Slashdot Mirror

Also, read Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities Per State

What states ban cell phone talking while driving?

Here you are http://www.ghsa.org/html/state...

So, you missed the whole "now we are equipping the pedestrians with glasses which actually blind them from what is going on around them" that I was replying to?
  Most states have distracted driving laws already in place to cover ANY distraction.

No; distracted pedestrians (whether texting on their phone or wearing blinkers) also tend to cause more havoc than they reap, as people tend to prefer to crash into non-living objects when given the option.

So, you missed the whole "now we are equipping the pedestrians with glasses which actually blind them from what is going on around them" that I was replying to?
Most states have distracted driving laws already in place to cover ANY distraction.

I wasn't talking about "traffic fatalities fell from 1980 to 2000, then stopped declining". I'm talking "they started declining way back, and ARE STILL DECLINING!

In spite of all the people talking on their cellphones.

And you somehow think that measuring fatalities is the metric?

That would imply that any unsafe act would result in only fatalities, no simple accidents, no injuries or property damage only accidents.

before we go on too far, not everything is declining. 2012 saw an increase in teen vehicle fatalities. Even so, there is an improper fixation on only fatalities.

http://ghsa.org/html/publications/pdf/spotlights/spotlight_teens12.pdf

A friends daughter has been involved in 2 TWD accidents. First time she clipped a mailbox, the second time a street sign. In the first accident, damage was minor. In th esecond, she totaled the car. She was not injured in either accident, in the second, the airbags deployed.

Using the fatality metric, her texting was not a bad thing. Using an injury metric, it was not a bad thing. Property damage? well, maybe. But she thankfully wasn't killed, so TWD is safe in some people's eyes.

But replace the mail box and the street sign with pedestrians, and they would have almost certainly been dead. Would that make her texting a bad thing? Then again, those pedestrians weren't driving, so texting and driving is still safe. Not so much for the pedestrians who were hit.

For further entertainment

http://www.missouricaraccident.com/blog/cell-phone-texting-issues/distracted-driver-hits-pedestrians-i-70/

http://www.wcax.com/story/15251324/police-driver-who-hit-colchester-pedestrian-was-texting

http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=168456&fm=newsmain%2Cnarts

Surveillance of a public road is one thing but a citizen has a right to "face their accuser". In the case of the IRS the data was analyzed by a person prior to bringing accusation. The speeding camera...probably not. If I challenge the accusation who will I be facing in court? Many cities categorize speeding camera tickets as a civil instead of a moving violation skirting the Constitution in the process. In these cities my right to face my accuser has been removed. How is a speeding ticket not a moving violation? I'm not disagreeing with your premise just showing you one of the ways the government is manipulating the outcome.

No state bans all cell phone use for all drivers, but many prohibit use by certain subsets: We don't have cell phone bans, we have you have to talk with wireless headset laws in 10 states.

We don't have cell phone bans the same reason we don't ban drive through restaurants (which are far more dangerous than cell phones or DUI) There would be too much backlash.

"No state bans all cell phone use for all drivers, but many prohibit use by certain subsets" With the subsets being school bus drivers and novice drivers.

Hands free talking on the cell phone is as dangerous as talking with the cell phone to your ear, and less dangerous than eating that burger just picked up at the drive through. The insurance industry would probably accept a swap of legalizing DUI if every drive through restaurant was closed, as the reduced accident rate would save them some money. Some dangerous behavior is easier to ban than others.

Wow the land of the free is not so free anymore : http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/aggressivedriving_laws.html

Around Washington state, the state patrol motto is
8 you're great, 9 you're mine.

Some of this is dictated by the accuracy of the radar guns, but quite frankly the size of the fine comes into play more often than you think.

10% is a conservative estimate of what you can get away with just about everywhere and not have to worry about some hick sheriff's speed trap. On the freeway, anything in keeping with the flow of traffic will seldom get any attention.

In some states If you are constantly changing lanes to jump around cars AND slightly over the limit you are more likely go get stopped for speeding and have an aggressive driving charge added.

Sad attempt at a sideways dig at the US, but it is the law in 49 out of the 50 states. In 32 states, it is a primary offense.

Sideways dig or not, it's probably still true:

Most countries [who?] outside North America adhere to internationalized European ECE vehicle and equipment regulations rather than the U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. ECE airbags are generally smaller and inflate less forcefully than U.S. airbags, because the ECE specifications are based on belted crash test dummies.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag#United_States

I suspect that this is a bigger problem in the US than elsewhere, as their airbags have to be so much more powerful than (for example) European ones as the manufacturers can't assume that you're wearing a seatbelt (a legal requirement in most of the civilised world).

Sad attempt at a sideways dig at the US, but it is the law in 49 out of the 50 states. In 32 states, it is a primary offense.

This is especially true for cops who use their hand held mobile phones while driving. It's ironic and sad that many cops do this and then turn around and issue tickets for the same offense in those states which have laws prohibiting the use of handheld phones while driving.

Since DUI checkpoints are illegal under Washington state constitution, the parents of your friends won't be waiting for any checkpoint.

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/bystate/wa.html

I'm sorry for their loss, and I fully support MUCH tougher penalties for drunk driving (or other crimes, like hitting cyclists). From the article you linked to, it sounds like your friends would be alive today if there was proper punishment for DUIs:

Records show Fred Russell has had other legal problems, including two charges of under-age drunken driving when he was 18 -one in Chico, Calif., to which he pleaded no contest, and another in Pullman, to which he pleaded guilty. No one was injured in either case.

But, in your mind, a smartphone app is to blame, not the legal system that still let that drunk back on the road, twice?

I drove through South Carolina recently and noticed signs that stated the penalty for speeding in a work zone was $200 and 30 days. On the surface, you might think that's reasonable to keep road workers safe.

But there are long stretches of highway marked as work zones with NO sign of workers, equipment, or construction. Nothing. And state law says workers do not need to be present. These were for all intents and purposes speed zones where getting caught got you 30 days in jail, and judging by the cars left on the side of the road (I counted 6 on one highway) it looks like they're enforcing it regularly.

A couple times a month I see some idiot clearly not paying attention on the road and making dangerous decisions. The only clear pattern I've ever observed is that 9 times out of 10 it's someone on a cell-phone. Just yesterday some moron in a mini-van came close to merging right into me, and sure enough there was a cell phone next to his head. I've never noticed a pattern in car, gender, race, or bumper-stickers... but the person holding a cell phone up to their ear is a very clear pattern. I've never seen someone texting, so I have to believe it's rather rare.

Unfortunately there's still no law in Minnesota against using a cell phone while driving. For some reason there's a ban on kids using a cell phone while driving, but apparently when you get older you gain a magical ability to drive and hold your cell phone at the same time. I believe most states are the same way.

So if you ask me the big problem is just plain old cell phone use, not texting. Texting while driving is idiotic and should be illegal, but concentrating on it and increasing penalties to ridiculous 15 year jail terms while ignoring the obvious problem of people using cell phones while driving is equally foolish. According to http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html Cell phone usage while driving is not illegal in Utah.