Slashdot Mirror

So you are going to conflate unavoidable risk of a stroke or other medical event with a completely avoidable risk of some 20 year old jackass facetiming while driving? You may want to take that logical thinking expansion course at your local community college.

With parental consent and supervision you can consume alcohol at any age in the US (what do you think is in most cold medicine anyway)? The alcohol problem in the US is due to the lack of parents educating their children on proper and safe use of alcohol. Instead the 18-24 (gee what a coincidence) group learn to go to parties and get hammered out of their gourds. Who do they learn this from? Others of the same age with similarly poor judgement and risk assessment skills. What is the consequence? Over 30% of all accident deaths involved a drunk driver in 2010.

We routinely restrict young peoples privileges because we know that they are young, inexperienced and generally stupid at assessing risk. We know because we were once young as well. This has as much to do with ageism as preventing children from accessing firearms. Traffic accident is one of the leading causes of death of the 18-25 demographic. We already prohibit under 21 from drinking, and 16 year olds get a driving permit which limits their driving privileges instead of a full license. I am suggesting that from 16-24 drivers get a provisional license or some such which requires that they have a phone feature installed that locks all features other than hands free calling when the phone is moving more than 10MPH.

Here are some facts to chew on:
- 11 teens die every day as a result of texting while driving.
- According to a AAA poll, 94% of teen drivers acknowledge the dangers of texting and driving, but 35% admitted to doing it anyway. *huge flag that there is poor judgement in this age group*
- 21% of teen drivers involved in fatal accidents were distracted by their cell phones.
- Teen drivers are 4x more likely than adults to get into car crashes or near-crashes when talking or texting on a cell phone.

https://www.edgarsnyder.com/ca...

The issue I am concerned with is judgement. With teen drivers being 4x more likely to crash or almost crash with the cell phone than adults, that kind of blows your argument to shreds that there is not a judgement problem. Rational people know by now that texting/messing with your phone and driving is not safe. Children by definition are not rational.

I am also fine with a universal popup on all phones if moving more than 10MPH that warns that using the phone while driving other than hands free calling is a criminal offense punishable by jail time or heavy fine with an option to either use the phone or silence all incoming texts/calls etc until the vehicle parks.

Oh your house, you're going to jail for the rest of your life along with your child.

Will you also insist on life-long incarcerations for people, whose children killed with their cars ?

Most accidents are caused by someone picking something up they dropped, looing the wrong way at the time, changing the radio station, etc. or inibriation.

Really? I'd like to see the source of your assertion.

Granted distracted driving is the darling of the press these days. But that doesn't make it the major contributor to fatalities.

In fact, fatalities by all causes are on a steady year by year decline and have been for 15 years.

Drunk driving still accounts for a great deal, 31% of the overall traffic fatalities in 2010. One-half of traffic deaths ages 21 to 25 were drinking drivers.

Distracted driving hovers around 16% of fatal crashes by comparison.

Drunk driving is about 4 times as deadly as distraction.

Well, for one, the widespread availability of flying cars would imply that society is mature enough to stop panicking about terrorists and drunk teenagers at every opportunity.

You sound like an egregiously concerned parent—drunk adults accounted for 83% of all drunk driving incidents in the US in 2008. I strongly recommend that you follow in the steps of Yakov Smirnoff and get some freedom instead of worrying about bogeymen.

Even if your 90s scenario was trending in that way, how would we know it wasn't caused by advances in car stereo technology. This is when high powered amplifiers and subwoofers appeared on the market. We'd probably have to do in-depth studies.. which have been done. http://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cell-phone/statistics.html

Though some studies say it's distractions and not phones specifically...so that would include most interactive electronic entertainment devices.

1. While I agree that safety should be a concern you have fallen for the fallacy of treating the symptom, instead of treating the cause. We all knowing making it illegal to drive while using a phone, drunk driving or without a license stops crashes. OH WAIT.

2. Why are you ignoring the greater problem of Alcohol?
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811379.pdf&pli=1
and
http://www.edgarsnyder.com/drunk-driving/statistics.html
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/12/04/2600_us_annual_death_toll/
"Mobile phone-related car crashes are responsible for 1 in 20 highway deaths in the US,"

2000: Total fatalities: 41,945 Alcohol Deaths: 17,380 (41%), Cell Deaths: 2600 (6%)
2009: Total fatalities: 33,808, Alcohol Deaths: 12,744 (38%), Cell Deaths: 5474 (16%)

"More than 4 a day is not "quite small"."

I'm afraid you are wrong. Compare it to the number of car accident deaths, for example. (and yes I know the source isn't great, but you are welcome to google to your hearts content to see if you can show me how terrorism is more dangerous than driving or riding in a car.)

There's probably not enough data yet. However, this site has some very interesting reading: http://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cell-phone/statistics.html

From that site:

- Despite the risks, the majority of teen drivers ignore cell phone driving restrictions.

- Talking on a cell phone while driving can make a young driver's reaction time as slow as that of a 70-year-old.

- 56% of teenagers admit to talking on their cell phones behind the wheel, while 13% admit to texting while driving. (Note: Because this information was given voluntarily by teens, actual cell phone use numbers may be much higher.)

- 48% of young Americans from 12-17 say they've been in a car while the driver was texting.

- 52% of 16- and 17-year-old teen drivers confess to making and answering cell phone calls on the road. 34% admit to text messaging while driving.

- In 2007, driver distractions, such as using a cell phone or text messaging, contributed to nearly 1,000 crashes involving 16- and 17-year-old drivers.

- Over 60% of American teens admit to risky driving, and nearly half of those that admit to risky driving also admit to text messaging behind the wheel.

- Each year, 21% of fatal car crashes involving teenagers between the ages of 16 and 19 were the result of cell phone usage. This result has been expected to grow as much as 4% every year.

- Almost 50% of all drivers between the ages of 18 and 24 are texting while driving.

- Over one-third of all young drivers, ages 24 and under, are texting on the road.

- Teens say that texting is their number one driver distraction.

Because there's never a reason that a passenger would want to take a phone call. Or for a driver to call 911 for any reason...

I've had two friends go through DUIs. They didn't hit anyone or cause an accident yet were given DUIs for driving while intoxicated. The reason being that their reflexes were slowed due to the alcohol in their system. Distractions like handheld devices can cause just as much of a distraction and liability while driving.

So what do we do to people who have DUIs? It varies little state to state but in Virginia, they make you hire a lawyer and then you might have to spend a few days in jail and you might not be able to drive for a year and a number of other really awesome things. But if you want to drive, you have to get an Ignition Interlock (Car Breathalyzer) system installed on your dime. And pay for it to be calibrated.

Strangely, if you are pulled over for something else and are found to be using your phone (a secondary offense so you cannot be pulled over if the police see you doing it), you get hit with $200. Well, after the number of accidents caused by it, I don't understand why society doesn't treat it the same way. Give them the huge punishment like alcohol, make their insurance skyrocket and make them pay for the installation and maintenance of these systems on their own cars. And make it a primary offense so people can be pulled over. I mean stuff like this is funny but it's a serious threat to our safety.

I don't like what this man is proposing but I think this should be treated just like drinking and driving. I like how drinking and driving stats scare you. Well here's a pretty scary stat: talking on a cell phone causes 25% of all accidents! In this proposition's defense, I think reducing accidents by 25% supersedes the times when a passenger or driver would ever want or need take a phone call or dial 911 but I am all for making offenders go through the financially crippling proceedings that are affiliated with drinking and driving. That'll make people think twice!

You have not posted a single link to support any of your arguments. You aren't even in the game.

 
Fine, I'll take the time to support the obvious with links.

Try this for drunk driver statistics.
For 2008:

11,773 deaths, or 32% of total auto accident deaths (37,261)

About 257,000 injuries

Most frequent BAC among drunk driver accidents that resulted in death, .16

40% of all motor vehicle fatalities are alcohol related

And now the cell phone statistics

For 2008:

6,000 fatalities and 500,000 injuries related to driver distraction (not necessarily cell phone related)

73% of drivers talk on cell phones while driving

Another Site

Estimates of the number of U.S. traffic deaths caused by cell phone talking while driving are generally in the 2,000 - 3,000 range with one hundred times as many injuries.

So lets see here. 73% of drivers talk on cell phone while driving, yet cell phone driving related deaths are about 3,000 a year and injuries let's say 300,000 a year.
 
I can't find any stats on how many people are driving drunk at any given time, but doing the math of 3 out of 4 people on the road causing 3,000 deaths a year with that activity, vs the > 11,000 drunk driving deaths a year, means that in order for cell phone driving to be "just as" deadly as drunk driving...well I don't feel like extrapolating it all out, but you get the point. Drunk driving deaths, injuries, etc are *SIGNIFICANTLY* higher when you compare the % of the populace who participates in the activity vs. the proven amount of death/injury/whatever that has been caused by it.
 
So there are your links and statistics. Anything else I can help you with today?

You have not posted a single link to support any of your arguments. You aren't even in the game.

 
Fine, I'll take the time to support the obvious with links.

Try this for drunk driver statistics.
For 2008:

11,773 deaths, or 32% of total auto accident deaths (37,261)

About 257,000 injuries

Most frequent BAC among drunk driver accidents that resulted in death, .16

40% of all motor vehicle fatalities are alcohol related

And now the cell phone statistics

For 2008:

6,000 fatalities and 500,000 injuries related to driver distraction (not necessarily cell phone related)

73% of drivers talk on cell phones while driving

Another Site

Estimates of the number of U.S. traffic deaths caused by cell phone talking while driving are generally in the 2,000 - 3,000 range with one hundred times as many injuries.

So lets see here. 73% of drivers talk on cell phone while driving, yet cell phone driving related deaths are about 3,000 a year and injuries let's say 300,000 a year.
 
I can't find any stats on how many people are driving drunk at any given time, but doing the math of 3 out of 4 people on the road causing 3,000 deaths a year with that activity, vs the > 11,000 drunk driving deaths a year, means that in order for cell phone driving to be "just as" deadly as drunk driving...well I don't feel like extrapolating it all out, but you get the point. Drunk driving deaths, injuries, etc are *SIGNIFICANTLY* higher when you compare the % of the populace who participates in the activity vs. the proven amount of death/injury/whatever that has been caused by it.
 
So there are your links and statistics. Anything else I can help you with today?

"In 2007, 59% of fatal crashes involved only one vehicle, as compared with 33% of injury crashes and 31% of property-damage-only crashes."

You are so full of shit it is not even funny. They tend to kill, in this themselves. I don't recall if passengers or other people are next on the list. That 59% will include some pedestestians. However, many MVA involve the drunk dying - often unbelted. These people are a far bigger risk to themselves. I will place 6-figure money on this if you wish to continue the discussion. Your quote should be "Just like with drunk drivers, usually the people killed in accidents are the ones who WERE IN THE FUCKING ACCIDENT!"

The people above and I have included numerous links. I do not think ignoring news of death and destruction has anything to do with common sense. Include some links to statistics that indicate an "order of magnitude". Oh never mind, here it is car accident statistics. Looks like there are lots and lots of cell phone drivers causing problems. Here are facts on hands free vs hand held, there's no significant difference. Here's a study on drunk driving vs cell phone driving. A study from the University of Utah showing cell phones are as bad as drunk driving. There is lots of evidence if you're willing to do a little research.

My personal experience is that I have more trouble with cell phone drivers because there are so many out there. About an hour ago someone with a cell phone swerved into my lane. The road was perfectly straight.

Without these cameras this killer would probably be stalking the streets of Philadelphia today. With results like that, is there really a good basis for argument against these cameras?

In 2005, there were 16,692 murders in the United States. (link)

In 2005, there were 43,200 deaths due to car accidents. (link)

It has been shown that cameras increase car accident rates by between 7 and 24 percent. (link).

So, you tell me. With results like these, is there really a good basis for argument FOR these cameras?

Those who want corruption want stupid patents so they can scare others away from working in their area of technology. They don't care if they sometimes lose a few court cases due to stupidly weak patents. In general, taking something to court is so expensive that the corrupters win just because of the threat.

A major way those who want corruption destroy government effectiveness is by starving the agencies of operating funds. That's what happened to the patent office. The corrupters won't allow hiring of enough people to do the job well.

For a discussion of starving the SEC (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, regulates the stock exchange), see this article: Keeping the SEC on a Starvation Diet. The corrupters don't want their stock manipulations discovered. They want more of this: Enron fraud, this: WorldCom fraud and this: Tyco fraud.

They are corrupting the IRS (U.S. Internal Revenue Service, collects taxes), too. The corrupters definitely do NOT want their tax returns to be audited, so they arrange that there is not enough money for audits: Bush Request for IRS Not Enough, Report Says

They are corrupting the courts. Those who want corruption spend huge amounts to get lazy judges elected, and work for the defeat of judges who do a good job.

Another major way that corruption of the courts is accomplished by not giving the courts enough money to operate. A 2003-06-24 op-ed article by Charles Williamson, then president of the Oregon State Bar, in The Oregonian, the Northwest's largest newspaper, said, "The crippling loss of nearly one-third of their staff have left our courts unable to hear criminal cases such as car theft, shoplifting, prostitution, fraud and identity theft."

The Bush administration has been appointing heads of government agencies who reduce the role of those agencies. After they destroy the effectiveness of the agencies, they go back to running their businesses, and the corruption gives them more profit.

The book Other People's Money discusses corporate corruption. It's excellent. Secrets and Lies: Operation "Iraqi Freedom" and After: A Prelude to the Fall of U.S. Power in the Middle East?, by Dilip Hiro is an excellent book about the corruption that led to the most recent U.S.-Iraq war.

The corruption is extremely widespread. The books mentioned above and the 3 movies and 34 books reviewed in this article are not enough to tell the story: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

In general, most Americans don't want to know how corrupt their government has become. Most don't read books. The TV news they watch is heavily influenced by the corrupters. For example, GE, one of the largest sellers of weapons, owns NBC, one of the major ways Americans get their news.

This subject is important. Tens of thousands of employees and investors have lost their entire life savings because of the corporate fraud in the United States. If the corruption isn't stopped, it can happen to you.

Anyone who reads some of the books about the Enron fraud and the WorldCom fraud and the Tyco fraud, will learn that the fraud is accomplished partly by deceptive trading. It is not only the authors of the books who think that Merrill Lynch was involved in deceptive trading; the SEC and FBI think that too, as the links in the grandparent comment, to U.S. government web sites, show.

Look at this quote from the linked article: "Chen Ming-tai, TSE president, said Fubon dealers made the mistake by injecting NT$7.7 billion from one of their international clients [Merrill Lynch] into the market to purchase various stocks issued by 282 companies at the highest prices of the day."

Who selected the 282 companies? If you have read the books about the fraud, it is easy to guess that they were all losing Merrill Lynch investments that the company wanted off its books. That's only a guess, but it is an educated guess, given what has aleady happened. On the other hand, it is not easy to understand some of the deceptions. Sometimes investigators have required months to uncover the sneaky behavior.

Look at this quote from the BBC article linked in the grandparent comment: "A Taiwanese stock brokerage that mistakenly bought $255 [Million U.S. dollars]..." That is more than a quarter of a billion dollars! How is it possible that the financial instruments of 282 companies can be selected by one keystroke error? How is it possible that someone who was "unfamiliar with the company's new computer trading programme" could spend $255,000,000 with a single keystroke error?

A situation has been arranged in which we are not allowed to know the name of the employee who supposedly made the error. My guess is that the employee on whom this is blamed is not aware of any error. That would mean that this could easily be a story invented by his managers.

If you read the books about the frauds, you will read about literally hundreds of deceptive practices such as the one I am suggesting here.

Many people in the U.S. seem to want to be ignorant and stay ignorant about the corruption, as is seen by reading some of the responses to the grandparent comment.

The "stock market" is heavily involved in deliberate government corruption.

The Bush administration has been appointing heads of government agencies who reduce the role of those agencies. After they destroy the effectiveness of the agencies, they go back to running their businesses, and the corruption gives them more profit.

Another way they corrupt government is to starve the agencies of operating funds.

For a discussion of starving the SEC (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, regulates the stock exchange), see this article: Keeping the SEC on a Starvation Diet. The corrupters don't want their stock manipulations discovered. They want more of this: Enron fraud, this: WorldCom fraud and this: Tyco fraud.

This is all part of extremely widespread corruption in the U.S. government. Even the 3 movies and 34 books linked in this article are not enough to tell the story: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

They are corrupting the IRS (U.S. Internal Revenue Service, collects taxes), too. The corrupters definitely do NOT want their tax returns to be audited, so they arrange that there is not enough money for audits: Bush Request for IRS Not Enough, Report Says

They are corrupting the patent office the same way. That's why there are so many crazy patents.

The EFF apparently does not realize that the crazy patents are caused by deliberate corruption. Not allowing enough money for an agency to do its job is a deliberate strategy of those who want corruption in the U.S. government. When corrupters don't want government oversight, they just reduce the operating funds. Those who want corruption don't mind if they destroy a thousand things to get one thing they want.

Those who want corruption will introduce bills that, if passed, would give the EFF what it wants, with the secret understanding that the bills won't get passed.

For a disussion of starving the SEC (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, regulates the stock exchange), see this article: Keeping the SEC on a Starvation Diet. The corrupters don't want their stock manipulations discovered. They want more of this: Enron fraud, this: WorldCom fraud and this: Tyco fraud.

They are corrupting the IRS (U.S. Internal Revenue Service, collects taxes), too. The corrupters definitely do NOT want their tax returns to be audited, so they arrange that there is not enough money for audits: Bush Request for IRS Not Enough, Report Says

The Bush administration has been appointing heads of government agencies that have agreed to reduce the role of those agencies. When they have destroyed the agencies, they will go back to running their businesses, and the corruption will give them more profit.

This is all part of extremely widespread corruption in the U.S. government. Even the 3 movies and 34 books linked in this article are not enough to tell the story: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

That's interesting that you say it is a new McCarthyism. I had come to the same conclusion. We are seeing a general social breakdown in the United States. Consider the Enron fraud and the WorldCom fraud and the Tyco fraud, for example. Large companies are self-destructing.

The U.S. government is another example: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government

McCarthyism cannot be blamed on McCarthy. He was just one crazy person. There are always crazy people. It was the people who participated and didn't speak up that changed McCarthy from one crazy man to a social movement called McCarthyism.

The AC post above this comment (now at -1) is so typical. Something terrible happens in technology, and, instead of talking about the technology, technically knowledgeable being attacking each other!

The parent post is exactly right: "I'm an EE in Microelectronics, and I had been very disappointed in Intel's tricks to get MHz up."

Intel agrees! The whole point of abandoning the Pentium 4 is that Intel is dissapointed, also. Certainly the engineers at Intel did not know it would happen this way.

The Inquirer article says the same thing: "The heat dissipation/power consumption problems the company has had with the first 90nm desktop Pentium 4, 'Prescott', may well have convinced it that if it's to bring multi-core CPUs to market, its needs to completely rethink the architecture of those cores."

Not very long ago, AMD had 8 to 10 percent of the desktop market, now the share is closer to 50 percent.

Intel has not been doing well. I've had extensive conversations with people who work for Intel, including people who help design Intel microprocessors. In my opinion, it seems that Intel is suffering from years of bad management. Intel has been a company that treated its employees badly, and now the entire company is suffering.

The self-destruction of Intel seems to me to be related to the self-destruction of other U.S. companies, like Enron and WorldCom and the Tyco . It is my understanding that the self-destruction of these companies is related to a general social breakdown that is happening in the United States. I've written a draft of an article about the problems: Social Breakdown in the United States. (This is only the May 7, 2004, 12:46, draft version.)

The problems with family in the U.S. are much, much worse than you are saying. Even when there is no divorce, a high percentage of families are disfunctional. For example, both U.S. President George W. Bush and U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney are alcoholics. Dick Cheney has two DUIs and George W. Bush one:

Bush DUI, 1st record of arrest
Bush DUI, 2nd record of arrest
Cheney DUI, 1st DUI arrest record
Cheney DUI, 2nd DUI arrest record

Most people have little experience with alcoholics. If you know one, ask him or her about this. Alcoholics say that it requires "4 to 6 years" of driving drunk before they get a DUI. (DUI means "Driving Under the Influence of an intoxicating drug.) They will tell you that "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic".

While you are talking to a (recovered) alcoholic, ask them about the other characteristics of alcoholics, such as the black-and-white thinking ("You are either with us or against us") of George W. Bush. Alcoholics are often very socially engaging and likable. At other times, alcoholics are often very angry and violent, for example, consider the war in Iraq that even hawks agree serves no purpose. It's easy to find alcoholics and recovered alcoholics in the United States. Anyone can go to meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous. In the small city of Portland, Oregon, USA, there are 27 AA meetings each week, three each day.

Former U.S. president Bill Clinton's parents were violent alcoholics. You can read the book. Bill Clinton's misuse of sexuality is typical of alcoholism-influenced families.

Family life is so stressful in the U.S. that children turn to drugs to try to cope:

"The daughter of Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was arrested... ... while allegedly trying to buy the anti-anxiety drug Xanax." (Jeb Bush is George W. Bush's brother.) Why was she willing to break the law to buy a drug to become less anxious? Because living in her family is very anxiety-producing?

George W. Bush's daughters seem to be imitating their alcoholic father: "Barbara and Jenna Bush were both charged ". Ask yourself, why do these teenage women feel they need a drug like alcohol so badly that they are willing to break the law?

Don't try to talk about this with most Americans, however. They have been told many times that the U.S. is a "Superpower" and that "The U.S. is the best country in the world". (My father says that, for example.) Most of them are unwilling to look at the problems and therefore don't truly love the United States. There is so much pain in the life of many Americans that looking at one more problem would be an overload beyond their ability.

The disfunctionality of families in the U.S. has created a social breakdown that affects everything in U.S. life. For example, consider breakdowns of large companies such as the Enron fraud and the WorldCom fraud and the Tyco fraud.

The disfunctionality of families in the U.S. has created corruption in the U.S. federal, state, and local governments:

Those who want corruption in the U.S. federal and state governments arrange that there is not enough money to do the work. This is happening throughout the United States. Here is a quote from an article written by the president of the Oregon State Bar Association:

"The c