The state(s) of texting and driving in the US

Phones and the urge to click aren't going way, neither are the tragedies.

Read the whole story

 

[James A]

As a recent convert from a "dumb" phone to a "smart" phone one of the first things I noticed was the smartphone was unusable in a car due to the lack of tactile feedback. I don't text and drive, but I used to place and receive voice calls. The dumb phone was simple because using only my thumb I could feel the keypad buttons to dial a shortcut in a few seconds without taking my eyes off the road.

If I want to place a call on a smartphone I have to open the phone app, scroll through the list of contacts, and hit the dial button. This requires at least five seconds of full visual attention and is too dangerous to attempt.

My newer car's integration solution is another touchscreen in a different spot. The only safe solution is to engage a sense less critical for driving. I want a good old fashioned numeric keypad, knobs, and buttons in the center console connected to my phone so I can safely make calls and change the current music playlist.

 

[.劉煒]

Sounds like you need less laws, and a better mount that lets you use the minicomputer you carry around in a safer manner.

If I want to place a call on a smartphone I have to open the phone app, scroll through the list of contacts, and hit the dial button.

Okay, google. Dial 555-1212.

 

[stevewilson]

And you can calculate current speed from the acceleration history. Accelerometers are already used in this way to aid in position determination where GPS is sketchy, and that's a much harder problem than simply figuring out current speed

How do you distinguish acceleration vs deceleration? It's a vector with a different direction, but the direction can change because the car changed orientation or because the phone changed orientation. Is inertial navigation accurate enough to handle that?

Accelerometers simply can't. It requires GPS. Without GPS, accelerometers are worthless for determining speed without other information. The other option is that accelerometers can be used to estimate speed, but only if you constrain enough variables. For example on a rocket, accelerometers can be used to estimate speed extremely accurately because enough variables are constrained. But using an accelerometer in the real world on a cell phone to measure speed without GPS? Worthless.

 

[taiganaut]

I really dislike the trope of reducing highly complex behavior to a neurotransmitter. It's a drastic oversimplification. We've barely scratched the surface about what there is to learn about human behavior and the brain.

It's not just that, though. There's something uniquely irritating about the practice, I'm not sure what.

 

[amp88]

RoyaleCheezy[/url]":4t6cpyir]Traffic stops for people texting that did not create an accident is not a bomb waiting to go off, it's a victim-less crime that's been shoved down our throats.

Did you miss the statistics of those killed or seriously injured as a result of drivers being inattentive due to mobile phone use? It's not victimless if there are thousands killed and hundreds of thousands injured.

 

[James A]

.劉煒[/url]":3nnlzalu]Sounds like you need less laws, and a better mount that lets you use the minicomputer you carry around in a safer manner.

I'm not advocating laws. I'm saying the computer's UI is primarily a visual/touch-screen paradigm which will always be incompatible with driving and that the interface was better from a driving safety standpoint in the past. Even in a mount that puts the road in peripheral vision it is still distracting. Your peripheral vision isn't as good as one may think.

I think a lot of new laws are created when old ones seem sufficient. If one runs over someone with a car I'm pretty sure a prosecution would occur and I'm hoping "but I was operating my phone!" isn't a valid defense.

If I want to place a call on a smartphone I have to open the phone app, scroll through the list of contacts, and hit the dial button.

Okay, google. Dial 555-1212.

Good point. I haven't tried voice-control for dialing named contacts. I'll have to see if voice control also works for music. Still seems slower and more error-prone than tapping out a key sequence from muscle memory. Maybe I'm just acting old. I have been unimpressed by speech recognition so often it didn't occur to me it would be any good this time.

 

[CompactManifold]

I'd like to see a combination of much stronger punishments and much harder driving tests. I think we've all had at least one close call with someone who was distracted. I had someone on a phone pull out in front of me. We hit, but fortunately she admitted to the cop (who was right behind us), that she wasn't looking.

Start pulling people's licenses, impounding vehicles, and jailing them and the message will get out. Fines aren't enough. Driving a vehicle is the most control over the lives of others that most of us will ever have. It should be taken that seriously.

 

[ColdWetDog]

conan77[/url]":cofxrv2m]So this 'textalyzer' is basically a memory dump of your phone? I assume it tells the cops if you've been sending texts or email, for example. How does it distinguish voice input (Siri or google assistant) from actual typing?

That one's easy - if the stream is full of 'Sorry, I don't understand that' - you were using Siri.

Next problem?

 

[RoyaleCheezy]

amp88[/url]"3kg72qe]

RoyaleCheezy[/url]"3kg72qe]Traffic stops for people texting that did not create an accident is not a bomb waiting to go off, it's a victim-less crime that's been shoved down our throats.

Did you miss the statistics of those killed or seriously injured as a result of drivers being inattentive due to mobile phone use? It's not victimless if there are thousands killed and hundreds of thousands injured.

I didn't miss those, and I'm not diminishing the damage done. I even indicated that distracted driving has been amplified by smart phones. My argument is, those people will be charged with crimes for the damages they've done. If we're pulling over people for texting and driving as a preventative, it is a victim-less crime. If you're on a freeway straightaway with no cars in site ahead and just a police officer behind you.. you have huge visibility and you want to quickly look at a text-- it's dangerous, I won't do it out of principle, but if someone does and doesn't swerve off the road damaging themselves or others, I object to them being pulled over and fined. Now if they do it in a school zone, with cars and kids everywhere, it's way more risky but if they don't murder somebody with their car, there is no victim. Again, I'll teach my son not to do this to the best of my ability, and even give my friends a piece of my mind when I see them doing it.. but leave the people with guns sent by the state out of it. Preventative and deterrent-based criminal legislation are immoral, despite our best attempts at saving the world, even when they work.

 

[ColdWetDog]

kskjon[/url]":2lphtiri]

thedannywahl[/url]":2lphtiri]The barrier to entry for driving is incredibly low, and at no point encourages one to become "better", and in fact much of culture and law explicitly discourages it.

In most states, you sit in a class for 2 days and pass a paper test, and suddenly you can drive a vehicle of any make, model, or size- the only restrictions are around these distraction items- no passengers, no texting, etc... In six months to a year you take a 5 minute, 2 mile long road test, and if you don't egregiously violate any major laws, you're promoted to the "expert" category and restrictions are removed.

Am I the only one thinking this is crazy?

In my country, to even become a "learner", you have to have a 17 hour road safety course. After that you can start driving with a guardian in your car, but the guardian has to have had a license for the last 5 years or more.
After that, the driving school will take you through the first level, which you can only complete when the instructor feels you have good control over the car.
The second level is learning to read traffic, avoiding dangerous situations, economical driving, and safe passing. It can also only be completed when the instructor feel you have mastered it adequately.
The third level is a 13 hour road coarse where you learn highway driving and learn to assess risks better while driving with others in traffic.
After all that is done, you have to take a written exam, where you have to pass 38 of 45 tasks. A fail means you have to take the test again, after a two week quarantine period.
THEN, you can take the driving exam, where a independent examiner will sit along while you drive around, and show that you can handle driving in different types of traffic without breaking any traffic laws or causing any dangerous situations. I believe you can have two minor issues before failing (like not indicating), but any major issues will be an immediate fail.

In *this* country (the US, of course), such a system would bankrupt the Department of Motor Vehicles. They are usually budgeted to barely cover the costs of having somebody drive around the block.

You could create a system where this is privatized - then you are going to get hell from the social justice warriors who would (correctly) point out that the lower half of the economic gradient would be unable to afford this and thus would be left out of the God given right to drive.

The way this country is going, we're going to be lucky if most states have a real human being supervising the driving test. You'll be mailed a little box that you put in your car, give the keys to your teenager and tell them to be careful. If you get around during the day without major mishap, you mail the box back and the DMV emails you a driver's license (you take the picture with your cell phone).

Welcome to our world.

 

[.劉煒]

I'm saying the computer's UI is primarily a visual/touch-screen paradigm which will always be incompatible with driving.

No more so than any other visual task, whether it's looking at your speedo, changing your radio, checking your rear view/side view mirrors, whatever. You should always be looking around/behind/etc anyway. Glancing at a map display to see upcoming curves is a plus, as long as, like any other thing, you don't target fixate. I can't name the number of times seeing the road status in front of me as congested meant I increased follow distance and came to a much gentler stop than by pure road observation alone.

I'd say proper device use is a training issue, not an inherently unsafe function.

 

[kskjon]

ColdWetDog[/url]":1gm90w0l]

In *this* country (the US, of course), such a system would bankrupt the Department of Motor Vehicles. They are usually budgeted to barely cover the costs of having somebody drive around the block.

We have to pay for courses, driving lessons, and tests / exams ourselves, so it's not like the government will be out of pocket because of this.

 

[Dawnrazor]

RoyaleCheezy[/url]":2ckhupad]

amp88[/url]":2ckhupad]

RoyaleCheezy[/url]":2ckhupad]Traffic stops for people texting that did not create an accident is not a bomb waiting to go off, it's a victim-less crime that's been shoved down our throats.

Did you miss the statistics of those killed or seriously injured as a result of drivers being inattentive due to mobile phone use? It's not victimless if there are thousands killed and hundreds of thousands injured.

I didn't miss those, and I'm not diminishing the damage done. I even indicated that distracted driving has been amplified by smart phones. My argument is, those people will be charged with crimes for the damages they've done. If we're pulling over people for texting and driving as a preventative, it is a victim-less crime. If you're on a freeway straightaway with no cars in site ahead and just a police officer behind you.. you have huge visibility and you want to quickly look at a text-- it's dangerous, I won't do it out of principle, but if someone does and doesn't swerve off the road damaging themselves or others, I object to them being pulled over and fined. Now if they do it in a school zone, with cars and kids everywhere, it's way more risky but if they don't murder somebody with their car, there is no victim. Again, I'll teach my son not to do this to the best of my ability, and even give my friends a piece of my mind when I see them doing it.. but leave the people with guns sent by the state out of it. Preventative and deterrent-based criminal legislation are immoral, despite our best attempts at saving the world, even when they work.

So you're ok with people being killed in the name of "freedom". And Libertarians wonder why they're treated like a bad joke...

 

[strykerakamack]

It might seem counter productive but raising the speed limit to where you actually have to pay attention would solve most distracted driving situations . It would take the so called boredom of driving out of the equation .

 

[Elsmarc]

Fatesrider[/url]":2005raee]Most phones have accelerometers and can calculate the speed at which someone is moving even without GPS assistance.

No. You are totally wrong. Accelerometers can only detect a change in speed (velocity). Once at a steady speed they have no idea how fast you are moving, or if you are moving at all. I suspect you never took physics in school. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerometer

 

[amp88]

RoyaleCheezy[/url]":1vamx4pp]Preventative and deterrent-based criminal legislation are immoral, despite our best attempts at saving the world, even when they work.

...OK. So you're not open to reasonable debate then.

 

[dlux]

strykerakamack[/url]":1a9wo4dm]It might seem counter productive but raising the speed limit to where you actually have to pay attention would solve most distracted driving situations . It would take the so called boredom of driving out of the equation .

Um, no.

Go re-take your physics and physiology classes.

 

[Danathar]

dj__jg[/url]":34qhgiwr]

Danathar[/url]":34qhgiwr]Jeeze!!! I HATE having a txt sent to me while driving. All I need on hangouts and iMessage are two things and just one of the two would fix it.

1. A configurable option to send an automated response to anybody while I'm traveling over 5 miles an hour using the accelerometer that I can edit to say something like "I'm either driving/biking/running or riding in a car and cannot or don't want to answer your txt right now. Get back to you soon!"

2. A button which turns on/off an auto response message that I configure.

Why is either of these things so low on Apple or Googles priority list? It would SAVE LIVES!!

Or just put your phone on silent whilst driving? If you don't know about a message, you won't fret about it.

It's not about me. It's about the other people who start calling if you don't txt back in 5 min. Yes you can rail against your family and friends pleading that instant message is not instant response, but good luck depending on them to listen and not call after they send a txt and you didn't respond right away.

 

[Res Nullum]

SixDegrees[/url]":1onwifqn]Make it mandatory that phones shut off all communication when they sense motion over 10 mph.

That would make streaming music from your phone to the car’s stereo useless. That would also prevent anyone from using their phone to track their run if they exceed a 6-minute mile.

 

[Danathar]

stevewilson[/url]":17prt4o0]

Danathar[/url]":17prt4o0]Jeeze!!! I HATE having a txt sent to me while driving. All I need on hangouts and iMessage are two things and just one of the two would fix it.

1. A configurable option to send an automated response to anybody while I'm traveling over 5 miles an hour using the accelerometer that I can edit to say something like "I'm either driving/biking/running or riding in a car and cannot or don't want to answer your txt right now. Get back to you soon!"

2. A button which turns on/off an auto response message that I configure.

Why is either of these things so low on Apple or Googles priority list? It would SAVE LIVES!!

Accelerometer only senses acceleration, not speed. Two very different things.

Option 2 then. A driving icon so I can turn on a auto responder would be nice. How hard would that be to code?

 

[dlux]

Danathar[/url]":qmnsybqx]It's about the other people who start calling if you don't txt back in 5 min. Yes you can rail against your family and friends pleading that instant message is not instant response, but good luck depending on them to listen and not call after they send a txt and you didn't respond right away.

Those of use who grew up pre-Internet sound like old men yelling at clouds, but... really?

It's easy to caricature a lot of the population as ADHD, but each time I hear things like this I wonder if it might be true. Are we really evolving into a society with no impulse control?

 

[AdamM]

isidorem[/url]":3jza9rdy]I do not understand why this is so difficult in the US. In the UK if you text while driving you will lose your licence. If you hurt or kill someone while using a phone you will go to jail. If there is a serious accident your provider records will be examined to establish if your phone was in use at the time of the accident. End of story.

The U.K. is also in a fortunate situation where there is a robust public transport system for people to fall back on. It's the same reason that the U.K. is able to require rigorous driving tests, because in most cases if the person fails or loses their license they're not left high and dry transport wise.

There should be penalties in the U.S. Certainly, but when the difference between being homeless and thriving often depends on a vehicle in the U.S. Many states aren't going to be keen on stripping away drivers licenses over using a phone.

 

[tetrapyloctomy]

AdamM[/url]":32d2eb0g]... Many states aren't going to be keen on stripping away drivers licenses over using a phone.

That's an understatement, given that Montana banned drinking while driving in 2005.

 

[dlux]

tetrapyloctomy[/url]":2qlovswp]

AdamM[/url]":2qlovswp]... Many states aren't going to be keen on stripping away drivers licenses over using a phone.

That's an understatement, given that Montana banned drinking while driving in 2005.

You can still buy liquor there without leaving your vehicle, however:

Someone has to keep our freedoms intact!

 

[Kebba]

Fatesrider[/url]":21no5mom]

SunnyD[/url]":21no5mom]Mother nature has stalled at finding an effective way to manage the human population, so she invented cell phones.

Honestly though, distracted driving doesn't fall solely under the realm of texting. Simply having a phone active, even on a call up to your ear, is typically just as dangerous. A lot of younger drivers have issues with things as routine as turning on the radio or heat in the car when it comes to safety. And now cars themselves are coming with more and more "gadgets".

The real fix is autonomous vehicles, but that is getting slowed down by politics. Until then, this is the state of where we're at in our increasingly connected society.

Just to make it doubly clear, the fact is, if you are talking to anyone at all while driving - even a passenger - you are functionally impaired to to the same degree as if you were talking to someone on a cell phone.

The only reason why this kind of "distracted driving" isn't quite as dangerous is because a passenger is (at least in theory) an extra set of eyes for the driver.

The real fix is phones that sense when they're being used in a car. Does this mean every phone in a car will be disabled from calls and texting? Yes, yes it does. Is that an inconvenience?

No.

Having the phone with you is a convenience in itself. Having it with you in the car is a hazard to yourself and others. I'd not call that a convenience.

Today's world is TOO connected. Once upon a time, society functioned perfectly well when phones were connected to wires and "portable" meant an extra long cord. I imagine that if cell phones were required to be disabled inside a vehicle that has a key turned to the on position in the ignition, society would continue to function perfectly well today as much as it did 30 years ago.

Most phones have accelerometers and can calculate the speed at which someone is moving even without GPS assistance. Any speed between 6 MPH and 120 would disable calling (incoming and outgoing) and texting. I don't imagine coding this would be difficult. And because fully autonomous vehicles are at LEAST 10 years away from being implemented on a wide scale, AND at least 25 years away from replacing all vehicles on the road (thus eliminating the distraction factor - and assuming society doesn't melt down in the meantime), tens of thousands of lives will be saved and millions of people will not be visiting emergency rooms.

"But... but... but... my freedom!!!" you whine? Your freedom here, as everywhere else, ends when it hurts other people. This hurts not only you, but other people as well. Don't whine to me about your freedom when your actions put the lives of others in danger.

Implementing this kind of tech would take less than 6 months, and replace enough phones to make a major difference in less than half the time it will take for wide-scale autonomy in driving to be allowed, and it will cost a hell of a lot less than a self-driving car.

Having phones "go dark while driving" would solve this problem. If people can't wait an hour to see who called or texted, they need to disconnect entirely. It's great enough we can carry our phones while shopping, comparing prices at other stores for price matching. It's wonderful that we don't HAVE to miss our calls when we're not at home ALL THE TIME. It's a matter of degrees and what's best for society.

Being connected ALL THE TIME is demonstrably BAD for most people. They are distracted, petty, shallow and above all egotistical. It's always about them and their complete lack of self esteem without being validated for their existence by the number of people on their "friends list".

I love the technology. If EVERYONE was responsible, we wouldn't even be having this discussion and this article would confuse the hell out of people. "Who's retarded enough to use a phone while driving?" everyone would wonder. But as with most great things, irresponsible people fuck it up for the rest of us, and to save them (and, not coincidentally, ourselves) we need to suck it up and disable phones while a car is running.

Until fully autonomous vehicles are the only ones on the road, people will die because they or others are too brain dead to accept the responsibility of turning off their phones when they drive. It's not a hard thing to do, either. And IMHO, the convenience of having a phone with you wherever you go beats the hell out of having to turn it off every time you start your car. It's simply being a responsible fellow member of society.

And who knows? If you do it, you may be more alert to the idiot who doesn't and avoid the accident you would have been in had you been talking on the phone at the time.

You don't want accelerometers to do that. They got "drift" and error will accumelate during they day and the phone will after a while be very wrong about your velocity and will need to be fixed by laying it flat on a table and tell it "you are stationary". Even nuclear missle accelorometers needs to be calibrated regulary to know were they are.

This text and drive problem is why I long for self-driving vehicles. I get so frustrated when people want "perfect all the time right AI". I have heard examples if what an AI would have done that time an airplane emergency landed on a highway... It does not matter, you should not worry AI dealing with extremely unlikely situations, you should worry about being rear ended by a jackass checking facebook, or being t-boned by a drunk driver... Humans are terrible drivers, and AI just need to be better then us (frankly, a quite low bar)

 

[NinjaNerd56]

eruffini[/url]":382fwbzd]I'm sorry, but I am still convinced that those who are texting while driving and getting into accidents are the people who literally stare at the phone the whole time while driving. The ones with no sense of situational awareness. These are the ones that get into accidents.



Do I text and drive? Yep. I see no problem with it. Why? Because I do it responsibly.




I make sure to keep my eyes on the road while doing so, sparing only half a second to look at the screen and digest the contents or type a reply. I do the same when I have to adjust the GPS on my phone while driving. Most of the time if I am driving in an urban area I'll wait until I am stopped at a stop light or stop sign, but when I am on a major highway like I-95 and on a longer drive, there's no harm in sparing a quick glance at the phone.

There are safe ways to manipulate and use your phone while driving that are no more dangerous than having to look at your center console to adjust your environmental controls or change the music.

And just for the record, I haven't been involved in any accident (minor or major) in ten years, and I have the maximum number of "safe driving points" allotted to my license from the state of Virginia.

Literally an oxymoron...by a moron...yay.

Someday, when they're scraping your dying ass off the road, enjoy that last thought; "but I have all the safe driving points!"

 

[Rrr7]

chipmunkofdoom2[/url]":3260r79n]
Another funny anecdote. I live north of Baltimore MD and used to take an express bus to the city every day for work. You'd be horrified and amazed to see how many people text while driving on a major interstate, like our I-95. And no, I'm not talking about in stop and go traffic. I'm talking about highway speeds, 65mph+. If you have public transit that goes on a major highway near you, I suggest you take it one day. It's shocking how many people are doing something with their phones while they're driving.

I don't know if there's a point to my ramblings or what the answer to the overall problem is. People have been eating, putting on makeup, reading the newspaper, and plain old-fashioned talking on the phone while driving for as long as we've been able to. I don't think cars have ever been safer (auto braking, lane assist, infrared cameras, lane minders on side mirrors, etc), but we don't seem to be crashing any less.

Make everyone in driving school learn to drive on manual trans cars, like most countries in Europe do, then later on a lot of those people will buy them instead of dreary automatics.
Besides the challenge of putting on make-up or eating while driving a manual tranny car, driving a manual makes you a lot more involved, less bored (more attention to the actual task of driving) and generally a better driver (it is of course only anecdotal evidence, but I've not only noticed this on myself, but confirmed by others who usually drive manual cars, when occasionally driving automatics: less mirrors checks, less using turn signals etc. in auto' s)

Edit: while we're on the topic of road safety I would like to point out that only 19 states have mandatory motorcycle helmet laws, while all states but one (NH) have mandatory seatbelt laws; being required to wear a seatbelt when surrounded by 3 tons of metal but not having to wear a helmet on a bike seems to me completely moronic, especially when studies found that helmet wear is the most significant life-saver in a motorcycle crash

I'll just leave this here
http://www.ncsl.org/research/transporta ... rates.aspx

 

[knight-rider]

My observations in driving about 1000 miles a week in the NYC metro area is that the laws are completely ineffective. I generally look down at each vehicle that passes me (hundreds a day), and by far the vast majority are doing something on their phone. Even in poor weather, a disturbing amount are still texting away. The state could make millions off tickets if they put a trooper in a semi or other tall, unmarked vehicle.

 

[RoyaleCheezy]

Dawnrazor[/url]":3f6h7z21]

RoyaleCheezy[/url]":3f6h7z21]

amp88[/url]":3f6h7z21]

RoyaleCheezy[/url]":3f6h7z21]Traffic stops for people texting that did not create an accident is not a bomb waiting to go off, it's a victim-less crime that's been shoved down our throats.

Did you miss the statistics of those killed or seriously injured as a result of drivers being inattentive due to mobile phone use? It's not victimless if there are thousands killed and hundreds of thousands injured.

I didn't miss those, and I'm not diminishing the damage done. I even indicated that distracted driving has been amplified by smart phones. My argument is, those people will be charged with crimes for the damages they've done. If we're pulling over people for texting and driving as a preventative, it is a victim-less crime. If you're on a freeway straightaway with no cars in site ahead and just a police officer behind you.. you have huge visibility and you want to quickly look at a text-- it's dangerous, I won't do it out of principle, but if someone does and doesn't swerve off the road damaging themselves or others, I object to them being pulled over and fined. Now if they do it in a school zone, with cars and kids everywhere, it's way more risky but if they don't murder somebody with their car, there is no victim. Again, I'll teach my son not to do this to the best of my ability, and even give my friends a piece of my mind when I see them doing it.. but leave the people with guns sent by the state out of it. Preventative and deterrent-based criminal legislation are immoral, despite our best attempts at saving the world, even when they work.

So you're ok with people being killed in the name of "freedom". And Libertarians wonder why they're treated like a bad joke...

What I'm ok with isn't in question. I'm not ok with north Korea starving and abusing its citizens, but that doesn't mean I want to invade them. The notion that passing restrictive laws on the individual to show how much you care about vehicular death and dismemberment is a much bigger problem. You can care about people without making the government act. Educate your friends and family and build your own culture shaming distracted driving, we don't need legislation on the micro level like this.. But again, just my unpopular opinion.

 

[Danathar]

dlux[/url]":35u3gx3b]

Danathar[/url]":35u3gx3b]It's about the other people who start calling if you don't txt back in 5 min. Yes you can rail against your family and friends pleading that instant message is not instant response, but good luck depending on them to listen and not call after they send a txt and you didn't respond right away.

Those of use who grew up pre-Internet sound like old men yelling at clouds, but... really?

It's easy to caricature a lot of the population as ADHD, but each time I hear things like this I wonder if it might be true. Are we really evolving into a society with no impulse control?

I'm sad that you guessed my approx age (46)

 

[Celery Man]

In Los Angeles, no one cares about the texting ban at all, because there's never really any consequences. I've had people straight up laugh in my face more times than not when I told them to stop texting after almost hitting me/another car.

 

[RoyaleCheezy]

amp88[/url]":1n2ov8e8]

RoyaleCheezy[/url]":1n2ov8e8]Preventative and deterrent-based criminal legislation are immoral, despite our best attempts at saving the world, even when they work.

...OK. So you're not open to reasonable debate then.

Why does "reasonable debate" require legislation? I understand where your reaction to what I said comes from, but that's just my principles in play. Could we not work towards technology solutions rather than more restriction? I'm not trying to troll or piss people off, I just legitimately don't understand why we try to legislate away our problems rather than approach than from the sphere of voluntary action from concerned individuals.

 

[Fatesrider]

RoyaleCheezy[/url]":u9m411cs]I know Ars typically isn't friendly to libertarian thinking but at the risk of a down-vote apocalypse I'll state this anyway: Stop trying to fix these things with legislation. We feel good saying "we're saving lives" when all we're doing is restricting them further.

Distracted driving has always been dangerous and the prevalence of mobile devices certainly amplifies it, but if I cause an accident and I'm deemed at fault, the mobile device becomes irrelevant. If I am not paying attention and run into stopped traffic and kill or maim a family or maybe even a group of orphans on their way to forever homes, the fact that I was on my phone doesn't make me any more or less of a monster. I'm at fault, I get charged with some sort of appropriate sentence taking into account the fact that people are dead because I wasn't paying attention. I could've been shooing a bee out of my car in full panic mode and it wouldn't change anything. It could be the phone, my superstitious/OCD need to adjust volume and temperature to even numbers, or a giant greasy burger mishap. Are those people more dead because it was my phone vs. adjusting the rear view?

As long as bad, distracted drivers are punished for the damage they cause criminally (vehicular manslaughter etc., various levels of criminal negligence.. INAL but you get the idea), what is the point of more the legislation? Traffic stops for people texting that did not create an accident is not a bomb waiting to go off, it's a victim-less crime that's been shoved down our throats. Spend time and money educating people if it's a cause you have passion for, but let's stop giving police "preventative" authority and let them respond like firefighters to real issues.

My issue with libertarians is that they seem to think everyone will be responsible.

Clearly, that's delusional thinking.

You have to have laws in the first place for "bad, distracted drivers" to be PUNISHED for being bad, distracted drivers.

Another delusion often cited by those with extremist views (and, sadly for you, your views are, indeed, extremist) is that the entire purpose of laws is not to STOP anything. It never was. Clearly, human behaviors constantly exceed the limits placed on them by law despite the presence of those laws.

The whole point of laws, regulations, rules and all the things the libertarians seem to be allergic to is to REDUCE HOW OFTEN THOSE BEHAVIORS ARE COMMITTED. This is accomplished by the (usually) simple-to-understand method of delineating a line across which someone will receive punishment IF CAUGHT CROSSING THAT LINE.

I can guarantee you that if traffic fines were handed out for every text or call made or received by the driver of a moving car, such behaviors would be vastly reduced. Make that a law and the number of people committing these acts of distracted driving would plummet.

ALL OF THAT SAID, there are still states where these "bad, distracted drivers" behaviors are not illegal, are not punished, are not fined, are not in any way discouraged by force of law. You can't punish someone civilly if they didn't break any laws. Without the threat of punishment, there is no incentive to avoid those behaviors.

Jesus, even a dog understands when it does something wrong. Most Humans don't get it - especially those whose connection with reality is already tenuous at best.

You can't get my point of view. Your statement that we're "restricting people's lives" with laws, then saying that we need laws to punish "bad, distracted drivers" contains a logical contradiction that can not be rationally reconciled. You either need to understand that laws are necessary to promote good behaviors and delineate bad ones or just give the hell up on trying to explain your position to rational people.

One can rationally argue about "overreach", but when there's nothing telling idiots to stop being idiots and irresponsible people to stop being irresponsible, and forcing punishment on them when they are idiots and irresponsible, then overreach isn't the issue. The problem is a lack of reach.

People, being the stubborn, irresponsible and often irrational creatures they are, need a stick up-side the head to get it sometimes. That's what the law does. It gives them a headache and a lesson. If they have any functional brain cells left, they learn the lesson or they end up with a lot of headache.

But without the laws defining what's irresponsible, or even irrational, the headache is on everyone else to deal with.

[edit: Just an FYI for you: That lawless condition is called "anarchy", and at heart is what Libertarians promote.]

 

[Dawnrazor]

RoyaleCheezy[/url]":6uyz4qvz]

Dawnrazor[/url]":6uyz4qvz]

RoyaleCheezy[/url]":6uyz4qvz]

amp88[/url]":6uyz4qvz]

RoyaleCheezy[/url]":6uyz4qvz]Traffic stops for people texting that did not create an accident is not a bomb waiting to go off, it's a victim-less crime that's been shoved down our throats.

Did you miss the statistics of those killed or seriously injured as a result of drivers being inattentive due to mobile phone use? It's not victimless if there are thousands killed and hundreds of thousands injured.

I didn't miss those, and I'm not diminishing the damage done. I even indicated that distracted driving has been amplified by smart phones. My argument is, those people will be charged with crimes for the damages they've done. If we're pulling over people for texting and driving as a preventative, it is a victim-less crime. If you're on a freeway straightaway with no cars in site ahead and just a police officer behind you.. you have huge visibility and you want to quickly look at a text-- it's dangerous, I won't do it out of principle, but if someone does and doesn't swerve off the road damaging themselves or others, I object to them being pulled over and fined. Now if they do it in a school zone, with cars and kids everywhere, it's way more risky but if they don't murder somebody with their car, there is no victim. Again, I'll teach my son not to do this to the best of my ability, and even give my friends a piece of my mind when I see them doing it.. but leave the people with guns sent by the state out of it. Preventative and deterrent-based criminal legislation are immoral, despite our best attempts at saving the world, even when they work.

So you're ok with people being killed in the name of "freedom". And Libertarians wonder why they're treated like a bad joke...

What I'm ok with isn't in question. I'm not ok with north Korea starving and abusing its citizens, but that doesn't mean I want to invade them. The notion that passing restrictive laws on the individual to show how much you care about vehicular death and dismemberment is a much bigger problem. You can care about people without making the government act. Educate your friends and family and build your own culture shaming distracted driving, we don't need legislation on the micro level like this.. But again, just my unpopular opinion.

Because some people are selfish assholes and will do it regardless, the threat of sanctions being the only thing that will make them modify their behavior. My kids know better than to text and drive, but that won't matter if somebody else is too busy texting to pay attention and hits them.

But to you that's just a cost of freedom. Better a few innocents die than the cops inconvenience people for doing something unsafe and potentially lethal. If the only one affected was the person texting and driving I'd agree with you. But just like driving under the influence, which I've seen the same argument used to defend it, it's a threat to public safetyand in a rational society that means it needs to be acted on.

 

[amp88]

RoyaleCheezy[/url]":zl6rwntu]

amp88[/url]":zl6rwntu]

RoyaleCheezy[/url]":zl6rwntu]Preventative and deterrent-based criminal legislation are immoral, despite our best attempts at saving the world, even when they work.

...OK. So you're not open to reasonable debate then.

Why does "reasonable debate" require legislation? I understand where your reaction to what I said comes from, but that's just my principles in play. Could we not work towards technology solutions rather than more restriction? I'm not trying to troll or piss people off, I just legitimately don't understand why we try to legislate away our problems rather than approach than from the sphere of voluntary action from concerned individuals.

I trimmed the quote down intentionally to highlight what I thought negated your ability to be involved in a reasonable debate. You stated that "preventative and deterrent-based criminal legislation are immoral". As far as I'm concerned, this is simply not a reasonable or defensible position, especially in the realm of vehicle safety. If you were just the normal brand of libertarian, who had objections to paternalistic laws (e.g. mandatory seatbelts/helmets), I could respect that position (even though I would disagree with you).

What I can't respect is the suggestion that "preventative and deterrent-based criminal legislation are immoral". Taken to its logical conclusion, does that mean you're against drink-driving laws? Is it OK for a person to be swerving all over the road as a result of being intoxicated, as long as they don't hit anyone or anything?

 

[pitdingo]

Fatesrider[/url]":3cbmvquq]

RoyaleCheezy[/url]":3cbmvquq]I know Ars typically isn't friendly to libertarian thinking but at the risk of a down-vote apocalypse I'll state this anyway: Stop trying to fix these things with legislation. We feel good saying "we're saving lives" when all we're doing is restricting them further.

Distracted driving has always been dangerous and the prevalence of mobile devices certainly amplifies it, but if I cause an accident and I'm deemed at fault, the mobile device becomes irrelevant. If I am not paying attention and run into stopped traffic and kill or maim a family or maybe even a group of orphans on their way to forever homes, the fact that I was on my phone doesn't make me any more or less of a monster. I'm at fault, I get charged with some sort of appropriate sentence taking into account the fact that people are dead because I wasn't paying attention. I could've been shooing a bee out of my car in full panic mode and it wouldn't change anything. It could be the phone, my superstitious/OCD need to adjust volume and temperature to even numbers, or a giant greasy burger mishap. Are those people more dead because it was my phone vs. adjusting the rear view?

As long as bad, distracted drivers are punished for the damage they cause criminally (vehicular manslaughter etc., various levels of criminal negligence.. INAL but you get the idea), what is the point of more the legislation? Traffic stops for people texting that did not create an accident is not a bomb waiting to go off, it's a victim-less crime that's been shoved down our throats. Spend time and money educating people if it's a cause you have passion for, but let's stop giving police "preventative" authority and let them respond like firefighters to real issues.

My issue with libertarians is that they seem to think everyone will be responsible.

Clearly, that's delusional thinking.

You have to have laws in the first place for "bad, distracted drivers" to be PUNISHED for being bad, distracted drivers.

Another delusion often cited by those with extremist views (and, sadly for you, your views are, indeed, extremist) is that the entire purpose of laws is not to STOP anything. It never was. Clearly, human behaviors constantly exceed the limits placed on them by law despite the presence of those laws.

The whole point of laws, regulations, rules and all the things the libertarians seem to be allergic to is to REDUCE HOW OFTEN THOSE BEHAVIORS ARE COMMITTED. This is accomplished by the (usually) simple-to-understand method of delineating a line across which someone will receive punishment IF CAUGHT CROSSING THAT LINE.

I can guarantee you that if traffic fines were handed out for every text or call made or received by the driver of a moving car, such behaviors would be vastly reduced. Make that a law and the number of people committing these acts of distracted driving would plummet.

ALL OF THAT SAID, there are still states where these "bad, distracted drivers" behaviors are not illegal, are not punished, are not fined, are not in any way discouraged by force of law. You can't punish someone civilly if they didn't break any laws. Without the threat of punishment, there is no incentive to avoid those behaviors.

Jesus, even a dog understands when it does something wrong. Most Humans don't get it - especially those whose connection with reality is already tenuous at best.

You can't get my point of view. Your statement that we're "restricting people's lives" with laws, then saying that we need laws to punish "bad, distracted drivers" contains a logical contradiction that can not be rationally reconciled. You either need to understand that laws are necessary to promote good behaviors and delineate bad ones or just give the hell up on trying to explain your position to rational people.

One can rationally argue about "overreach", but when there's nothing telling idiots to stop being idiots and irresponsible people to stop being irresponsible, and forcing punishment on them when they are idiots and irresponsible, then overreach isn't the issue. The problem is a lack of reach.

People, being the stubborn, irresponsible and often irrational creatures they are, need a stick up-side the head to get it sometimes. That's what the law does. It gives them a headache and a lesson. If they have any functional brain cells left, they learn the lesson or they end up with a lot of headache.

But without the laws defining what's irresponsible, or even irrational, the headache is on everyone else to deal with.

[edit: Just an FYI for you: That lawless condition is called "anarchy", and at heart is what Libertarians promote.]

My problem with progressives is they talk about things they have zero understanding of, while pretending to comprehend the subject. No, Libertarians do not promote anarchy. Where do you come up with such nonsense? Why do we need more laws, when there already are laws to deal with people who cause accidents and disregard the rules of the road?

 

[pitdingo]

gaballard[/url]":1zaogc77]In Los Angeles, no one cares about the texting ban at all, because there's never really any consequences. I've had people straight up laugh in my face more times than not when I told them to stop texting after almost hitting me/another car.

So if they cause an accident they get in no trouble? If they kill someone with the car, nothing happens?

 

[Velma Velvet]

I think people are crazy to squander the opportunity to be out of touch. It really is a great feeling if you'd just try it.