed limit. Most folks I know that get pulled over for speeding are pulled over for such egregious infractions as going 80 MPH in 70 MPH zone (a mere 14% over the speed limit). Are you suggesting that driving 80 MPH in a 70 MPH zone rises to the level of danger posed by traveling at 45 MPH in a 20 MPH zone? Do you believe these 2 incidents of speeding are equally unsafe? Or do you feel there is perhaps some nuance involved here?

 

[mrtsherman]

I'll throw in my two cents.

To those who think texting isn't dangerous or unproven to be dangerous.

Text messaging creates a crash risk 23 times worse than driving while not distracted
http://www.distraction.gov/research/PDF ... ations.pdf

Drivers using hand-held devices are four times more likely to get into serious accidents.
http://www.distraction.gov/research/PDF ... saging.pdf

Sending or receiving a text takes a driver's eyes from the road for an average of 4.6 seconds, the equivalent-at 55 mph-of driving the length of an entire football field, blind.

To those who think we don't need a texting specific law.

I am also not fond of adding redundant or additional laws to the books. However, the texting specific laws have an important function. They draw attention to a specific public safety issue. Think of as more like advertising than anything else. This topic recently came up in the ban on Google Glass thread. If texting/cell phone use had been banned or regulated before they were popularized, then it would have helped to establish a societal norm that it wasn't okay. I think that we could have foreseen the danger as we have known for ages that distracted driving is dangerous. Instead, everyone is used to it. It is hard to stop and change that attitude. It will take a long time.

To those who think they text safely at a light.

You don't. Nobody does. Just two weeks ago I saw a girl texting at a light. She glanced up, saw green, and went. Except she ran over a pedestrian (in Boston you can have a green and a walk, cars must yield). Personally, as a biker I see stoplight texting as a danger. The driver is unlikely to notice you silently pull up next to their car. They can turn into you because they don't know what's going on around them. Personally I have dodged being rear ended as I saw a car approaching too fast in my rear view mirror. No chance I would have caught it if on my phone. How about emergency vehicles? Are you going to see them and get out of the way in a timely manner?
Part of the reason there aren't more accidents is NOBODY wants them. If two people are paying attention, accidents should be exceedingly rare. If only one is not paying attention it becomes much more dangerous. If two people aren't paying attention (even a stopped one) then we are doomed. In fact, it is the law that you try and avoid an accident. You can't just say, "I had right of way", not yield, and barrel into someone else breaking the law. Otherwise I would have driven my Saab into a car parked in a fire lane six months after I got it.

 

[abhi_beckert]

These laws will simply push people to try and text discretely by doing it in their lap. Further taking their eyes off the road.

Dunno why you're getting downvoted. Your comment is spot on.

Like most traffic offences, I think putting a fine on something is the wrong approach. We need better education about how to drive safely, not more rules.

Most traffic laws are over-broad in order to make enforcement easier, and when you have something that is illegal (such as going 76 in a 75 zone) even when it's perfectly safe (1mph over the speed limit is not dangerous driving), you end up with people who ignore the rules altogether (and then they go 85 in a 75 zone, which is dangerous).

If an officer sees someone on the phone, he should pull them over and give them a safety lecture. That would have more impact than a fine. If they do it repeatedly or get involved in a crash while distracted, then send them off to a court and let the judge decide what is appropriate.

 

[alevin]

Sure there is nuance. Also, the 70mph road is a limited access highway where there aren't going to be any vulnerable cyclists and pedestrians.

The cases that I am most familiar with occur on arterial/collector streets in populated areas with plenty of pedestrians and cyclists. Drivers often do this - drive 40-45 on streets marked for 20-30. One valuable solution is to redesign the streets so they no longer have affordances that make it seem appropriate to drive that fast, with narrower lanes, fewer lanes, and tighter turn radii.

But redesigning streets is expensive, and in the mean time, it is valuable for drivers to understand the safety hazards of seemingly harmless speeding.

 

[mrtsherman]

Distracted driving is a problem. The source of distraction is a red herring. Banning devices leads to incoherence like making it legal to look at directions on paper but not on a tablet.

Today, if a driver hits someone, it is considered an unfortunate "accident." If the driver was not intoxicated and didn't leave the scene, they get off with a slap on the wrist. Others empathize with the driver who had an unavoidable misfortune.

A car can be a deadly weapon, and a driver has a lot of responsibility to pay attention and not collide with other things and people. There should be a higher standard for paying attention, regardless of the source of distraction.

The commenter who said that speed is safe if the driver is skilled - that leaves out the fact that at a higher speed, the consequences of collision are more severe. If a driver hits a pedestrian or cyclist, the chance of death or serious injury are much higher at 45mph than at 20mph. And stopping time is longer at a higher speed. If something goes wrong - even if a pedestrian or cyclist does something unexpected - the driver will cause more damage if they are speeding, and that extra damage is caused by that driver's excess speed.

While your comments on speeding are objectively true (you do more damage if you collide at 45 MPH than 20 MPH), you're using an extreme example. Your 45 MPH is 120% faster than the speed limit. Most folks I know that get pulled over for speeding are pulled over for such egregious infractions as going 80 MPH in 70 MPH zone (a mere 14% over the speed limit). Are you suggesting that driving 80 MPH in a 70 MPH zone rises to the level of danger posed by traveling at 45 MPH in a 20 MPH zone? Do you believe these 2 incidents of speeding are equally unsafe? Or do you feel there is perhaps some nuance involved here?

Percentages are an awful way to gauge the danger of speed. Stopping distance and damage is not a linear figure. A cars stopping distance increases geometrically with its velocity. They should have taught you this in drivers education class. At 80mph instead of 70mph your stopping distance is about 100ft further.

http://www.csgnetwork.com/stopdistinfo.html (see end of page)

 

[abhi_beckert]

The cases that I am most familiar with occur on arterial/collector streets in populated areas with plenty of pedestrians and cyclists. Drivers often do this - drive 40-45 on streets marked for 20-30. One valuable solution is to redesign the streets so they no longer have affordances that make it seem appropriate to drive that fast, with narrower lanes, fewer lanes, and tighter turn radii.

When I visited my uncle in germany, all the streets around his house were about 2 cars wide and they had recently put through a new law encouraging parking on *both* sides of the street as long as you don't completely stop traffic flow.

The end result is you constantly have to stop and wait for another car to drive past, unless they stop and let you past. It seems to work really well.

 

[godel]

There have been multiple pieces of research that all show the same thing, that just TALKING on a mobile phone degrades the driver's performance equal to having a blood alcohol concentration of .08%.

I think penalties for being caught should at least approximate being caught drink-driving.

Give the driver two hours to complete their current journey (to save the hassle of towing), then ban them from the road for a couple of months, as well as giving them a large fine plus demerit points.

 

[abhi_beckert]

There have been multiple pieces of research that all show the same thing, that just TALKING on a mobile phone degrades the driver's performance equal to having a blood alcohol concentration of .08%.

I think penalties for being caught should at least approximate being caught drink-driving.

I think those studies are bullshit.

When you are drunk your driving ability is effected for the entire duration of the drive. When you talk on the phone you can put the phone down and react to a difficult situation.

I was once booked for using a phone while stopped at a red light. I was just telling someone I was driving and would call them back, and hung up before the light turned green. There were no other cars anywhere in sight except for one unmarked patrol car (it was late at night). What I was doing was stupid, I should have just ignored it, but I don't think I was doing anything dangerous.

 

[PeterJennings]

It will never ever ever be eliminated. Just like speeding.

The availability of affordable self-driving cars will eventually solve both these problems. It will work because it doesn't try to stop people from doing what they want to do, but by allowing them to stop doing what they obviously would rather not be doing (controlling the vehicle).

I'm not holding my breath that I will see that anytime soon. If you grew up in the 1960's you would have expected flying cars by now (as impractical as such a thing may be). We've seen improvements in emissions and safety in the 50 years since, but a decrease in over-all quality. Very recently American car companies have started to care about MPG, but if you were to compare economy European and Japanese cars from 50 years ago you will find MPG has taken a back seat to acceleration, and top speeds of 120-150 mph. WHY IS THAT EVEN NESSISARY?

Speeding is a cultural problem, and fast driving is promoted in all car advertising. I would be surprised if the majority of the public would even accept self-driving cars, since they would most likely be more expensive than manual cars.

What's worse is that not only are we culturally conditioned to "go fast", we are also led to believe that our minds are capable of "true multitasking", which we are not. It will take generations to reduce these problems. I hope for the best, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[toyotabedzrock]

Why does the article say teen texters? According to the article the adults are pretty bad all by themselves.

Stop attacking youth and you might actually get them to listen.

 

[AngryChris]

Sure there is nuance. Also, the 70mph road is a limited access highway where there aren't going to be any vulnerable cyclists and pedestrians.

The cases that I am most familiar with occur on arterial/collector streets in populated areas with plenty of pedestrians and cyclists. Drivers often do this - drive 40-45 on streets marked for 20-30. One valuable solution is to redesign the streets so they no longer have affordances that make it seem appropriate to drive that fast, with narrower lanes, fewer lanes, and tighter turn radii.

But redesigning streets is expensive, and in the mean time, it is valuable for drivers to understand the safety hazards of seemingly harmless speeding.

On this point, we agree completely. I'm often frustrated on 4 - 6 lane divided roads without intersections where a town has deemed the "safe" speed limt to be 35 - 45 MPH. It certainly makes you feel you're moving at a snail's pace.

 

[AngryChris]

Percentages are an awful way to gauge the danger of speed. Stopping distance and damage is not a linear figure. A cars stopping distance increases geometrically with its velocity. They should have taught you this in drivers education class. At 80mph instead of 70mph your stopping distance is about 100ft further.

http://www.csgnetwork.com/stopdistinfo.html (see end of page)

I don't agree that percentages are an awful way to guage the danger. According to this page, the increase in stopping distance in good conditions is 85 feet, or an increase of 27%. That said, I'll also submit that on the stretch of I-435 I travel each morning to the office, if you are traveling at the posted speed limit of 65 MPH, you are a road hazard and are more likely to cause an accident. When I've driven around the outskirts of Atlanta or Chicago, going the posted speed limit is evidence of a suicide wish. What is actually safe is not blind adherance to the posted speed limit but in traveling at a speed that integrates well into the overall flow of traffic. On the aforementioned stretch of highway (I-435) that speed is between 70 and 75 MPH shortly after morning rush hour.

 

[flibbidyfloo]

What really surprised me was that only 11 percent of the fatalities related to distracted driving involved cell phones. I had ignorantly assumed it was much higher.

What are the other 89% from? Makeup? Food? Kids?

If we can't eliminate the problems caused by those other non-technological distractions I don't know what hope there is in stopping cell phone distractions either.

 

[arsIdentity97]

PROBLEM: The article says the laws aren't working. People (especially the younger generation) are glued to their phones these days.
This is all to do with *the way* people use their phones, which implies there is a design solution to the problem that is killing people; however, the mobile phone companies (both handset manufacturers and the networks) don't want to get involved (because of the threat of lawsuits?).

SOLUTION(?) Instead of evermore draconian laws to hit the end-users. We need something to force mobile phones to have the features to end this problem.
I suggest you don't need to disable the handset but instead...
1) phone automatically switches itself into travel mode based on movement (eg. if it goes faster than 26 mph you *MUST* be in/on a vehicle).
2) phone automatically switches itself OUT of travel mode based on movement (eg. if it goes to walking pace or slower for more than 3 minutes).
3) In travel mode, before making/receiving a call/text, you have to confirm you're either not the driver OR there is a life-threatening emergency (LTE).

Sure people may be able to press 'LTE' but at least now the phone says 'stop - what you are tying do do is an offense'.

If the networks could be brought on-board, how difficult to implement a send to voicemail as standard when travelling (NB: this would be voicemail as a part of the functionality of the phone system, to help prevent accidents, NOT a separably billable feature).
Other suggestions? callback in 5 minutes (i.e. network calls phone 2, when phone 2 picks up, network calls phone 1).

The technology to do this is all in place now! It needs to be put onto phones IMO.

 

[printing724]

For too long, we have allowed distractions to occur in automobiles and brushed it off. Now we regard the automobile as an extension of our living room, office, or kitchen without contemplating the consequences. Whether the distraction is the cell phone, map, a Big Mac, makeup, or kids yelling in the back seat doesn't matter.

The reality is that the driver's seat of a car is the operating cab of a piece of heavy machinery that is perfectly capable of killing someone else or its occupants if not operated correctly.

I have a modest proposal. Drivers with bad records (accidents, lots of tickets, DUI, etc.) should be required to place signage on any vehicle they operate that is visible from all sides and at night. The required signage could be color coded to indicate the severity of hazard presented by the driver. Regardless, other drivers would be warned that they are in close proximity to someone with a poor driving record and adjust their own actions accordingly.

The signage should be obnoxious and ugly, legally defined as to size /color/placement, and the penalty for operating a vehicle without the required signage should be at thirty days in county, no excuses.

Maybe people will think twice about driving habits if we make them look like dorks for a couple of years.

 

[arkiel]

Laws that ban texting while driving just encourage evasive behavior. Keeping phones below the dash keep cops from seeing it also ensures that your eyes are entirely off the road. If we were all able to keep our phones above the dash, we'd at least be able to see a bit of the road.

Meanwhile, cops are only able to effectively enforce these laws by ticketing people using their phones at stop signs and stop lights. So the people using their phones in a much more responsible manner are the ones getting punished, while the fuckwits blow by, unobservable, at 65 miles an hour.

 

[EtrnL_Frost]

Percentages are an awful way to gauge the danger of speed. Stopping distance and damage is not a linear figure. A cars stopping distance increases geometrically with its velocity. They should have taught you this in drivers education class. At 80mph instead of 70mph your stopping distance is about 100ft further.

http://www.csgnetwork.com/stopdistinfo.html (see end of page)

I don't agree that percentages are an awful way to guage the danger. According to this page, the increase in stopping distance in good conditions is 85 feet, or an increase of 27%. That said, I'll also submit that on the stretch of I-435 I travel each morning to the office, if you are traveling at the posted speed limit of 65 MPH, you are a road hazard and are more likely to cause an accident. When I've driven around the outskirts of Atlanta or Chicago, going the posted speed limit is evidence of a suicide wish. What is actually safe is not blind adherance to the posted speed limit but in traveling at a speed that integrates well into the overall flow of traffic. On the aforementioned stretch of highway (I-435) that speed is between 70 and 75 MPH shortly after morning rush hour.

You're getting to the core of it here. The problem is less about absolute speed and more about relative speed. Flow of traffic and road conditions. Safe to say that "speeding" as defined by posted road signs tends to be a poor reinforcement of what needs to be looked at - relative unsafe speeds. Unfortunately, unless the speed signs can alter their limits based on environments, presence of pedestrians/non-motor vehicles, environment, driver skill capability and car capability (as well as maintenance history), fat chance, right?

I agree with you though. It's relative speed that's the problem, not speeding in and of itself. 40 in a school zone is reckless and should be enforced properly. 60 and sitting in the left lane of a 4+ lane highway with a 55mph limit where everyone is doing 80 (or higher!) and you're just as dangerous, if not more so. Get them out of the left lane, or have them keep up with the flow of traffic.

It's always surprising to see how this affects inclement weather, too. I'm always surprised at how people continue to drive at bumper to bumper distances regardless of speeds and weather conditions. Following distance needs to be enforced, I would think, moreso than speed.

Regarding the original topic, I too think that the texting is only part of the problem. Distraction definitely is the problem, but how does one go about that? Mayhaps one day car keys/key fobs/non-keys will be replaced by phone apps that can start your car's engine at the expense of disabling inbound/outbound calls/texts.

 

[grimlog]

When I've driven around the outskirts of Atlanta or Chicago, going the posted speed limit is evidence of a suicide wish.

I've never understood why people say this. If the everyone driving on the highway is paying attention, why would cars going at the speed limit pose any danger to themselves or to others? If you come across some one driving slower than you, slow down or overtake. Saying that driving at the speed limit or slower on a highway is dangerous is silly or an excuse by drivers who don't pay attention. What happens if the car in front of you has a blown tire and suddenly slows down? Everyone should be paying enough attention and keeping a large enough distance to be able to slow down when that happens.

 

[Dyskresiac]

I'm waiting for a law to ban passengers. Especially kids in the car.

Seriously. A cell phone doesn't even hold a candle to having a wife and kids in the car with you.

 

[AngryChris]

When I've driven around the outskirts of Atlanta or Chicago, going the posted speed limit is evidence of a suicide wish.

I've never understood why people say this. If the everyone driving on the highway is paying attention, why would cars going at the speed limit pose any danger to themselves or to others? If you come across some one driving slower than you, slow down or overtake. Saying that driving at the speed limit or slower on a highway is dangerous is silly or an excuse by drivers who don't pay attention. What happens if the car in front of you has a blown tire and suddenly slows down? Everyone should be paying enough attention and keeping a large enough distance to be able to slow down when that happens.

Because "driving along the road" is a communal effort. It's not just "you paying attention" that keeps everyone safe. The fact of the matter is that road rage happens, and people do crazy dangrous things when they're pissed off by slow drivers. I've seen more than one horrific accident as it happened due to road rage. People darting in and out of traffic because "these idiots are too slow and won't move over" to people cutting each other off because "by god, this jerk isn't going to get ahead of me." Should everyone be driving safely? Sure. Does everyone drive safely? Absolutely not. And when "the general flow of traffic" is +10 over the posted speed limit, then you had best be going 10 MPH over the posted speed limit.

If you can't fathom "why people say this," then I'd offer that perhaps you aren't paying enough attention to the behavior of others when you're driving down the highway. (While this is said with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek, in all seriousness, just look around you while driving and you'll see why driving against the "general flow of traffic" is extremely unsafe.)

 

[joos2000]

In Australia, where road laws and enforcement isn't federal, New South Wales brought in shockingly sensible legislation last year. It actually concedes that people can use their phone's while driving and sets up ramification for how it can be used without running afoul of the law. Details here:

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/dr ... index.html

In short though, if you want to initiate or answer a call, it (the phone) must have a function where you can do so without touching the phone or that you have the phone fixed in the car in a mount that is specifically designed for that purpose.

Texting and other abstract interactions that require you to focus on the phone rather than driving is still a big no.

 

[Bob.Brown]

My 2000lb+ vehicle is in perfect control sitting at 0 mph during a stop light.

Really?!? Why are the people behind you leaning on their horns and pointing at the green light?

 

[Gooberslot]

Why not just take away their cars if they're caught texting? If I went outside and started recklessly shooting off a gun I'm pretty sure they wouldn't let me keep the gun. So, if people can't behave responsibly with a potentially deadly weapon like a car why should they get to keep the car.

 

[Bob.Brown]

I'm waiting for a law to ban passengers. Especially kids in the car.

Seriously. A cell phone doesn't even hold a candle to having a wife and kids in the car with you.

I think that's not true. A spouse, and to a certain extent, kids, have situational awareness. The phone? Not so much.

 

[chris2kari]

There is nothing inherently wrong with driving at a fast speed.

Disagree.
The faster you travel the shorter your reaction time & braking distance.
The faster you travel the less safe it is.

 

[mhall1]

Personally, I think that if you're at fault in an accident then it should be determined if you had recently been SENDING texts. The carriers should make some sort of facility available to law enforcement for such purposes.

It should only tell them what time a text was sent, no other information, and there should be considerable oversight. But in my opinion it has to be done, too many people are getting hurt or worse. I have a friend whose twice rear ended someone (VERY minor) because he was texting, and he still doesn't get it.

It would be a tough sell in today's privacy conscientious environment, but it's needed. I'm also very concerned about privacy going forward with technology, so I think it would have to be limited to (Text Sent: 4:08pm), something like that.

Then, send out texts while driving and cause an accident and you don't get to drive for a while. Kill someone and go to jail.....

I'm more of a proponent of "throw them in jail for life if they're caught texting and driving". They're already acting is if texting is important enough to risk their lives over, so whats it matter if we just add a little more risk to the equation? If they value their lives, maybe they will be a little more careful with them.

Oh, and for all you Constitution buffs out there, its "cruel and unusual punishment". If you apply the law to everybody, its no longer unusual.

To all the semantics buffs out there, the use of "and" here equates to a logical OR and not an exclusive OR (XOR). This means a punishment fails the check and is forbidden if either conditon is true, regardless of the state of the other condition.

cruel = false, unusual = false, punishment allowed
cruel = false, unusual = true, punishment forbidden
cruel = true, unusual = false, punishment forbidden
cruel = true, unusual = true, punishment forbidden

This has been the reading of the text by the US Surpreme Court since time immemorial.

I'd like to see you back up your interpretation of this, then. And, please, you do not to explain truth tables to me. I'm not a five-year-old.

To me, the word "and" means "logical conjunction". If they wanted either "logical or" or "logical xor", they would have used "or".

 

[chris2kari]

In Australia, where road laws and enforcement isn't federal, New South Wales brought in shockingly sensible legislation last year. It actually concedes that people can use their phone's while driving and sets up ramification for how it can be used without running afoul of the law. Details here:

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/dr ... index.html

In short though, if you want to initiate or answer a call, it (the phone) must have a function where you can do so without touching the phone or that you have the phone fixed in the car in a mount that is specifically designed for that purpose.

Texting and other abstract interactions that require you to focus on the phone rather than driving is still a big no.

A sensible law. In other states of Australia it is just plain illegal.

On the Easter break I took my wife and kids on a driving/camping trip. Driving down the highway between Brisbane & the Gold Coast in heavy holiday traffic we became alarmed by the apalling driver behavior on display.

Almost all vehicles were exceeding the already generous speed limit of 110Km/h, almost all vehicles were tailgating each other at suicidaly close distances, many were weaving dangerously between lanes with only cm's of clearance from other vehicles in their frantic attempts to get ahead of other vehicles. Most disturbingly roughly 40% - 50% of drivers were holding a smart phone up on their steering wheel and activlely using it at the same time as high speed tailgating! These people were TXT'ing/IM'ing/Fb'ing etc. Just apalling.

We did not see one police vehicle enforing a traffic law the entire 4 day week end in about 800 km's of driving.

In the same way that sealt belts and air bags have become mandatory I predict that proximity sensing devices that brake the car automatically as being inevitable.

It's socialy accetpable to be a homicidal lunatic when in a motor vehicle.
What to do?

 

[amvakar]

There is nothing inherently wrong with driving at a fast speed.

Disagree.
The faster you travel the shorter your reaction time & braking distance.
The faster you travel the less safe it is.

But you've just shown why speed doesn't have anything inherently dangerous about it. It's distance (and hence reaction time to something ahead) which is the important thing. If I tailgate someone doing 25 I'm not any safer than the person going 40 who is actually prepared when the car ahead slams on the breaks.

 

[chris2kari]

There is nothing inherently wrong with driving at a fast speed.

Disagree.
The faster you travel the shorter your reaction time & braking distance.
The faster you travel the less safe it is.

But you've just shown why speed doesn't have anything inherently dangerous about it. It's distance (and hence reaction time to something ahead) which is the important thing. If I tailgate someone doing 25 I'm not any safer than the person going 40 who is actually prepared when the car ahead slams on the breaks.

You're kidding your self and you are so worng.
You should go attend a defensive driving course and be forced to attend a few 'fatals'.
Maybe that would wake you up.

 

[AngryChris]

Personally, I think that if you're at fault in an accident then it should be determined if you had recently been SENDING texts. The carriers should make some sort of facility available to law enforcement for such purposes.

It should only tell them what time a text was sent, no other information, and there should be considerable oversight. But in my opinion it has to be done, too many people are getting hurt or worse. I have a friend whose twice rear ended someone (VERY minor) because he was texting, and he still doesn't get it.

It would be a tough sell in today's privacy conscientious environment, but it's needed. I'm also very concerned about privacy going forward with technology, so I think it would have to be limited to (Text Sent: 4:08pm), something like that.

Then, send out texts while driving and cause an accident and you don't get to drive for a while. Kill someone and go to jail.....

I'm more of a proponent of "throw them in jail for life if they're caught texting and driving". They're already acting is if texting is important enough to risk their lives over, so whats it matter if we just add a little more risk to the equation? If they value their lives, maybe they will be a little more careful with them.

Oh, and for all you Constitution buffs out there, its "cruel and unusual punishment". If you apply the law to everybody, its no longer unusual.

To all the semantics buffs out there, the use of "and" here equates to a logical OR and not an exclusive OR (XOR). This means a punishment fails the check and is forbidden if either conditon is true, regardless of the state of the other condition.

cruel = false, unusual = false, punishment allowed
cruel = false, unusual = true, punishment forbidden
cruel = true, unusual = false, punishment forbidden
cruel = true, unusual = true, punishment forbidden

This has been the reading of the text by the US Surpreme Court since time immemorial.

I'd like to see you back up your interpretation of this, then. And, please, you do not to explain truth tables to me. I'm not a five-year-old.

To me, the word "and" means "logical conjunction". If they wanted either "logical or" or "logical xor", they would have used "or".

Sure, and I'll just point you to Wikipedia. I would be interested in where you get your interpretation that "if we just cut the fingers off everyone who picks their nose, it's no longer unusual," though. Since it's not unusual, it doesn't matter if it's cruel, we're good to go, right?

 

[gjas18]

It's going to solve problems as much as posting and enforcing speed limits do. People will speed. People will text. Make sure people are aware it is bad. Enforce without being an ass. Attitudes will change.

It will never ever ever be eliminated. Just like speeding.

The difference being speed is not inherently dangerous in a vehicle properly equipped/maintained with a trained driver behind the wheel. There's a reason it costs a lot of Euro/time to get a license and yearly vehicle inspections are required in Germany. Its an absolute pleasure to drive over there with very little of the idiocy you see on America's roads. Cruising at 100-110Mph is not unsafe when people are actually paying attention to the world around them and know the limits of their vehicle.

We need to ban handheld phone usage country wide just like they do; we all know its unsafe, its scientifically proven to be unsafe, we complain about all the other drivers being unsafe while doing it. What's the holdup? Impose a stiff enough fine and threaten to revoke the PRIVILEGE of driving and people will stop.

Edit: Before one of the people proclaiming speed kills, velocity isn't linear, etc says something about this. I have avoided accidents a few times at speeds ~100mph or so. One in particular I remember was a pile of bikes fell off of a car a few cars ahead of me. I braked and swerved around them successfully on winter tires with no warning. So did the other three cars in front of me. So tell me again how speed with proper distance is a problem?

Also when was the last time you saw a freeway that allowed bicycles, pedestrians, or vehicles incapable of a minimum speed?

 

[locolocol]

It's going to solve problems as much as posting and enforcing speed limits do. People will speed. People will text. Make sure people are aware it is bad. Enforce without being an ass. Attitudes will change.

It will never ever ever be eliminated. Just like speeding.

There is nothing inherently wrong with driving at a fast speed.

Bad, untrained, and incompetent drivers make speeding dangerous. But you can say those drivers are dangerous any time they get behind a wheel whether or not they speed.

To equate speeding and distracted driving is absurd.

LOL. Right. The human body wasn't really made for that but sure, if you think it's normal to go 'fast' then you keep believing that. There IS inherent danger in that, hence seatbelts, airbags, car design, etc. (Else why do 'race' car drivers add more protection and gear...?). But I think I understand where you are going with your statement (if everyone could drive properly there wouldn't be any problems). This too is whacked because it places blame on everyone else on the road...

 

[locolocol]

I would think that a modern car with Bluetooth should have enough spare computing power to be able to a) read text messages to you...that is easy and b) enable you to speak something like text: message to contact name or number and let the electronics in the car and in the phone do the work.

Shouldn't need much compute to do this.

There are studies that indicate even listening/talking hands-free is enough of a distraction to cause significant issues. Talking with a passenger is different than on the phone because there is an extra set of eyes (not that that makes it better for those that REALLY get into their conversation).

I should pull over now eh?

 

[locolocol]

It's going to solve problems as much as posting and enforcing speed limits do. People will speed. People will text. Make sure people are aware it is bad. Enforce without being an ass. Attitudes will change.

It will never ever ever be eliminated. Just like speeding.

There is nothing inherently wrong with driving at a fast speed.

Bad, untrained, and incompetent drivers make speeding dangerous. But you can say those drivers are dangerous any time they get behind a wheel whether or not they speed.

To equate speeding and distracted driving is absurd.

If someone texts responsibly then what? At stop lights? Stop signs? Speeding is speeding. There is sensible speed, sensible texting. The absurdness is of you not understanding the issue.

That pisses me off when someone is sitting at a green light holding up traffic busy texting...it wouldn't be so bad if a little honk would politely bring them to the attention of the matter but honking has turned into a form of insult or a way to 'start' something. Phone should go in the glove box when getting in the car. If it's something truly important you hear it buzzing/ringing and you can pull over to make/take a call...

 

[etc inittab]

How would you propose we handle emergency 911 calls? The answer to all this is tougher laws and better education through shock media.

Easily really, set up the cell phone 'scrambler' ( for lack of a better word ) to only work while the engine is running or the car is in drive. Turn the car off or park and calls can be made.