Slashdot Mirror
Legislators Ponder BlackBerry Pileups
WSJdpatton writes to mention that legislators are taking a look at a new driving offense, DWT — Driving While Texting. Sparked by an increase in accidents related to the use of an electronic devices, this is just the latest in a string of "distracted driving" laws that are being entertained. "Some wireless industry supporters argue that statutes barring texting while driving are too specific. What is needed, they say, is not narrowly focused legislation, but a campaign to educate the public about all driver distractions. In Washington, D.C., an industry lobby group called CTIA -- The Wireless Association has begun tracking legislation, including Ms. McDonald's bill, and scratching out a strategy to counter it."
Can we just outlaw driving already and be done with it?
Oh, Oh, Oh, I know the answer!
"some common freaking sense or a chauffeur!"
There are only two steps in the gathering of ultimate knowledge. Open your eyes and, RTFM!
Its all I can say to people crashing while trying to type... until one gets me, then I'm gonna take home some spare hands.
I-94 sucks every single day, and I see people staring at their phone while driving on this deathtrap of an interstate all the time...
I got nothin'
Why do we need all of these new laws? Isn't driving carelessly already illegal? And how are we going to enforce all of these new laws anyway? Force auto makers to equip cars with built-in spy cams with wireless transmissions to the police?
My blog
Can we just outlaw driving already and be done with it?
That doesn't really get to the root of the problem. We need to start punishing stupidity more harshly.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
This morning I was stuck behind a vapid looking blond in a Mercedes. She was driving erratically, speeding up and slowing down, veering outside her lane, and cutting people off. Then I noticed that she had her rear-view mirror tilted so she could see herself, and she appeared to be doing her hair and makeup while driving.
That is unsafe driving. Unsafe driving is currently against the law, and it covers more than just cell phones and crackberries. It is no more enforced than any new law against one specific type of unsafe driving would be. Why don't we just enforce the laws we have instead of making new ones that will also only be conditionally enforced?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Some wireless industry supporters argue that statutes barring texting while driving are too specific. What is needed, they say, is not narrowly focused legislation, but a campaign to educate the public about all driver distractions
Close, but not quite.
There's an infinite variety of shit you can distract yourself with when you're driving. Trying to craft legislation to address every single one of those things would be a great jobs program for would-be legislators, but it's likely to be ineffectual.
Like so many other problems with cars, this is one that's directly the responsibility of the idiot behind the wheel. Competent drivers don't distract themselves while they're driving, and the source of the problem is that we insist on giving drivers' licenses to people who are not only not competent, but whose only qualification for driving is the ability to fog a mirror.
If drivers' licenses actually signified some level of competence, rather than simply the ability to pay a registration fee, then the problem of drivers playing with their Blackberries or their cellphones or their makeup or a road map while they're supposed to be driving would tend to disappear, because those people would be either on a bus, or in the back seat of a carpool.
Maybe we should ban talking to your passenger too.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
Shouldn't this be adequately covered by reckless driving statutes? After all, intentionally engaging in an activity that you know will result in being less attentive to the road is certainly showing a disregard for the rights and safety of people and property, as well as showing a failure to exercise due caution.
Rather than making new laws for every specific thing someone can do in a car that will result in reckless driving, just charge them with reckless driving and be done with it.
Unfucking believable. I was tempted to put her in the ditch on principle.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
IANAL, but as I understand it, all of the US states have laws that make dangerous or reckless driving a punishable violation. If you are driving while texting, or using the phone but speak with both of your hands, that is both dangerous and reckless... problem solved, no new laws are required. The CTIA can rest easy knowing that mobile phones and devices do cause accidents, but no special laws are required. Law enforcement officers don't really need new laws, just permission to press existing laws into action when they see dangerous or reckless driving!
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
So, anyway,
Now hear the sound
Of the very best rapper
For miles around
Yes I'm the fella
Who's where it's at
There's absolutely no denying that
Yes, I'm the apex
I'm the best
I'm considerably better
Than all the rest
The acme
The zenith
The tippest of the top
The ne plus ultra
The hippest of the hop
The summit
The pinnacle
The highest of the high
The apogee of rappers
That's I
In most countries driving while sending a text message is already illegal under something along the lines of "Reckless driving" - that's what this is, after all.
Education really is the key here. Too many people believe they're a "better than average" driver, and not enough think about the consequences their actions could have.
I'm heartily sick of having to avoid drivers using their mobile phone when they aren't paying attention to the road. As a cyclist I know that I'll come off worse in any collision.
Enough random comments. Two days until the end of my job here and I've too much to get done.
Oh arse
we have 3 categories in NJ
careless, reckless, and unsafe (newest) unsafe means no insurance points, just more cash straight to the state.
no. what that woman did was reckless.. it shows a clear contempt for the dangers of the road, and the fact that she has a 2 ton mass hurtling down the road.
that said, I text while driving, and expect I'll pay for it someday...
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
a bill that would make it a crime to "operate a motor vehicle while reading, writing or sending electronic messages."
Whoa, sparky. This is a law. You need to KEEP SUBJECTS DISTINCT.
The driver is not a subject in this fragment, only the motor vehicle. It makes it illegal for the motor vehicle to read/write/send electronic messages? Now, let's see what this wording outlaws, off the top of my head:
Buses that display the route/bus number
Trains that have verbal announcements of stops
Police Officers looking up plates/driver IDs (unless the car is shut off first)
is enforcing the laws as they exist. And not making new ones to be seen as "doing something"
There are already laws on the books for negligent driving.
There are already laws on the books for distracted driving.
Between those two, you cover the vast swath of "being a danger to others".
You don't need laws for "driving while texting", "driving while putting on makeup", "driving while reading the NYT", "driving while eating", "driving while thinking about that really hot chick at the club", "driving while changing clothes", "driving while being outsmarted by the radio/CD player", "driving while tired, because I was an idiot and stayed up all night playing WoW", etc.
If any of those (or thousands of other examples) result in the person driving in a distracted or negligent manner, they are ALREADY illegal. If not, then why should anyone care?
Honestly, as much as I despise the insurance industry I think it is about time for them to step up on this. Get in a wreck of any kind and it comes out you were texting/cellphone/whatever just enforce a massive rate hike. My sister t-boned another car because she was reaching for her phone on the passenger side floor. Yet as an under 25 male (at the time) with a muscle car and a pristine driving record I get to pay more? People frequently only care about things when it hurts their pocket book. Make it financially insane to do this crap while driving and you will fix the problem alot faster.
I would really like to see something like this more than another pile full of ineffective loophole filled legislation wasting my tax dollars to combat this crap. If they must do this with legislation I would really like to see something with a little more bite to it than a quick fine and its over. 1st offense 1 week license suspension, 2nd offense 1 month, 3rd offense 1 year. Any person that suffers through 1 week or 1 month of no driving should feel the pain enough to not risk 1 year.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
So that politicians can look like they're doing something about this grave new threat to everyone's safety.
Seriously, aside from the fact that driving carelessly is already against the law, exactly how many "Blackberry pile-ups" have their been? I'm guessing it's a miniscule number caused by either flukes or by people who drive so stupidly that they would have had an accident whatever they were doing.
Do we really need a law to prevent, what, a dozen or so at the most accidents a year? Would those dozen or so people who cause those accident really not send text messages while driving because of it?
How about "safe for driving" certification for devices?
I my opinion this is simple and elegant ... and would no eliminate dash board embedded devices ... it would not effect companies ... and make prosecution of the idiots who text and drive easier!
Or even better add a GPS ... and if your moving fast than 20 km/h ... then disable the device.
This is much worse than talking on a cell phone. Why? The single most important sense for driving safely is vision. With a cell phone, at least you can keep your eyes on the road. How can someone expect to drive safely while looking at the display of a BlackBerry (or any other portable gadget with a display)?
Driving while using a BlackBerry is so idiotic, if it weren't for the high probability that these people would kill innocent bystanders, I'd recommend them for Darwin Awards.
why should i be given fines and increased insurance because other people cant handle it.
Because you're wrong - you can't handle it. You've handled it _so far_ but you're increasing your risk while driving distracted. Period. You may never get into/cause an accident, but your risk of doing so is higher than mine.
Build a sensor into the airbag system that looks for wireless devices within 2 ft of the steering wheel.
If found, do not activate airbag.
Problem solved.
CTIA: "Yeah! It is discriminatory for the legislature to focus only on wireless devices. There are myriad other driving distractions that should be addressed also."
Ms. McDonald (D-RL): "Such as?"
CTIA: "Well, you know... other stuff..."
Ms. McDonald: "..."
CTIA: "Oh, I know! Billboards! Those are definitely distracting. Especially the kind with lights or moving parts."
Ms. McDonald: "We've had lighted, moving billboards for six decades now. I do not think it urgent that they be addressed in my Bill."
CTIA: "Uh."
Ms. McDonald: "Is that all you've got?"
CTIA: "Windshield wipers?"
Ms. McDonald: "No."
CTIA: "Speedometers?"
Ms. McDonald: "No."
CTIA: "Satellite radio?"
NAB: "Yeah!"
Ms. McDonald: "No!"
CTIA: "Alright, look. Is your, ah, how shall we put this? How is your reelection fund coming along?"
Ms. McDonald: "Glad you asked. Perhaps my Bill is a little too narrowly-worded..."
CTIA: "Yes. We're looking for something very broad and vague, preferably so broad that the words 'wireless' and 'device' are not actually mentioned. To tell you the truth, we're really aiming for 'unenforceable', if you understand?"
Ms. McDonald: "Ah. Would you mind closing the door there? These legislative negotiations should be kept confidential, especially where Public Safety is concerned."
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
I floss while driving. The cops hate it, but my dentist loves me!
I am not left-handed, either!
I can drive perfectly well while using a phone or eating because i know how to read the early signs of stupid people
What is your licence plate number so I know to avoid you? Whenver someone says they drive fine with distractions and the problem is with stupid people on the road. Then that means they are a bad driver and don't want to admit it. I know I am not the best driver in the world realizing that has made me a little bit safer and calmer on the road. Knowing and admiting to yourself when you make a mistake allows you to fix it in the future to improve your driving. As well it makes you less fustrated when someone else does a mistake because you can remember when you did the same thing. But the people who think they are good drivers usually act like jerks on the road cutting people off tailgating them and may other bad driving things just because they think they can handle it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
1) You're wrong. You can't do the things you claim you can do.
2) Interesting wording. "clear of at fault". So, how about the accidents you (and your 'mom') weren't legally at fault for during that time, but might have been able to avoid if you weren't terrible?
You're given fines and increased insurance, because, statistically, there will be lucky "dee dee dee"s such as yourself, until they ARE at fault for vehicular manslaughter. If you continue believing you can do those things, don't worry, the insurance company will have its justification.
"I can drive perfectly well while using a phone or eating"
:-)
I'm sure you don't not 100% of the time. If I get hit by someone eating or on a phone I plan on showing the person a new interface for their phone/food
I can't think of anyone likely to call/text me that is so important that I risk my life, and the lives of others. to answer the fucking phone! They can wait till I get where I'm going.
We need stupid people. Stupid people do what they are told to do by their society. Most of the time, this is what has worked for their ancestors and will still work for them. This provides a surplus upon which all innovation and excellence is based. Without stupid people, you'd have everyone innovating all the time and not doing what works. The problem with innovation is that, much of the time, it fails.
Einstein, alone in the jungle without a bunch of "stupid" people around to take up the slack and focus on the environment, would likely be too distracted thinking abstract thoughts to notice the lion creeping up on him. It takes all kinds to make our world work. Remember that the next time you want to off a group of people that evolution has, so far, kept around in the gene pool in relatively large numbers.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Before the automobile was happily mass-produced, it was then expected that nobody would drive their own cars and estimated that only a couple hundred people in the world would have the skills to drive them. (For how much they would cost, it wouldn't have been unreasonable that owners could afford to rent drivers.)
Fast forward to today and mostly everyone in the industrialized world knows how to drive. Some people are good drivers, some people are bad drivers. Being free of distractions aren't going to magically make bad drivers into good ones, and handing a cell phone or Blackberry or Big Mac to a good driver won't immediately make them bad drivers.
Meanwhile, there are undistracted people who drive aggressively, cut people off, drive faster than conditions safely allow, ignore maintenance of things like brakes and tires, drive drunk, and other bad things. I'd like to see statistics of traffic accidents and fatalities involving these factors versus those with cells and Blackberries.
I'd wager technology distractions aren't nearly as significant as the politicians looking to get pegged as "The Guy who Cleaned Up our Roads" are making it out to be.
More Twoson than Cupertino
DWT is a new offense, not to be confused with the one Dubya has committed,
DWT: Driving While Texan
I don't for the life of me understand why they haven't passed a law banning driving while talking on a cell phone (either hands-on or hands-off).
I live downtown and walk to work everyday, and I constantly see drivers talking on their cellphones, often obstructing a good part of one side of their vision, navigating and turning on tight street corners. I mean, this isn't the freeway or some flat road. This is right in the middle of downtown traffic!
Also, I saw a documentary on a study on that the mere act of concentrating on an outside conversation while driving, where the other party to the conversation is unaware of the driving. The driver would wear a headset, and would be more or less pestered with questions from the outside party. In comparison with the control group (driving without conversing), their driving was far worse, and they registered a disturbing number of simulated accidents.
It makes me sick that somebody supposedly "controlling" two tons of steel and plastic, effectively a fatal weapon if used improperly, is so crass, brazen, irrespesponsible, inconsiderate and utterly reckless as to neglect devoting 100% of their concentration on ensuring they maintain command of their vehicle.
It's not enough to ban hand-held cell phones. All manner of outside conversations must be banned for drivers of cars.
Granted, I almost got run over by a driven who was having an animated conversation with his passengers *while driving*, so it's impossible to legislate away all forms of human stupidity.
This space left intentionally blank.
Maybe you can use your cellphone while driving. But surly you can't text while driving safely which is discussion.
Maybe it's sarcasm that went over my head, but I think you're serious, so I'll bite...
I can drive perfectly well while using a phone or eating because i know how to read the early signs of stupid people and PUT DOWN THE PHONE OR FOOD when i see them.
For me, the early signs of stupid people are people who are on the phone or eating.
I'm clear of at fault accidents for over 5 years, and i've only been driving for 8.
I've been driving for 20 years. No accidents of any kind. Only 5 years since your last at-fault accident makes you worse than average.
Just pull over if you're too busy to drive.
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
Honestly, if people are so incredibly stupid as to text message while driving, we should just let them die in firey car accidents, so long as they have a sign on top of their cars saying in bright yellow letters saying that they drive like morons. People that do pay enough attention to the road would notice these signs and stay the hell away and as a bonus, get to experience sweet sweet shadenfreuden as those texting drivers wreck their cars- all this hopefully before managing to reproduce, end result, slightly more common sense in the species!
Electronic gadgets are not as big of a distraction as driving with children.
You can turn off gadgets, but you cannot turn off your children. (Well, you can, but they tend to not come back on and it voids the warrenty.)
Until they outlaw children in cars these accidents will continue to happen.
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
COMEDY THIEF!!!!
/. has been marked off-topic.
You stole (ok, so you cited, but it's not in APA) from Mencia, who stole that from someone else(probably, and he didn't cite)
This
Maybe we should look more to why people feel compelled to Drive and Text at the same time? I think we'll see a trend that has been building for years in the US. Businesses are asking more and more of individual employees, having them do the job of 3, 4 or 5 people, all in the name of more profits?
If an employee is so important, it's key that they're reachable when their on their way somewhere else, or needs to be instantly accessed 24/7, maybe there needs to be thought about why that's happening. Why there isn't any alternate coverage. People feel compelled to be accessable for their work because the way we live our lives is evolving from where it used to be more personal time, to now more company time.
I suppose the question I should pose is: How do we change that trend, or can it be?
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
"Just pull over if you're too busy to drive."
Hell no. It's my right to do whatever I want in a car no matter how much danger it puts others in. If I want to text with one hand, eat a hot greasy sub in the other while getting a BJ from a hooker I picked up thats MY right. I am the best driver in the world and nothing effects me! In fact I will even drive with both eyes closed and don't you dare tell me I can't
It amazes me at the selfishness of people. Why do they think they are so important they need to do all this stuff driving? Why do they think its ok to increase their chances drastically of getting into an accident and possibly killing and injuring others?
If you are so important you need to be on your cell when driving then I think you are important neough to have a chauffuer.
technological responses to social problems, but perhaps the law that should be passed here is: require a verbal command/ readback interface in every new car. you get in your car, you plug your cellphone into your car, and you interact with it verbally
yes, i can imagine at least half a dozen problems with this scheme. i'm just trying to be constructive. driving while texting is obviously a problem, but laws aimed at behavior modification are less appealing than laws that target the car industry to empower drivers to modify their behavior more effortlessly
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If a guy causes an accident while texting, playing gameboy, doodling with his iPod, or brushing his teeth, or masturbating charge him with reckless endangerment or careless driving.
We don't need new goofy specific laws. It's already illegal to drive while you're distracted by something else.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
They don't need a new law to deal with this. Reckless driving is already on the books in every jurisdiction. All they need is a law, regulation or ruling saying that failure to pay attention to the road, regardless of why you're not paying attention, is indeed reckless driving. Then it doesn't matter whether the guy's texting on his Blackberry, gabbing on his cel phone, has his head down fiddling with his overly-complicated stereo system or is turned around yelling at his kid in the back seat, he can get pulled over and ticketed. In California this is already the case, see California Vehicle Code sections 23103 and 23104. Besides the fine and possible jail time, it's also a 2-point violation and 4 points in 12 months or 6 points in 24 months is a suspended license which will really put a crimp in these people's lives.
I think the larger issue is people treat driving like a right instead of as a privilege, and as such don't give it any respect. I've seen, just like many others have probably, really shitty driving from single occupancy vehicles where no cell phone or other toy was involved.
Most people [including myself from time to time, but I think, perhaps with bias less so] commit driving infractions on a ROUTINE basis. Changing lanes without properly checking, or signalling, speeding, denying right of way, etc... Some are even bad for the car, like accelerating too quickly, braking when a gentle coast could have helped, driving while the car is cold, not waiting to stop before going from reverse to drive, etc.
Then there are those who are astoundingly bad drivers, mostly because they make really poor decisions (speeding in a snow storm for instance). It's these people who will cause the accidents with cell phones and other things because they don't treat driving seriously. They seemingly forget that they are in a 5000lbs cage driving 60mph and how much energy is involved in a collision.
I think they should have more routine traffic checks. On my way home it's dangerous to drive the speed limit, because when you do everyone passes you and cuts you off as they enter the lane [even when you're in the far right lane]. Despite that, I still drive the speed limit because it's the law [and because they setup speed traps from time to time]. I routinely fight for right of way at intersections because everyone does the "rolling" stop. And, just last week I had to pull an emergency stop on the way home [re: hit brakes really hard] because someone decided that pulling in front of me (doing a right turn) when I was going 65km/h was a smart thing to do.
Worse yet, that person probably has their full G license, while I have to monkey around with graduated licensing!!!
I think if more people got $150 fines on a regular basis it might help. People need to smarten the hell up. We keep letting things slide as "fleeting," pretty soon we're just going to be in a big demolition derby. It'd also help if people stopped contesting the fines when they're clearly at fault [e.g. personal responsibility, yeah one can dream!]
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
This is already covered by UK law - either driving without due care and attention, or causing death by dangerous driving.
. stm.
t m
In fact someone who caused a fatal accident while texting has been sentenced to jail for 2 years, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6357425.stm and another to a young offenders institution, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/6448887
But it's common to other EU countries too, here is another example from France; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3673632.s
...is to switch to ubiquitous public transportation. The problem is that people at large are stupid. Driving is a dangerous activity and people get hurt or killed every day. And yet it's the only choice most of us have.
Lawmakers have to get out of this mindset of making laws for things to say what we can't do, and maybe work on rethinking the problem a bit.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
actually.. it's quite above average for someone so early on in their time driving.
funny how you go off on your tangent attacking me when i gave the example of my mother, who does the same thing, and has not had an at fault accident since my birth (i've been driving 8 years.. do the math pal).
For me, the early signs of stupid people are people who are on the phone or eating.
this is called prejudice.. can we say prejudice? gooood. next thing youll say is "for me, early signs of criminals are their skin color"
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I can drive perfectly well while using a phone or eating because i know how to read the early signs of stupid people.
So can my mother. I'm clear of at fault accidents for over 5 years, and i've only been driving for 8.
A poor driver avoids "at fault accidents"
A good driver avoids accidents.
The defense of "the other guy came from nowhere and hit me" is only useful for determining who pays. In reality, it's bullshit. The "other guy" came from somewhere. Just because the law doesn't fault you for not avoiding the accident doesn't mean you had no options at the time. Maybe if you hung up the phone, stopped shoving food in your hole, and drove with a little more attention than the absolute legally required minimum, you wouldn't be involved in as many accidents. Unfortunately, that won't happen until you adopt a more mature and responsible attitude towards wielding a lethal weapon.
you have no basis to say i cant handle it, and who says food or phones have to be distracting? if you allocate your attention properly theyre not!
you make the primary focus the road, and keep the phone peripherally focused.. you warn the person who called that youre on the road and may need things repeated... if you see people preparing to act idiotic, or see the beginnings of erratic behavior (there are ALWAYS signs before it happens) then you tell them youll call back.
its not my fault other people cant do this, and i should not be victimized because they suck at attention management.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
"this is called prejudice.. can we say prejudice? "
Sorry I disagree with you. If you are doing something besides driving it has been proven without a doubt your chances of causing an accident double. Doesn't matter if its texting, reading, knitting, etc. If I see you next to me doing any of those things then I know the chances of you causing an accident are much higher. I also know what you are doing is not important and what you are doing is putting others lives at risk. Putting other lives at risk by being reckless is a crime.
Your mom may be the best driver in the world, however they are millions of others who suck and will say if she can do it so can we. My life is more valuable then your text message any day.
It's even worse than that. When he does cause an accident, it will probably be at a higher speed than a cautious driver would be driving at due to his confidence in his abilities.
He's right about watching out for stupid drivers though - if I had some way of identifying him on the road, I _would_ be keeping my distance.
Anyway, I suspect we've been trolled.
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors!
Actually this could be a counterexample. Studies have shown that people with a big spike in front of them instead of an airbag drive *far* more carefully...
not looking at the road has to matter a whole hell of a lot more than not thinking about it. it's common sense: if your eyes aren't on the road, and obviously screwed. meanwhile, if your eyes are on the road, it doesn't matter what you are thinking about: brake lights will bring you out of whatever stupor you ar ein if you are at least minimally conscious
i often daydream while driving. i think everyone does. and i don't think it affects my response time at all, as my eyes are on the road, and i can anticipate really fast, just like everyone else
there is no way in hell everyone is going to be staring at the road, thinking about nothing else except the road, all of the time. that's an impossibility
i don't know what study you are talking about, but i utterly reject it. it makes no sense to me whatsoever
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"an industry lobby group called CTIA -- The Wireless Association has begun tracking legislation, including Ms. McDonald's bill, and scratching out a strategy to counter it."
Does the alcohol industry lobby Congress when legislators consider toughening laws to reduce accidents related to DUI? Hopefully our legislators will have the fortitude to resist such worthless sway and evaluate the issue clearly.
Additionally, this is clearly not a case of "Well, let them kill themselves while driving if they're too foolish or impatient to wait or pull over." It's about protecting those of us who have the sense not to do this.
M
ok fine.. the ONLY accident i had in the last 5 years PERIOD was being rear ended at a stoplight by a drunk driver.
my mothers only accidents in the past 20 years were 3 times she was rear ended at traffic lights or waiting for a turn.
how do you suggest i avoid that drunk driver.. by hitting the ditch or the car in front of me.. same thing with my mother.
funny how the first reaction is to attack my driving rather than question the competency of other people who cant handle the slightest distraction.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
it is called reckless driving.
If an officer see's someone driving recklessly they should pull them over.
It doesn't matter if it was a phone, blackberry, putting on makeup, shaving, or wacking off.
Then give them the ticket.
The only organization the benefits is the insurance industry. It's just another way for them to get out of paying.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'm having trouble visualising how one collision could reasonably lead to not one, not two, but three further collisions. I mean, how fast were these people going? When you go fast, you're supposed to go by the "two second" rule for distance from other vehicles. If they were going slow, how could the momentum have jostled a car three collisions down?
What the hell were all these people doing? Driving at 60+ within two meters of each other? Something tells me the original driver was not the only person driving carelessly on that road.
May the Maths Be with you!
ok.. let's attack something else that distracts you!...
i want you to drive without your car stereo, your gps, and if you have anything besides basic seats (for example theyre heated or have a massage feature) that should be removed too.
additionally.. any lights that blink that are not related to the core functionality of the car or the safety of the user, such as the clock, should be removed.
then i'll accept you trying to take away my phone.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
This is already covered by at least two existing laws - 1) DUI the influence can be anything that will distract the driver from full control of the vehicle, and 2) Reckless driving. All that is needed is for these laws to be Federal so as to cover all US states equally.
Note - I turn off the cell when driving, or if I'm expecting a call I pull over before answering.
Hey, it's not the mods fault that you lack the insight to figure out why your behavior is selfish and unsafe, regardless of your inflated opinions.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
if i cant drive with my phone you should not be allowed to drive with your kids..
your kids are a HUGE distraction.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
The exact same argument could be used to pass a law making it illegal to build a campfire in the passenger seat of your car while driving. It's impractical to make laws to prevent every stupid thing a person may do while driving. At some point, you have to say, "You know what? We're going to trust you to use a little bit of common sense. If we find that you've got a bit of a lapse of it, though, and you do something dangerous, we're going to pull you over and give you a ticket."
Yes, some people will still do stupid things. They always will. It's impossible to outlaw them all.
What you can do is make a judgment about which are particularly dangerous. Drunk driving fits into that category, evidenced by the enormous number of accidents and fatalities caused by drunk drivers. Driving while drunk is also a special case in my mind because drinking specifically causes your judgment to be impaired. Texting on a Blackberry, to my knowledge, doesn't make one more stupid than they already are.
That why I was wonder exactly how many "Blackberry pile-ups" there are. If the answer is thousands, then yeah, passing a law against it would probably be a Good Thing®. If it's a few fluke fender-benders, then it's no big deal, and should be well-covered by existing laws regarding paying attention (or in this case, not) while on the road.
I think a lot of us are so used to video game action and other intense activities that driving in typical commuter traffic is just kind of frustrating. You end up fiddling with your iPod or texting or shaving or on the cell phone doing deals just because the commute is "dead time" that you feel like you need to fill in with something entertaining or productive.
Yet, another reason for road rage as well as rear view mirror ornaments, loud thumping music, inability of using blinkers, phones while driving, elderly drivers, handicap drivers, elderly-handicap drivers, slow drivers in a fast lane, rubberneckers, loose animals in the vehicle, over-cautious drivers, leaning drivers (drivers that lean to far too one side while driving), drivers that can barely see over the top of the steering wheel, inability to properly maneuver land-yachts, and eating and reading while driving.
I can drive perfectly well while using a phone or eating because i know how to read the early signs of stupid people and PUT DOWN THE PHONE OR FOOD when i see them.
Yeah, I do the same thing, and the early signs of stupidity that I look for include someone holding a phone or sandwhich.
Glad to know that in your universe, stupid people always give you ample warning before swerving into your lane, considerately allowing you time to identify them, find a place to set down your phone/food/beverage, and return your hands to the wheel so that you can perform evasive maneuvers. 'Cus otherwise you might spill coffee on yourself while trying to find the cup holder while simultaneously swerving out of someone's way.
I'm clear of at fault accidents for over 5 years, and i've only been driving for 8.
Oh wow! So you got in at least one at-fault accident 5 years ago, and you've been in other accidents for which you were not techincally at fault since then. If you were so good at identifying and responding to other stupid drivers, you would have avoided those accidents. "Not at fault" does not mean that you were in no way responsible for the accident, it usually just means the one that broke the rule whether it be speeding, not using a turn signal, or running a stop sign. All of which are common and a good driver must learn to avoid.
why should i be given fines and increased insurance because other people cant handle it.
Your record is anything but "driving perfectly well", and your ability to "handle it" is severely in question. The reason you will be given fines and increased insurance is because you cannot handle it. Here's an idea: Put down the phone BEFORE you encounter any stupid people, and then you're already prepared!
The enemies of Democracy are
Wouldn't a simple "driving without due care and attention" law be enough, like we have in the UK?
Admittedly, they did amend the law recently to band using a mobile phone in any way while driving, but at least in theory you could have been prosecuted under the old law anyway. I think the amendment was simply to get some free advertising and good publicity.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The underlying problem is there are different types of driving conditions, and this type of legislation treats them as all the same. Driving in 8 lanes of bumper to bumper freeway traffic is different than driving on a remote interstate highway in the American southwest where you may see only a handful of oncoming cars per hour. I can even see where there could even be benefits to talking on a cell phone, etc. while driving, for example on these extremely remote highways where driver boredom is a prime cause of accidents.
Aviation cockpit designers think hard about this stuff. They refer to it as "head-down time", the time the pilot is looking at something else in the cockpit and not out the windscreen. In combat, this is fatal. Hence the military emphasis on heads-up displays and HOTAS (Hands On Throttle and Stick) input devices. In civilian aircraft, cockpits are designed to minimize head-down time at least during takeoff, approach, and landing.
Much automotive and civilian gear is terrible by these standards. Cockpit designers insist on big knobs you can set by feel and interfaces that minimize head-down time. They try hard to avoid interfaces with unneeded state, and ones where you have to look to see what state you're in. BMW's iDrive was terrible in this regard. BMW's answer was to include a disclaimer that it was unsafe to operate iDrive while driving. Really.
One design feature that can kill - an interface which times out. The pilot/driver must be able to stop dealing with some cockpit gadget without losing any work. Phones/keyboards/dashboard devices that time out during data entry are dangerous, because they train the user to give them undivided attention. Some phones have this problem, and some don't. Texting has this problem.
"Nothing to watch but the road" - early Oldsmobile slogan.
way to jump to conclusions you prat.
Oh wow! So you got in at least one at-fault accident 5 years ago, and you've been in other accidents for which you were not techincally at fault since then. If you were so good at identifying and responding to other stupid drivers, you would have avoided those accidents. "Not at fault" does not mean that you were in no way responsible for the accident
one accident in the past 5 years thank you.. i was hit while sitting at a light behind someone else, next to someone on the right, and next to a ditch in the median on the left.. i was hit by a drunk.
Your record is anything but "driving perfectly well", and your ability to "handle it" is severely in question.
by a freaking troll who cant accept what someone else tells them, and decides to make insinuations about HIS life, and also cannot accept the fact that not everyone with a phone is incapable of driving.
people like you were the type who would read "such and such study shows mexicans are lazy by nature".. then bash any mexican who talks about serious work with that "fact".
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
However I do think there should be exceptions such as hands free and GPS devices.
Namaste
In the parlance of accident studies, you would fall into the "cognitive error" attribution category, as your ungrounded perceptions of your own driving ability are likely to be the cause of any at-fault accidents in which you are involved.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
Let's make it simple. Let's just legislate against stupidity and be done with it. Whatever your crime, if you were stupid during the commission of the crime, you get an extra 5 years in jail.
Wouldn't that be much simpler than these silly knee-jerk reactions to specific un-problems?
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
Of course you're right; although sometimes I find it amusing to claim (rightly) that I have more legs than the average number among the population. :)
Think about it
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors!
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
You work for Slate and are spamming or something? The FA you linked has two short paragraphs obn the topic we're discussing; there are more informative and interesting comments in this slashdot thread! Be glad I'm not where I can log in, I have mod points and would mod you to hell. If somebody mods you up I'll metamod THEM to hell. Your FA is not only useless, 95% of the linked page is offtopic. Fat men commit suicide less? Oh, Paxil. Yeah, that shit makes you fat!
first off.. iirc that pdf is yearly.
.. or if you have 2 or more "daddy, he's touching me!.... quit it!... daddy she's hitting me!... daddy i have to go to the bathroom! ...ouch i cut myself.. waaaaah!"
this means young drivers have a 30% chance of an at fault accident per year until they reach the age of 24.
this is additive (like multiple coin flips) as multiple years go by, and means you will inevitably have one before you reach 24. This is reflected in the fact that every single person i have ever known or met has had one.
and if you want distraction it should be illegal to take your kids anywhere..
"look look look daddy look"
by the way.. the majority of the near misses i've evaded were people who were NOT using cellphones, had both hands on the wheel, and a complete disregard for things like red lights, yielding to oncomming traffic, and checking your blindspot before changing lanes.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
At any time you take your hands off the wheel or glance away from the road you massively increase your risk of having an accident. You might think that you are maintaining your attention on the road, but any psychologist can assure you it is a mental illusion. Your information processing level drops, your level of observation drops, and your chance of forgetting to carry out a procedure correctly increases. Your personal accident statistics are meaningless (and not good to start with). Anyone practicing defensive driving correctly will *never* cause an accident and will very rarely be involved in anything more serious than a shunt.
I have done enough driver training, both compulsory and off my own back, to know that the minute you start thinking of yourself as a good or safe driver, you are already in the danger zone. Good drivers are the ones that check their tyre pressure and get their cars serviced, not the ones who boast about their burger-chomping skills.
[FUCK BETA]
so that's what they call disagreeing with slashdot groupthink today.. making an ass of myself.. i kinda like it.. it sounds so evil.
the point stands.. theyre attacking one mildly distracting activity while leaving many many others in tact because they either are guilty of it themselves or they know they'd be bum rushed and lynched if they banned car stereos, gps, those in-dash tvs, and driving your kids around.
kids have to be by far the most distracting objects to put in a car and people have been doing fine driving with them for almost a century, but phones are just evil.. BURN THE WITCH BURN THE WITCH (and go packers too but mostly) BURN THE WITCH!
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
All this, of course, just makes the quote about "rhetoric" in your sig even more ironically funny with regards to your behavior in these comments.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
>I'm clear of at fault accidents for over 5 years
So you caused an accident about five years ago?
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Repost of an earlier comment I made about "BlackBerry Orphans":
That's why I propose that you turn kids into personal secretaries.
There is no need to exclude them from your daily lives when you can include them. They can read you e-mail's, send off reports and respond to instant messages when you drive or while you navigate the office, elevators and more. Take them out of school and take them to work. They will learn your trade and the world while keeping the family bond strong and reinforcing the importance of education. You see, you'll teach them to read much faster when you are driving 60 miles an hour and you need to know the time of your next appointment and what direction you should really be going on the highway.
Maybe employing our own children is the answer to allowing more flex time and true telecommuting.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Why not get rid of the speedometer as well? People seem to flagrantly disobey speed limits, too.
Seriously, there are some places that a tachometer still has a purpose...such as in manual transmission cars. Yes, one could interpolate RPM's from the speedometer, but without a tach, it's a little harder to learn where the best shift points are, and when the engine is being over-revved.
Yes, the tach is not a gauge that one should be glazing into constantly. But the same is true for a speedometer as well. Do you know why analog gauges are still so popular in cars? Its because they are much easier to read in your peripheral vision, and you can symbolically interpret them without having to do subconcious numeric recognition and calculation. I know that if my tach needle is past more than the 2 o'clock position, I'm in getting close to the red line. If my speedometer needle is at the 12 o'clock position, then I'm going about 60 miles per hour. In both cases, I don't have to refocus my vision to read numbers, I get the general idea from the orientation of the orange needles.
if only i was wrong.
hint, correlation != causation, for example...
how about we use the same statistical analysis for black people.. statistics show black people are heavily overrepresented in the low income brackets.. i guess this means being black causes poverty!
maybe it's their inability to allocate their attention span properly rather than the fact they have a phone.. did they try those same tests with other objects? how about fussing children? car stereos? gps navigation units?
no.. theyre just attacking phones and other potentially distracting devices because other people allow themselves to be distracted.
its not the phones that are distracting people, its people who are distracting people.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Serving at these people, or tapping the brakes in front of them is fun...just to watch their overreaction.
Ban the use of cellphones, PDAs, iPods and anything else while driving. When driving you should be driving. Anyone caught using devices like this during an accident investigation should be severely fined.
Ban the use of conversation! Oh wait...
Actually, I would be willing to bet money that more accidents are caused from blow jobs while driving. I mean seriously... that's something that everybody does, and an orgasm is a hell of a lot more distracting than any text message I could possibly think of. But I agree... it's already covered; we don't need any more ridiculous laws like this. Stuff like this makes me wish that more people would wake up and vote Libertarian.
I don't respond to AC's.
how about those tachometers on the dash.. what do you need to know about RPM's.. its just distracting you!
Haha.
You obviously drive an automatic, and probably never even tried driving a manual transmission judging by this ridiculous comment. Anyone that considers themselves a good driver and still calls others "dee dee dees", yet can't drive a manual transmission is truly a Mencian "dee dee dee" specimen themselves as a most pompous ignorant cretin.
"Some wireless industry supporters argue that statutes barring texting while driving are too specific. What is needed, they say, is not narrowly focused legislation, but a campaign to educate the public about all driver distractions. "
How about just driving and that is the focus. No PDA's , cell phone and the ilk. I personally dislike having to have government intervention; but this may actually be necessary.
Story
Personally I have had several choice moments with Cell Phone suicide drivers:
1) I am heading north (no stop sign)
2) Minvan driving west.
3) Approach an intersection where I do not have a stop sign and they do.
4) Minvan makes a left turn without stopping and no signal. In essence from heading in a westward direction; their left cut in front of me and went south..
My Result: Me jamming on the brakes to avoid a collision and honking the horn like a mad man.
Minivan Results: Them giving me a confused look and them wondering what is the problem.
Summary: People should just freaking drive and pay attention to the road instead of talking about whatever on their damn phone. Text messaging isn't going to be just evil. People cannot drive and talk on the phone at the same time. Now people have the opportunity to type on a key pad; aka their eyes won't be on the road.
Please submit driving stories here to minimize the sprawl .
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
They should get rid of the speedometer too, that way I have an excuse when the cop pulls me over and asks how fast I was going. Really, I constantly have to check if I'm not over the speed limit whenever my radar detector alerts me of the local cop in the ditch. That is really unsafe when driving 100MPH. Actually, they should get rid of traffic cops all together, they could do a better job looking for terrorists and drugs.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
one accident in the past 5 years thank you.. i was hit while sitting at a light behind someone else, next to someone on the right, and next to a ditch in the median on the left.. i was hit by a drunk.
Did you put down your phone before he hit you due to your uncanny ability to detect the stupid in advance?
And you were still in at least one at-fault accident before that, which is one more than me in the entire time you've been driving. Why should I be impressed with your amazing driving abilities again?
by a freaking troll who cant accept what someone else tells them, and decides to make insinuations about HIS life, and also cannot accept the fact that not everyone with a phone is incapable of driving.
Nobody is incapable of driving while talking on the phone. If they were incapable, there wouldn't be a problem because they wouldn't be on the road. No, the problem is idiots like you who think you can be distracted by a phone, but because of your magic ability to identify stupid people in advance -- an ability apparently not hampered by being on the phone -- you know to put the phone down before an accident happens, so you're not any less safe. You are dangerously wrong.
The problem is people like you who think that because they are capable of driving while on the phone, that ergo they are no less safe driving while on the phone. People like you are the problem. People like you cause accidents. Just because you may not have caused one yet means very little, just like you're not having been killed yet doesn't mean you are immortal. So no, I'm not going to just accept someone who says they have magical driving abilities that makes using the phone no less safe for them.
I've heard it too many times before. Someone who thinks that they are a great driver, and all problems are caused by other idiots. Someone who thinks that they are such a great driver, that what is for everyone else a bad driving habit is not any more dangerous for them. If you were such a great driver, you would not have the bad habit to begin with. But you're not. You're another idiot who thinks you're smarter than everyone else and can drive like a jacktard without putting anyone at risk. Just like every other idiot on the phone while driving.
Here's a fact: No actual good driver thinks that they themselves are not a possible source of error while driving. No actual good driver thinks they can engage in unsafe driving practices safetly. Being a good driver means knowing what is safe and unsafe, not that the rules of safety magically change. Anyone who claims that is, in fact, an unsafe driver.
This ain't a troll, this is a flame from an irate driver sick of retards who think their self-proclaimed super-driving means they can be unsafe on the road. You are no different than those you deride, and you're equally delusional. I'll wrap this up by saying to you what I say to them:
TELL THEM YOU'LL CALL THEM BACK, THEN HANG UP AND FUCKING DRIVE.
The enemies of Democracy are
Come on, folks! If people were REALLY serious (as opposed to hypocritical) about "distracted driving", they would outlaw driving with more than one child in the vehicle at the same time! Can't have it both ways!
Let's see...
If the accident you were in five years ago wasn't your fault, why did you specify "clear of at fault"?
If you didn't have any more accidents in the last five years, why did you specify "clear of at fault"?
What he inferred is, as far as I can see, completely logical conclusions from your statement.
Since one is lead to believe that you would try to put yourself in a good light, one would think that you would not include the "at fault" if those two conclusions weren't true, even if "at fault" accidents are a subset of accidents in general.
As others have pointed out, neither does "not at fault" mean that you couldn't have avoided it by being a better driver.
And yes, I see that you claimed something different later. Save it.
BTW, I was at fault in an accident. I learned _a lot_ from that, luckily there were no injuries. No accidents since.
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors!
On any given day I'd have to say one out of three people has a handset pressed up to their ear. We clearly don't have 33% of all drivers involved in accidents. At worst, driving while on the phone produces a marginally less attentive but generally slower driver. As far as SMS is concerned, the time spent would seem to be on the very short side. Of course I suppose one could spend 3 minutes trying to T9 a full 160 characters with one thumb but my guess is that that person is probably a very inattentive driver anyway. Have you ever driven with someone who stop fiddling with every button, seat adjustment and mirror? I have. It's called OCD. So on the whole, the few seconds spent typing 'ok' or punching up a canned message to an name in your address book sounds to me, like a solution in search of a problem.
Here's some more:
Don't drop that Slushie in the car
Don't light that cigarette
Don't ruffle through your CD collection
And here are some more rules if you live in North Carolina:
Try to use your turn signals at least some of the time
Left lanes are for left turns right lanes are for right turns
When the light is green go
When the light is red stop
Trying to be the LAST person through the intersection is just rude
Random stops in the middle of the road for no obvious reason are a no-no
Go somewhere NEAR the speed limit; 20mph under or over is a no-no
Close the damn tailgate, bubba, all your crap is flying out
before we get to self driving cars.. how about an 'autofollow' that let's me tag a car to follow.
my ex-boss's minivan already has a cruise control that slows down to match the vehichle ahead.. it won't engage unless you are a safe distance behind the driver ahead, and if they slow down carefully, so does the minivan if they slam on the breaks, the car kills cruise and starts beeping madly...
how much harder would it be to (for freeway driving, when exits are multi-miles apart) follow the car ahead?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
first off.. my mother works in a very senior position in the insurance industry.
she's certified for several regions and knows auto inside and out. unless you work there you are not qualified to be telling me what im saying is wrong.
Perhaps you're in the habit of hanging out with other immature drivers and generalizing their experiences across the entire population?
oh so now im an immature driver because i claim im a good driver... you know what.. youre a troll.. i'm telling you to STFU and GTFO now, and im not feeding you any further.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Perhaps you should try reading the science before you cast aspersions on it. For example, the time between your replies precludes the possibility that you actually read that PDF file in another of my responses.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
Actually, from a motorcyclist: Pay attention to your surroundings even when you're sitting still, and yes, always be ready to hit the ditch if you see someone's coming up behind you too fast. On a bike, at fault vs no fault is a moot point, since a biker loses both arguments.
ok fine.. how about we ban driving children around in cars then, and car stereos, gps, etc.
all those involve the hands.. in fact controlling roudy(spelling?) kids often involves not only hands, but turning the whole body!
oh wait they wont do any of that, theyre just attacking what young people do as usual.. they are hyppocrites, as is anyone who uses a car stereo and turns around to rip on me.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
If the accident you were in five years ago wasn't your fault, why did you specify "clear of at fault"?
If you didn't have any more accidents in the last five years, why did you specify "clear of at fault"?
What he inferred is, as far as I can see, completely logical conclusions from your statement.
No, he's right, I incorrectly implied that the not-at-fault accidents he was in the last five years may have been avoidable. He gives a plausible scenario in which it was not.
Doesn't change the fact that his driving record isn't anything special, especially given his claim of prescient abilities that make him a superior driver. Doesn't change the fact that actual good drivers consider an accident they could have avoided to be their fault even if they aren't "at fault", and avoids unsafe driving habits as a result.
The enemies of Democracy are
When you send an SMS you are smissing. You're texting when you're typing anything.
Why do we continue to ban devices when it is our inattentiveness of driving is at issue here. It doesn't matter what you do if you don't attend to driving while you drive then you shouldn't be driving. I know there are times when you stuck behind a backup because of road damage, true mechanical failure accident or because someone else was inattentiveness that caused an accident then you may take your toys our to play. Otherwise it is stupid to drive with these devices on unless you are very skilled to do two task at the same time which most of us aren't and even then the first job of driving is driving everything else is second. We should restrict inattentive driving while since this is the core issue here not the any devices.
If you want to ban activities while driving then you should ban any activities related to eating, any activities related to drinking, conversation of any type via any electronic device, reading papers of any sort, putting on makeup, shaving on any part of the body, sexual activities of any sort, goggling at anything, changing CDs or media player, typing of any sort on any device, photographing of any sort, picking noses, combing hair, writing of any sort, watching any type media player, changing-removing-adding of any type of clothing, steering the vehicle with other than the hands, firing of any weapon...oh that is already banned except in Texas;) All of these activities and more have been shown to be cause of accidents we should ban them while driving. The passengers can partake any of above activities except the firing of weapons unless they are in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Seriously we should just restrict/ban inattentive driving and that would solve many problems.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
Errr.....I DO kind of like to know when I'm about to redline my engine, and need to shift.....
A sports car without a manual tranmission and tach is a useless thing....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Seems that most of these replies stated something similar to "there are already laws on the books dealing with reckless driving so just enforce those". With this kind of logic, DUI (or DWI) laws would have never been passed, which I can't believe anyone would say are not needed. It has been shown in study after study that talking on a cell phone or text messaging results in a driving ability similar to driving under the influence of alcohol. And the general consensus is that this behavior (cell phone/text messaging) results in far more accidents than are reported, mainly from police officers not having the means to prove it. Fundamentally, driving is not a right but a privilege, which has to be earned (albeit, it is easy to earn). If it takes additional laws to insure the safety of other drivers, then they should be passed. No one is forced to drive so if you don't like the new laws, you can always take other transportation.
I live in atlanta.. believe me its something special.. (i think it's third to philly and washington dc)
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Maybe the reason people get more angered by cellphone conversers than parents is that the reason for their distraction is considered far less compelling. The concept that anyone might "need" to talk on the phone while driving instead of waiting until they arrive at their destination, barring an actual emergency involving doctors or police, is pretty shallow.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
Wow, simply...www. "My mom is really important and SHE says I'm right, so waaaaaaaah!!"
That's so ludicrous I am literally laughing right now.
You want to make some other specious arguments? Well, here's some ANECDATA from my life: me: 25, no atfaults. Fiance, no at faults. 17 year old sister, no at faults. Both parents, no at faults. Grandparents: 3/4 no at faults, grandfather had an at fault at age 88 (and no, he should not have been driving). What did we just prove? nothing.
The simple fact of the matter is that no matter how good you think you are, you can't plan for everything. If you take two identical drivers, identical focus, identical reflexes, identical everything, and then give one of them a cellphone and a nice greasy burger, that driver is going to be far less prepared and able to deal with road situations. It's not even a question of skill or anything at this point. You say you can plan ahead--GREAT. So what if a deer runs in front of you, there's a sudden pileup, a kid steps into the road, somebody's tireblows out, a truck doesn't see you, etc etc--there's NO question the one yapping to friends and eating is going to be far less able to deal with anything like that! The mere fact that you don't understand this is very scary, and strikes me as quite common as to how many, many people on the roads are oblivious!
Look, put down the phone and save your burger till you get home. I quite frankly couldn't care less if you got yourself hurt because of your own stupidity, but the problem with drivers that are distracted is that, like alcoholics, they don't just kill themselves, they manage to get other people hurt and killed to, and that is unforgiveable.
you make the primary focus the road, and keep the phone peripherally focused.. you warn the person who called that youre on the road and may need things repeated... if you see people preparing to act idiotic, or see the beginnings of erratic behavior (there are ALWAYS signs before it happens) then you tell them youll call back.
Woopie for you, and what happens if a tire blows, or a kid runs out in traffic, or a deer comes out of nowhere, or any NUMBER of unforeseeable things. You are going to be less able to deal with that than someone that is properly focused on driving, and doesn't have to deal with putting down a phone, or waiting a second or more to put their hands on the wheel.
its not my fault other people cant do this, and i should not be victimized because they suck at attention management.
yes, the only problem is that your kind of driving can get people killed, and those people are the ultimate victims. You can babble about how much better and smarter you are, and that it's other STUPID people's faults, but EVERYBODY on the road needs to be careful not only of their own actions, but of everyone else's.
Of course, this is the first time you've seen fit to mention this fact, and you can't even claim to have asked her about the rate of repeat at-fault offenders during the course of this "conversation." It's not like you get credit for everything your mother might know in the course of her job. And really, I think you're being full of shit. Every idiot on /. claims to have a relative in a relevant occupation as soon as they run out of argumen
riiight. i know what im talking about because i received all the info in one of those extra "big lectures" you receive at that age.
what you seem to be doing is demanding that my first post be this huge, wall-o-text style story of my life rather than bring in facts when theyre relevant
i'm far from out of arguments btw.. you have yet to refute anything i've said, youre just trolling, refusing to admit when youre wrong, and im going to go get back to my life and let you spew your vitriol until your big head is nice and empty.
enjoy the meal.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
And before anyone calls me a hypocrite, I'd like to point out that I don't even smoke while driving. That's almost (not quite, but almost) like dialing or eating while driving.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
this sounds more to do with the level of road safety in your area rather than the skill of you or your family.
as for the rest of what you said.. i'll paraphrase it "i've taunted you, now i'd like to say i support slashdot groupthink, but without any substantive point"
so laugh it up, after all, if everyone else says the same thing you do it must be right!
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
"Special" in terms of what? I live in DC (well, just outside..but same thing)
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
I replied to one of your later posts that I live in DC--one of the "special" areas--but I don't know why it's special.
I also fail to see how my post lacked any substantive point--possibly you didn't read it? I can only assume that you have no response to the points I presented?
first off youre making assumptions and applying words, motivations, and actions to me which were never mentioned.. such as this one:
i think you've lost track of what i was saying in the original post.. so i'll link you to a differently worded reiteration of the idea here
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Dude, it's gotten so bad I need a cigarette. Y'all have fun with this one.
I think we've got a hopeless case here...
On the other hand, it goes a long way to explaining the way a lot of people drive!
none of your points can be responded to.. they have no substance behind them..
their logical structure is thus:
you claim to be a good driver
you claim to do this activity without a problem
you had an accident in your early years like circa 80% of the population (everything else thrown out the window)
you dislike the slashdot groupthink opinion of "cellphone + car always = BAD"
therefore i declare you a bad driver and an idiot.
that is not a substantive point.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Can we have some legislation that prevents stupid people from thinking about anything other than driving while driving? I'd hate to get hit by some idiot who can't chew gum and walk at the same time.
We all know that this is complete and utter
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
And hey, drive safe.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
I'm only applying exactly the motivation you yourself said: That you are a safe driver who can drive while using the phone without impacting your safe driving, while others cannot.
You think it's about head-down time? Ever seen any stats about how hands-free headsets with voice dialing don't help? Yeah, you just don't get it.
You think you are a safe driver but you are not, exactly because you think you are.
HANG THE FUCK UP AND DRIVE, ASSHOLE.
The enemies of Democracy are
none of your points can be responded to.. they have no substance behind them.. their logical structure is thus:
... I don't think it means what you think it does...
you claim to be a good driver
you claim to do this activity without a problem
you had an accident in your early years like circa 80% of the population (everything else thrown out the window)
you dislike the slashdot groupthink opinion of "cellphone + car always = BAD"
therefore i declare you a bad driver and an idiot.
that is not a substantive point.
Ok, wow, I'm back to my assumption that you didn't ACTUALLY read my post.
you had an accident in your early years like circa 80% of the population (everything else thrown out the window)
I didn't say ANYTHING about your accident--in fact, I said that using "anecdata"/anecdotes doesn't prove a thing.
I didn't say ANYTHING about your driving ability. Being distracted or not has nothing to do with ABILITY.
What I ACTUALLY said, and I would love for you to respond to is...
1) ALL things being the same between two drivers, one eating and yapping on cellphone is less able to react to unexepected events than the other.
2) while driving, there is simply no way to predict everything that can (and at times, WILL) go wrong.
3) ergo, distracted drivers are going to cause more problems--completely irrespective of ability--than drivers that focus
Simple point. Response?
You keep using that term "groupthink"
http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/rx9000.htm
troll
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Like so many other problems with cars, this is one that's directly the responsibility of the idiot behind the wheel. Competent drivers don't distract themselves while they're driving, and the source of the problem is that we insist on giving drivers' licenses to people who are not only not competent, but whose only qualification for driving is the ability to fog a mirror.
What's the saying? 90% of people think they are above average.
Most people that do this kind of behavior (and that includes me) think they are perfectly capable of doing this somewhat mostly safely. The more honest among us will usually admit privately that we are lying to ourselves, but probably would not admit this in public. From watching myself behind the wheel, I'm more concerned with driving while tired than with driving while talking on the cellphone. Admittedly, I don't text on the cellphone very much at all, though more in the last 3 months than the previous 6 years. And even there, I have certainly noticed that I don't notice things as well while talking on the cellphone. I've "lost" 50 miles of interstate driving before, from an interesting conversation with a friend while driving.
Getting people to recognize their limitations is very very hard.
If drivers' licenses actually signified some level of competence
No, a drivers' license signifies that your state recognizes that, outside of dense metro areas, driving in an automobile is a requirement of living and working in the United States. That's just about all it signifies now.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
Them Commies just hate cars and driving. And everything related to it. Roads, diners, the works.
;>
Heck, they'll be going after radios and billboards next! Probably call the people who put them up something like "Space Merchants". And actually try to make it sound bad! Or sumptin'.
It'll get so that in order to drive you'll have to go overseas, or sumptin'.
ok fine.. how about we ban driving children around in cars then, and car stereos, gps, etc.
Actually, my GPS when you turn it on has an explicit warning that you must agree to that says "DO NOT OPERATE THIS DEVICE WHILE THE VEHICLE IS MOVING."
So it seems the GPS makers are willing to admit that there might be so potential liability there.
oh wait they wont do any of that, theyre just attacking what young people do as usual.. they are hyppocrites, as is anyone who uses a car stereo and turns around to rip on me.
You claim to be like 24 but keep using "my mom says..." statements and "it's old people against the young!"
I call shenanigans.
Unsafe idiot driver.
The enemies of Democracy are
Prejudging them for being a crack head, for example, is perfectly reasonable.
Prejudging someone for distracted driving is reasonable. Especially when they claim they can do it safely because they are a good driver.
The term prejudice has come to mean exclusively race/sex based prejudice. These are wrong as they are not good predictors. (OK OK I'll cop. If I see an Asian woman driving down the road talking on her cell I'll pull over till she's a safe distance away.)
I can however reasonably prejudge people for all sorts of traits that actually tell me something about them.
Driving down the freeway with a cell in one hand, a big mac in the other and steering with your knees is a perfect example of something that tells me the person is an idiot. I don't need to know them.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Either way, it seems to me that tight urban areas should be off limits to traditional "manual" driving, and that free driving along interstates is more realistic than an automated system.
for sale
I'm a self-modifying sig virus
They should just make driving while distracted a crime, determined whenever you have broken an actual behavior law, like weaving, or colliding with someone. Make it criminal, with fines, required education, jailtime for repeat offenses, and prohibitions (or rate increases) on insurance coverage. And don't pretend that legislators can keep up with specific technologies. Or that crashing because you're arguing with your passenger is OK.
But look for distractions only after it actually results in something going wrong. There's no reason to punish or constrain those of us who can handle these devices while driving without sacrificing safety, just because those who can't are reckless enough to try anyway. Laws should make it easier to report bad drivers on the road, like by sending cameraphone pix and movies to 911. But the creeping "preemptive" laws that destroy freedom for those of us who can handle it aren't worth their occasional benefits.
--
make install -not war
hv 2 kp ths shrt on th road
im a gr8 drvr stfu and pass me
I've often thought to lay on my horn when I see idiots on the phone while driving. However, I have not because I fear it would cause them to 'wake up' and freak out (then hit me).
Wondering of there is a way to make use of some self-policing to make people hang up and drive
Get your tagline off my lawn.
s/road/parking\ lot/
Hehehe man, thanks for the laughs, it's been a good while since I've seen such a loser as you getting schooled so entirely and persistently on Slashdot. BTW, just because you're a moron doesn't mean people who say you're a moron are trolls. In fact, you're more trollish given the actual meaning of the word (writing inflammatory posts). Calling it as it is is just that.
Come on, a jackass like this who still gets posts starting at a 2? Mods do your job and demolish this guys karma.
these laws, like seatbelt laws and random insurance checks (and every seemingly pointless "highway safety" law) are tools for the cops to have probable cause to pull you over and toss your car. most cops don't want to cite you for something mundane (unless there is a quota drive that month) they want to bust you for something cool (like drugs, a gun, a DUI, etc.) but it's hard to get probable cause for the really cool stuff. therefore we make all kinds of potentially dangerous stuff illegal so we can pull more people over.
how many times have you been pulled over for a minor infraction, had your license and plates run, only to be let go? chances are your "failure to signal" was no big deal, but your nervous reaction to seeing the cop in your rearview mirror was.
here's a fun experiment: next time you drive on the hiway and a cop gets near you, have your passenger look at them and then quickly look back. then change lanes to the slow lane and go just under the speed limit. chances are you'll get tailed for a few miles and get pulled over for some minor infraction (going 3 miles over the limit, failure to signal, crack in your windshield), get your license, plates, and insurance run and be let off with a verbal (and otherwise undocumented) warning.
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
"Even the Mythbusters tackled this one and found that using a cell phone while driving has about the same affect on your driving skills as being slightly drunk."
Acutally, they needed to do a few more controls. One where the person asking the complex questions was in the car, say in the back seat, rather than on the phone.
But more importantly, they tested people on the phone, answering questions, AND DRIVING WITH ONE HAND. As such, they really needed another test to see just how badly people drive with just one hand, especially on a test course with a lot of curves and obstacles. I'll bet that one-handed driving accounted for half the mistakes.
Which leads us to talking on the phone with a hands-free system, letting keep both hands on the wheel.
So that Mythbusters episode, while interesting, didn't prove much in my book.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
"... you make the primary focus the road..."
That part says it all. If the road is your primary focus, then there are times when your attention is focused on your secondary activities, however briefly. Remember the driver's ed film where the ball bounces onto the road, following by the kid? If you'd choose that split second to focus your attention on your phone's address book so you can send your text message, then I'm afraid the kid is toast, and your life is probably ruined as well.
Like it or not, you can only "focus" on one thing at a time. You can "slice" it so you think you're multitasking, but modern biology and psychology says you're not. Or to put it another way, you (and everyone else) are a Core 2, and not a Core 2 Duo.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
You're throwing out a lot of BS to cover up one thing: that you don't understand that whatever distractions you indulge in in the car have only not caused accidents for you so far because of luck, a.k.a. statistics. So maybe many of the people with babies in the back seat have also been lucky, but that doesn't excuse you.
As someone else said, we all sometimes do things in the car that are distracting, and most of the time, we get away with it. But if you think you're getting away with it because of your mad l33t driving skillz, you're kidding yourself, and are more likely to end up having an accident than someone who's more realistic about what's going on.
How about just enforcement of existing laws:
Driving with undue care and attention
Reckless driving
etc
Texting generally requires you to having one hand consistently off the wheel and - at various points - your eyes off the road.
Smacking your whiney brat upside the head, in contrast, only requires that you coordinate your fingertips with your ears.
Every time x, y or z happens, all the do-gooders clamour for a new law/s to address it. Most of these stupid narrow things are already covered by a more general common sense law. The problem is that existing laws are not being enforced or enforced vigorously enough.
Don't tailgate - the end is near!
King Arthur: [about the inscription on the rock] What does it say, Brother Maynard?
Brother Maynard: It reads, "Here may be found the last words of Clem (5683). He who is valiant and pure of spirit may find the holy blackberry in the Castle of Aaauuuggghhh..."
King Arthur: What?
Brother Maynard: "The Castle of Aaaauuuggghhhh"
Sir Bedevere: What is that?
Brother Maynard: He must have died while texting it.
King Arthur: Oh come on!
Brother Maynard: Well, that's what it says.
King Arthur: Look, if he was dying, he wouldn't have bothered to text 'Aaaauuuggghhhh'. He'd just say it.
Sir Galahad: Maybe he was dictating it. You know, some of those smart phones do translate voice to text.
King Arthur: Oh shut up!
...create all of the helpful technology and medicine that you want, but natural selection has a way of always coming back into play to pick off the dumb ones. Until we just wrap newborn babies in big hunks of foam and leave them mostly stationary in climate controlled bubbles for their entire lives, fed through a carefully monitored nourishment tube, the stupid ones will always find ways to kill themselves in embarassing and pointless ways. Heck, even then they'd probably try to eat the foam. I say don't ban texting while driving - just build a couple of new roads for people who do it. That way the pileups won't accidentally snag someone who is smart enough to NOT be doing things like that. The new roads wouldn't cost too much because, heck, they wouldn't have to be very long. Just like a block or so and then they could just sort of end. The drivers won't even notice. Why in the world am I rambling about this? I need sleep. Mod -1 (Pointless).
I think I'm a reasonable driver - it's very hard to avoid an accident when you're stuck at a junction waiting for an ambulance to get through and the moron behind you fails to see the flashing lights and hear the screaming siren (my last accident) or when you're stationary at a roundabout waiting for the traffic to clear and someone else decides to drive through you (the previous TWO).
In all cases I must have had my cloaking device on, as the other drivers reckoned they just didn't see me - even in a bright red sports.
Bloody mods. And bloody mod points - never around when you need em.
But I don't know anyone thats been charged with it since the 80s... of course, they needed probable cause to pull you over then.
Typing a text message is no more dangerous than constantly glancing at the person you are talking to in the back seat, reading the paper, eating a sandwich, or whatever other distracion you care to name, IF you don't have to stare constantly at the phone! I have used SMS enough that I can type on the keypad almost as quickly as on a keyboard (with word recognition) and like typing on a keyboard I hardly ever even glance at the thing... I usually type out the message, then just a glance will show any errors, and if the message is readable, send it. Personally I don't find it any more distracting than smoking a cigarette while driving. Simple law would be to require both hands on the wheel unless shifting. This would eliminate just about any major distraction (playing with radio, eating, reading newspaper/book, makeup, phones, etc). Instead of spending a lot of time aruging over laws, why not just pump a pile of cash into the wireless industry to include voice-to-text on all new phones? Many places are now requiring hands-free equipment, so make the phones capible of SMS hands free.
Well umm My Dad is a Truck driver and hasn't been in an acedent for over 40 years, which makes me by default a well qualified driver... No wait thats stupid. Your grasping at straws dude. It is to bad you failed to realize the sugestions that you may not be as good of a driver as you think. And perhaps you should be more carful while driving and pay more attition on what you are doing and less blaiming all the other stupid people out there.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I totally agree with your post, except for one thing:
> TELL THEM YOU'LL CALL THEM BACK, THEN HANG UP AND FUCKING DRIVE.
You do not, under any circumstances, have to answer a call, unless you're emergency services taking a dispatch call while on the road. Are you the police? Are you EMS? Are you a firefigher? Are you a Ghostbuster? No? Turn it off.
Oh, well yeah, I meant that's what I say to the moron who already has the phone to their head, not that my shouting does any good aside from venting my road rage. I just don't answer the phone; usually the ringer is off when I'm driving.
The enemies of Democracy are
Lipstick, shavers, and iPods are next to be outlawed.
Fully attentive cops with laptops, radios, and coffee mugs will be enforcing the new laws.
+++
Here in France, driving while utilizing any kind of hand-held device, most specially cellphones has been illegal for many years. Anybody who has ever been called on her/his cellphone does indeed understand that they do not inhibit anybody from driving, but rather severely diminish one's driving skills and capacity to quick reactions that may many times save lives. It is regular practice here to check out phone records on cells found at fatal accident scenes in order to establish inattention on this count. Responsible driving requires one's full attention to the task at hand, transporting oneself and loved ones from point A to point B, regardless of incalculable and unforeseeable dangers, including those due to one's diminished attention, on all roads. So for safety's sake, I don't answer and don't call. This attitude is the rule of the road here and I fully approve of it.