Slashdot Mirror
State Bans Texting While Driving
netbuzz writes "The state of Washington yesterday became the first in the nation to ban text-messaging while driving. The law could use sharper teeth, but it's a natural and necessary progression of the movement to clamp down on those who find the need to constantly communicate more important than the safety of their fellow travelers."
Whatever happened to common sense?
-b.
That there was a need for the State ban such moronic behaviour in the first place.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
He said a long time ago we have to get rid of the keyboard. He STILL hasn't done it. Dammit, Bill, or billg, or whatever you want to be called, because you didn't get rid of the keyboard all these nice people are going to jail. Oooooh, I could pinch you!
I keed. I keed.
If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
to ban something that was already illegal
reckless driving, not in control of a vehicle
iam sure there are plenty of laws that say if you are driving a vehicle in a manner that presents a danger to other you can be prosecuted, same reason as watching TV or reading a book while driving is reckless
how exactly are they going to know if you are texting? there are just about a hundred million things you can do with modern phones these days. what about taking videos/pictures/checking your voicemail/dialing/etc. etc.
all of these things require typing stuff in your phone, right?
I mean, why would you text from your car when you can post to slashdot with YRO/"UIR/"U($)%!
This reminds me of the time I got a free dashboard sun-shade at Road Atlanta one year. (These are the accordion-fold things you sit on the dash and stretch out across the entire windshield to help keep the sun from getting the interior of your car too hot in the summer).
It had a safety label: "Do not drive with sun shade in place!"
The law could use sharper teeth, but it's a natural and necessary progression of the movement to clamp down on those who find the need to constantly communicate more important than the safety of their fellow travelers."
Nonsense. There are already laws on the books which deal specifically with driver inattention. They have been there for some sixty or seventy years.
Why is it that anything involving a cel phone demands a special law prohibiting it? It's all feeling rather moralistic.
Tell you what, I'll let you ban cel phones in cars if you'll also ban coffee, donuts, makeup, radios, small children, pets, smoking, chewing tobacco, notepads, newspapers, and passengers, all of which can distract a driver.
Once every car contains only one hermetically sealed individual we should be 100% safe.
Three Squirrels
This reminds me of a guy I knew back in college who was convinced that having a TV on the passenger seat of his car was a good idea. Somehow he tought he could drive on the highway while watching TV without any problem whatsoever.
Some people are just stupid, and unfortunately, politicians have to spend time and energy to write laws to stop them from acting on their stupidity.
This is just more liberal do-gooding and interference with our everyday lives. This is by the same people who want to ban smoking, force our kids to learn junk science, and stifle honest American toil.
We can only pray, before these nannying socialists force us to use inferior and dangerous operating systems.
I looked through the abridged version of the traffic infraction book, no car is street legal, and if a street legal car did somehow find it's way on to the road (I'm guessing magic), there's a pretty good chance that you couldn't drive it a non-trivial distance without doing something that would merit being pulled over, and then there's the things you can be fined for and not pulled over for. Combine that with the way fault is determined in Washington, and the law is completely pointless. It's feel-good legislation for do-nothings. One of which lives about 100 yards from me (she gave birth to Moses, they didn't need last names back then, there weren't that many people.)
I mean, you can text AND get somewhere safely(and of course use less fuel in the process). But then again, this is America we are talking about, were most people equate public transportation with being poor and/or defective.....
Monstar L
Wow...just wow...I expected people to go only as far as calling on the cellphone, putting on make-up at a red light, eating, and watching a movie while driving, but text-messaging? The ones I listed only required only either a hand or the driver's visual attention, but text-messaging covers both...
And a *coughAmericancough* government was forced to make a specific law on the subject...
Where in the world is our common sense nowadays? *sigh* I guess it's fortunate that the legislature is not as inattentive as it is made out to be...now if it would start caring about global warming more than it already is....
THese are the kinds of things that happen when you live in a society that demands you be available, and productive at all times. It starts with business oriented type stuff, then it moves to being personal, then you have every sally joe and john q public running around texting on their cellphones, yakking away on their phone while they smoke, eat, drink, put on make-up, reach for that thing they just dropped, check their schedule, AND change the radio station while shifting gears, all at the same time. It's too much. Many people will stop doing something, just knowing that they can get into trouble for it. Many people won't give a damn. If Colorado had a law like this, I'd not do it again. I do it now because I've yet to have an accident(or come even close to one), I do it very rarely, and I can get away with it. If it were illegal, I would just as soon say "To hell with it" and not do it.
This is where society has moved us. Not only into the fast lane, but at high speeds even for the fast lane. Things like this are the inevitable fallout of the need to be available at all times.
And to be fair, I came closer to accidents after I bought new radio for my car, that had a spiffy little animated screen on it that I was drawn to watch for a few seconds while driving. Darwin seriously needs to get off his ass and get to work.
Also, the more populated areas need *good* rail networks if people are to use them. Compare passenger trains in the US and Europe: the US seems stuck in the 1940s as far as technology -- US trains are labor intensive (and hence expensive) to run. Part of the fault lies with the Federal government for making crash standards for trains excessively rigid, even though train wrecks are pretty rare (and, since trains are safer than driving, if more people ride slightly less safe trains, it might still be a net gain in lives saved). Far better would be to prevent crashes by requiring better signaling and track sensors.
-b.
I am guilty of the offense and I also believe it's a potentially deadly and definitely stupid thing to do.
i gots dat cellaba fone wiff da pay-pre wut about meh?
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
Sure, texting while driving using today's technology is pretty stupid. It takes forever, and it definitely distracts from the road.
But... this law probably doesn't specifically ban "text messaging on a hand-held cellular telephone using a numberpad based text input method", instead it probably bans all text messaging while driving. I'm sure some of you will say that "anything that distracts from the road is unacceptably dangerous, I'm willing to trade your freedom to use new technologies in the future for a warm feeling of safety now". Well - I'm never willing to make that trade. I can think of a number of interfaces that would make text messaging way safer than a kid in the back seat, and I don't need to have my ability to use that technology nanny-stated away today.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Instead of individually banning every single thing you can do on a mobile device, why not simply ban working with mobile devices or performing other distracting activities while driving (such as drinking coffee and eating)...
Or maybe the right question is, why should obvious things be spelled out in a law for the drivers to read? Maybe we should just ban patently stupid drivers from driving at all.
Most people come up with the non-excuse "I've never had an accident, I'm a good driver". Remember whilst this may be true,the person in front of you may be an awful driver, so you will need to apply your full attention at all times.
"I am not bound to please thee with my answers" [William Shakespeare]
In Europe, it has been forbidden for years to use a cellular for text messaging or calling while driving.
According to wikipedia, Israel, Japan, Portugal and Singapore all prohibit mobile phone use while driving.
Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, the Philippines, Romania, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom require the use of a hands-free kit.
I am a former race-car driver. When I drive on the freeway, I hunt for stupid people. When I see another driver using his cell phone, I observe him for about a minute.
I cut in front of him. Then, I observe him for another minute in my rear-view mirror. When I notice that his eyes have glanced away from the road, I immediately apply the brakes. Just before his car slams into mine, I swing my car to the right.
At this point, what usually happens is that the other driver, being distracted by the cell phone, has lost control of his vehicle. He has applied his brakes hard to avoid hitting me, but now, his car has spun out of control. In most cases, his car slams into the concrete barrier. In some cases, the car flips upside down.
So far, my tally is the following.
Out of 37 encounters of this kind, 25 resulted in fatalities. All 37 resulted in a serious accident.
I videotaped the whole encounter with a camera pointing out of the rear window. The point of the camera is to provide videotaped evidence that I have not broken any traffic laws. In all 37 encounters, I gave the videotape to law enforcement. No charges have ever been filed against me. Sweet. Huh?
I've received an SMS while doing 70 on the freeway and have actually responded. Quick text pre-canned responses are helpful, but I actually slowly typed out a response on my Treo with one hand. Yes I'm a fool. It'd probably be safer to use a cell phone with normal keys as you can feel blindly for what you want to type. This is harder to do one handed on a qwerty smartphone.
1. Using a cellphone and/or texting is far more dangerous than drinking a cup of coffee. People have done research into this - these devices are just about as dangerous as being legally drunk. We don't ban coffee drinking in cars because while a small minority becomes a hazard while drinking it, EVERYONE is a hazard when using their phone. See #3.
2. We had reckless driving laws already, but we still passed impaired driving laws. Why? Because it's a lot harder to automatically say "hey, he's texting, he's reckless". With a law like this, there are no ifs, ands, or buts. No defense. You're caught, you pay. No "but really, Sir Judge, I'm not actually a reckless driver when I text" (which, incidentally, is how people used to get out of impaired driving charges - until we made a law specifically for the behaviour).
3. To those that honestly and truly believe THEY are safe drivers when using a cellphone and/or texting, please, just stay off the damn road. I've been nearly hit by you far too often.
4. It's about damn time we started seeing laws like this. Of course we shouldn't need them, but in my experience 90% of the bad drivers on the road are either yakking on their phone, or texting, or in some cases both. Seriously, how hard is it to just (GASP!) go without talking to your sister for a few minutes? We invented voicemail for a reason!
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Let me start off by saying that I agree that it's a bad idea to text message while driving. However, I have seen people reading while driving, applying makeup while driving, and looking through a bag/purse/glove box while driving. And I'm sure that I could come up with many other things that people shouldn't do while they're driving. But none of those other things have had a specific law created to stop them, even though some of them are equally dangerous, much more common, and have been happening for a lot longer. Plus, it will be pretty hard to enforce this law since most people will have their cell phone below the window level when texting. The police officer will only see them looking down, but he won't see what they're looking down at. The point of my rant is, this is a silly law.
This is a secondary offense. You have to be pulled over for something else first.
Frankfort, KY - Kentucky deputy director of the Department of Motor Vehicles, Melvin P. Snitzonpants has announced a new program to stop drivers from chewing their toenails, making love and shoving coins up their noses while driving.
"It's a serious problem." Snitzonpants said yesterday. "We have people weaving all over the road while they chew their toenails, make love and shove coins up their nose."
The new program would see a $15 fine be levied, as well as a stern lecture by a state patrol officer. "We feel that we have to make it absolutely clear that you can't chew your toenails, make and shove coins up your nose while operating a motorvehicle." Snitzonpants commented.
When asked why this doesn't come under existing dangerous driving laws, Snitzonpants merely shrugged and said, "This is different. Have you actually seen someone chewing their toenails, making love and shoving coins up their nose when they're coming at you. It's a terrible thing."
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Texting while driving is more dangerous then talking while driving in the cellular. I really believe that since while texting you have to check your input while you can see and talk at the same time while talking in the cellular and that's why texting is much more harmful in my honest opinion.
Read and Comment at my BLOG
!!!
Once I was driving a car while sitting on the passenger's seat. My friend (the driver) took his cell phone and started typing a message. When I told him that it's dangerous, he replied: "drive".
It was the first time in my life I've been driving a real car.
And so far the last.
I say that if you're caught texting while driving, you have to report to a closed off race track where you can't lower your car below 80 while negotiating hairpin turns and being forced to take an online test via texting. (or, if your your max speed is lower, go with that, I'm looking at you Chevette drivers!)
Instead of punishing, its a punishment/hands on learning experience!
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
Stop Press: An NRA spokesperson stated that outlawing Driving-whilst-texting is just the first step before they outlaw firing a weapon whilst driving a motor vehicle. NRA nationwide is trying to rally round support from Inner City Youth Gangs, to petition the government to stop this crazy law that will outlaw their Second Amendment Rights to perform drive by shootings. LOL
The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. - HGTTG
I was expecting at least a few comments on how this is somehow restricting freedom of speech, but I was pleasantly surprised.
The view was horrible and the smell was even worse; Julie severely regretted becoming a proctologist.
Simply holding a mobile phone when driving is illegal here. A friend of mine got pulled over for holding a Mars-Bar in his hand. The cop insisted he was using a phone, my friend had to show them there wasn't even a mobile in the car before they let him off the hook begrudgingly. Same rule doesn't seem to apply to the 'fuzz' though, I regularly see them tanking it about with a phone in one hand and no blue lights - guess the rule doesn't apply to them!
Why do they let people on the road who can't communicate and drive? That's the real problem. Get rid of them, and those of us who find the need to constantly communicate to be entirely compatible with not wrapping our cars around other cars would have a double benefit: safer and emptier streets.
Tenemus pyrobolos atqui jacimus cognitiones.
Here in NY there has been a ban on using cell phones while driving for several years. It's never enforced, and odds are if you see someone weaving or going too slow or being generally careless they're just as likely to be yakking on their phone as they are to be drunk behind the wheel. The last 4 times I almost got hit in local parking lots, there was some idiot talking on their phone and not paying attention to their driving.
It's unbelievable how, when faced with laws already on the books that don't work and aren't enforced, the reaction of lawmakers is to pass more of the same. Granted, WA is not NY, but the politician problem is universal I think.
Sorry, sitting in 520 traffic is boring enough. Can't stop t3h txt's.
I ride 200 miles a week between Seattle and Tukwila.
Yesterday (Friday rush hour), I observed 2 cars barely staying
in their lanes while their drivers stared down into something
glowing in their laps. One of them was inside the no-shoulder
2-lane Battery Street tunnel.
Unless the State Patrol gets out and enforces it rigorously and
visibly right off the bat and the media helps to make an example
of whoever they pick out of the many, this law is going to be
completely ignored.
I live in Washington state and the reason this law was passed is because last year someone did indeed die because another drive was text messengering someone else. It caused a huge problem for everyone that drove on I5 in Seattle that day.
I support this law 100% and wish they would really put teeth into it and the cell phone ban while driving. Take someones license for a year and people will start to abide by it.
By creating the law they can arrest people they see doing it. Without the law they would need to wait until someone had an accident before they could prosecute.
I would like to see some definitive studies that show just how dangerous the use of cell phone are. I would like to know why they are so much more dangerous than changing the radio station or talking with a passenger. One law after another is passed making more and more things illegal on the road. It just makes it easier to be pulled over and that is something that is abused by the police. Accidents in recent years have decreased. Funny that - in light of all these cell phone conversations. These anti cell phone laws take away too much liberty.
I have done it, many times. I read blogs, email, etc. on my phone, studied for tests, read magazines, and so forth while driving too. I even change clothes -- everything except my boxers -- while driving. I've done so regularly for years. And how many accidents have I had?
Zero.
It comes down to prioritization and common sense. I didn't say I read *efficiently* while driving -- I certainly don't operate anywhere nearly as quickly on my reading/writing/etc. while driving as I do when I'm not engaged in driving. I check the road ahead of me and to the sides once every second or two, then glance down at my text to be read, get a line or sentence, then look up again at traffic while I process that line/sentence. I don't do these things at all in severely-inclement weather: snow, ice, heavy rain, high winds. Nor do I do them in situations where traffic conditions are changing rapidly: at high speed with lots of merging traffic, in crowded downtown streets with lots of pedestrians, along twisty mountain roads, etc.. I do it primarily in bumper-to-bumper, stop-and-go, sub-10 mi/hour traffic where, if an accident were to occur, it almost certainly would not be serious.
The simple fact is that we are not all created equal and we do not all evolve equally-fast or in the same directions. Some people are competent to perform actions which are dangerous if managed poorly, while others are not. I'm not competent to do something as dangerous as landing an airplane -- but plenty of trained pilots are; the mentally insane (as the VA Tech shootings exemplified) are not competent to use firearms safely, and nor are (IMO) people convicted of any violent crimes - but most other people are, or would be with sufficient training & education.
A better approach, rather than banning an activity outright, would be to test an individual's competence to perform the activity. An outright ban is too broad and inspecific; it has all the surgical precision of the Bush administration's "it's for national security" argument used to justify its actions...
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
What if you could integrate a speech-to-text (a decent one) into a cell phone---using a speakerphone. Better yet, why don't we just program cars to drive themselves.
But then they won't have an incentive to get a Real ID!
Seriously though, like so many *privileges* driving has
been ingrained as a constitutional right in the minds of many.
"How am I supposed to get to work? And the movies? And..."
Well fuck Bob, what made you think it was a good idea to live
three hours from everything that you actually want access to?
No soup for you!
(I think that's enough conflation of topics for now)
Were that I say, pancakes?
Yes, the same corporations that have paid many many thousands of dollars to the campaigns of the state legislators of Washington (and your state) have, for your education and benefit, placed hundreds of billboards along the most heavily used commuter routes.
Your text messages disrupt the flow of information from their expensive investment directly into your brain while you're driving. That can't be allowed to happen; it's much too dangerous for road safety!
When the text message companies have paid as much money to the reelection funds as the billboard company (there's really only one now - Clear Channel, the same people who own all the radio stations, ticket sellers, and concert halls in the USA), well, then and only then will you be safely be able to receive and read text messages while you're operating a motor vehicle.
Of course, by then most of your text messages will be adverts from Clear Channel.
Am I cynical? Horsepoop! This is America. Any time someone says 'safely', they mean 'give me money'.
I actually read somewhere (I think on slashdot, maybe on BBC news) about several weeks ago that there was some effort going on with the US railway companies currently to provide a unified service and cooperate in order to start competing with airlines.
When though, will the laws end? It's as if the politicians think that by 2010 we'll not have some NEW fancy way to communicate with each other (mind control?) I think there is also a responsibility on cell services to provide "passive input" devices, I feel it's a responsibility on our police to set a good example (which, unfortunately I more often than not see them speeding down the road, talking on their cell phones...) and most importantly I feel the responsibility lies on the individual.
I agree with finding fault in distractions, but I think making the "someone texting vs. someone not texting" argument is futile, because it's really only a patch, not a solution.
Hello HP! Dumbasses...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Most passenger service in the USA is already unified under a nationalized monopoly called Amtrak, BTW. Amtrak is remarkably inefficient at what it does, unfortunately.
-b.
Because it removes any doubt, for both drivers and courts. If a picture of you driving your car with your phone gets you a conviction, with no arguing over whether it counts as 'reckless' or not or what the penalty should be, mass enforcement becomes a whole lot more feasible.
in the uk, its illegal to use a phone at all while driving. why isnt this the case everywhere else?
portfolio
If we could just ban the automatic transmission people would have to pay more attention to their driving!
they make driving while woman illegal.
it's a natural and necessary progression of the movement to clamp down on those who find the need to constantly communicate more important than the safety of their fellow travelers."
It's not necessary, it's actually pretty stupid. Anyone who causes an accident - regardless of why they did so - should be held liable. Liability for ones actions is a sufficient deterrent for most people to avoid doing stupid things... and for the others, they'll probably ignore this law anyway.
Furthermore, anyone who texts while driving and who does not cause an accident, cannot possibly be considered to have committed a crime. No victim, no crime.
This is useless tilting at windmills at best.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Once you start trying to have a specific law for each dumb thing a driver can do, it'll never stop. Looks to me like some lawmakers are just trying to look busy. Wake me up when they get to the law that prohibits people from shoeing horses while driving.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Why don't we simply ban running into things while driving. Hmm...we should probably also ban reckless driving while we're at it.
The thing is, we've already done both. Laws like this and others meant to keep drivers distraction free are simply redundant and punish drivers by bringing everyone down to the standards of the least common denominator. What I find more appalling than this law, however, are the responses in support of it. I'm certain two threads from now, some of the same people will be bitching about some law or another that's turning the U.S. into a nanny state (w/rt technology, I'm sure) - all without any sense of irony.
By the by (since I'm sure someone will bring this up) is that driving while drunk means you are mentally impaired and cannot change that fact while you are on the road. It's the same reason you can't drive if you're mentally retarded. Trying to ban texting means you're simply trying to ban distraction. That's moronic since drivers will always seek out distraction on the roads. In that case, poor driving is already covered under anti-collision laws, dwai laws, and reckless driving statutes. There's no need to keep banning crap like texting while driving, listening to the radio, or (gasp!) talking to your buddy in the passenger seat.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Really, why do politicians have a tendancy to play whack-a-mole with technology?
If someone is doing something that is causing them to drive unsafely that should be published, regardless of whether that something is chatting on a cellphone, texting, or talking with a friend, if they are doing those actions unsafely.
If you make whack-a-mole laws then not only do you ignore certain activities until the law catches up, but the activities that are penalized you may punish unjustly. Take talking on a cellphone, it can be dangerous, yet I've done it occationally since it is possible to do it safe.
When I talk on a cellphone while driving I follow several guidelines, 1) there is very little traffic (usually about 20m to the next car), 2) conversations are short and to the point (ie I'm comming to pick you up), 3) I make a conscious decision that the road gets my primary attension, if there's not enough surplus attention left over then I'll simply ignore the phone conversation until I have the spare cycles, if this makes the conversation ackward then I'll mention I'm driving and they'll get the idea.
This isn't to say that these are the only circumstances that one can drive safely with a cellphone, nor that these guidelines always mean you'll be safe, it means that what matters is regardless of whatever activity you're doing you have to make sure you're paying enough attention to the road.
I stole this Sig
It's a nice try to ban texting while driving and we can see what happens when you do it (look at NJ Gov. Corzine) but it's not going to work. Using your cell phone at all is illegal here in NY and I lost count long ago on the number of people who use their phones while driving. They dial, text, and talk.
Also, Josh Hancock of the St. Louis Cardinals ended up dead a few weeks ago because he was drunk and using his cell phone while driving. That should be enough to put people off using their phones while driving but we all know it won't.
What will happen is what happened in New York. The first couple of months, lots of people will get tickets. Then, it will die down. Then, you will spend all your time cursing at people in your car while they continue to break the law and text away.
Here's why it sucks. Washington also just passed a law banning talking on cell phones while driving. This law, you can get pulled over if an officer sees you talking with the phone up to your ear, in other words it's a primary offense. This means if you're looking ahead, and actually can drive while talking, you'll get a big fat ticket.
The texting while driving bill makes texting while driving a SECONDARY offense. This means if you are looking down at your phone, typing out a message, NOT LOOKING AHEAD, you CANNOT get pulled over! You can only get ticketed if you've been pulled over for another offense.
So what message is Washington state trying to send here? It's NOT okay to look ahead at the road while on the phone, but it IS okay to send a text message and look at the screen instead of the road, so long as you're not swirving. Never mind the HUGE increased risk of accident.
I expect texting while driving to increase here pretty soon.
Yeah, it's the law in Germany (which has a notoriously law-abiding populace), but everybody does it.
You can stand on the corner and at any moment, one out of every 5-10 drivers is on the cell phone. At any given moment.
This is a country where people will shout at you if you cross the street against the light, but everybody drives with a phone in their ear.
It's weird, people in Germany are normally law-abiding, but definitely not when it comes to driving and cell phones.
I guess it is partly because it isn't enforced. I mean, the police could just stand on a random corner and take pictures, it would be like shooting fish in a barrel. But I think there is more to it than just lack of enforcement...
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Speaking for myself, I am absolutely unable to safely use a cell phone and drive.
It does not matter if I am using a hands free device, or the speaker phone. I am unable to talk on th e phone and drive. I simply can't do it. I either focus 100% of my attention on my driving, or 70% on my driving while talking on the phone.
However, I have found the perfect way to deal with this problem. I don't talk on the phone and drive. I assign ring tones to numbers so I can tell if the phone call is important. If the call is important enough for me to take I pull off the road and take the call. If it is on a city street, or a freeway, I don't care.
The reason I started doing this is because I ran a red light while talking on the phone. No collision, no pedestrians killed, no dog ran over. But the simple fact that I could have done any of those things because I was talking to someone about where to go for dinner scared the crap out of me.
I really don't need to be that connected to the world when I am driving.
I wish other people could figure that out without the need for a new law.
Today's show is brought to you by the number 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0: 25
It's a shame they didn't have the guts to ban all mobile phone use here in the UK, though. Statistically, using a hands-free kit is pretty much as dangerous as using a handheld phone, because it's the distraction and consequent loss in concentration that does most of the damage. (That claim is based on the same research used by the government to justify the handheld ban.)
Unfortunately, the British government, having decided to introduce a crime specifically prohibiting the use of mobiles while driving to make the point (it already had generic dangerous driving legislation available that was not being used) also decided that a complete ban would be unenforceable and went for the easy option.
This, naturally, has led to everyone from mobile phone suppliers advertising on the radio to my local Tesco store (the biggest supermarket chain in the UK) marketing their hands-free kit with specific implications that using it will make you a safer driver, which simply isn't true.
As of today, less than 1% of drivers who use mobile phones on the road are actually being caught, but sales of hands-free kits have soared. What a wonderful piece of legislation that was!
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I once blogged while driving (70 mph). Though that was in the middle of nowhere, without any other traffic.
I did it to get the feel of "teh Future!".
1) I answer the phone when I'm driving sometimes, but I don't do it when I'm on a major arterial road, I slow down, and I make it VERY clear to the person that called me that I'm busy and to get to the point. If it seems like they're not going to do so, then I'll pull over. 2) I only txt at stoplights. I never look at my phone while the car is in motion. I also look occasionally to see when the light will be turning green. I hate it when people sit at the green light because they're talking on the phone or eating a cheeseburger or something and not paying attention to the progression of the signal.
--The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
It seems really presumptuous to me for some creationist to say "God didn't make humanity that way!"
Dude, why can't God choose to create man by evolution? After all, He's God. He can make man any, err, God damned way He wants to!
Someone seriously needs to pass legislation making it illegal to use a cellphone while talking.
Why not instead make legislation that says, in general, that you may not perform any activities while driving that make you a danger to others on the road. If someone can yack and drive with no trouble, let them. If someone else is all over the road, they should know better or get a ticket the next time a cop sees them driving like crazy while yacking.
Lawmakers should be required to revoke 2 laws for every 1 they create. Driving while distracted should already be against the law, no? Driving while receiving oral sex must still be legal, since there's no specific law against that...
That's a pretty silly argument. Wanna know why? Because no one's shoeing horses while driving. If they were, such a law might be justified.
Property is theft.
In Soviet Russia, ees illegal to drive while you text!
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
I've tried to look up other laws in the past, and it's nearly impossible. None of the articles that I read linked to the law in question. I want to see whether the law references text messaging specifically, or just using the cell phone. If I've got directions cued up on my phone, and am checking my phone for the next direction, is that going to fall under this law?
Another law I've tried to look up in the past was the law referencing handicapped parking spaces. It took somewhere between 30min to an hour to find Seattle Municipal Code - Disabled parking. If anyone has a link to the full text of the law, please respond.
Wait, this is a law being enforced by police who are driving around using a radio and watching an onboard computer display right?
(It should be noted that I'm biased, but in my defense, with a sneak-a-toke between the index and middle finger and a beer in hand, you've still got a hand to text with, a knee to steer with, a leg to work the pedals, and fith unspeakable appendage to tap out a beat.)
You need more psychedelic art in your life. rhesusmonkey.deviantart.com
I find it disturbing how may overlapping and useless laws there are now days, and how we are increasingly subject to so many "preventive" and "safety" laws (seatbelt, helmet, mobile phone, ect). People should be responsible for their actions and government should have to prove that they were doing something dangerous/illegal to actually be punished. Instead we get increasing numbers of "fines" or as I like to call them "unofficial taxes". With next to no proof we have to pay the government an extra few hundred dollars a year in "fines". Some of these laws (this one included) are next to impossible to prove or disprove, and are, in my opinion are often used to "check on" us untrustworthy citizens, whether or not we are actually violating the law. I personally believe I have been on the receiving end of the seatbelt law in this respect, I was pulled over by an officer for its violation, while wearing my seatbelt and promptly questioned on a half dozen aspects of my days activities. And that is not my only such incident.
How do you know if someone is texting? It's not like a cop can pull you over and give you a textalizer. I don't know how they plan to enforce this unless the law also bans having a cell phone in the car with you while driving (similar to open container laws). Could this be *gasp* yet another law designed solely to make the legislators look like they are doing something?
It's not like talking on a cell phone where you have to put the phone up to your ear. It makes sense to text in front of your windshield so you can sort of see the road. However,there's a chance that anyone who really wants to text is just going to do it with the phone out of sight.
Texting while driving is stupid. There's no arguing that. What's wrong with this approach is that there are so many things that we (collectively) do every day that is stupid. Some would say that many of our laws are stupid.
Punishment should be delivered to those who commit an offense. To those who cause harm to others not those who do something that might, given the right circumstance cause you to do something else that is harmful. It's all about responsibility. Where does the blame fall? On the gun or the person who puled the trigger? (Californians please don't answer that).
I was raised to believe that our rights end where others begin. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (yes, I'm American and this is an American perspective) is my right only to be limited when that right negatively impacts another's pursuit. When I text message I am being stupid. THAT does not infringe on another's pursuit. When I text message and clobber a motorcyclist, THAT infringes on their rights and should be punished.
But what if I clobber a motorcyclist while drunk? Same thing if not worse. What if I clobber a motorcyclist because I was in a hurry to get to work and didn't see him? Not so bad? He's still injured or dead. Why is one worse than the other? Why is one an accident and the other a crime? Sure I'm at fault in all cases and I will be held accountable in all cases but the penalties are not equal. What is I am in a hurry to get to work and don't hit anyone? Being in a hurry increases the likelihood of an accident too. Yes, if I'm driving recklessly I can get a ticket but what if I am in a hurry but I'm still being careful? What if I text message but I'm still being careful?
I guess that's what bothers me the most. We assume guilt. We assume that by texting or drinking we are going to be guilty of a crime. We assume that we are going to do something bad. Driving isn't bad. Drinking isn't bad but if you put them both together then something bad will probably happen so we will always punish it. Sure, it's possible to drink and drive without killing someone but guilt is assumed even before the badness ever happens. Now driving and texting are moving into the same light.
Our Judicial system would see 10 guilty men go free before putting one innocent man in jail, except in the case of drinking and driving where it is assumed that you will be guilty eventually so some degree of punishment is delivered proactively. Now texting is to be treated the same way.
It's an easy law to support and it makes a lot of sense until I think about it a little more. I mean, what else will we deem to be a bad combination that merits automatic punishment before the real crime is committed? While I doubt these views will be terribly popular even here on slashdot, I can't help but think of all of the new laws I've read about here that the federal government has made to treat us as suspects or those bought by the media industry to treat us as criminals by default. In my mind, we are running dangerously close to doing the same thing here. It's insidious because it seems like common sense but it opens the doors to other laws that do not.
Using a mobile phone (text or voice) while driving is illegal in Australia (unless you install a hands-free kit).
Not even if you're stopped at the lights.
If you get a message, bad luck. If you get a call, pull over to answer or just let it go through to voicemail.
Much safer imo.
Homonyms are fun!
You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
In Belgium they can soon start confiscating your cellphone if you use it while driving. Very childish.. You can then start a report to get it back, but nothing's guaranteed.
In the words of Niven/Pournelle, "Think of it as evolution in action." Cause a wreck while not paying attention, lose all your assests. Cause a death in the same circumstances, lose your life. Break you up for spare parts (transplants, anyone?. Somehow, there has to be a way to retore personal responsibility to society.
And if you really want to see inattention in action, ride a motorcycle in traffic.
Only the prejudice of the individual.
Yours tells you its dangerous. Theirs tell them its not.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
This comes from the abundant need to assign blame. If you are driving and hit something, it is first and foremost considered to be an "accident". Until blame is assigned, that is. Once someone has been found to be at fault, because of action or inaction, it is no longer an accident. Then comes the insurance companies and someone getting a big payoff.
So if someone is driving and (stupidly) texting and the result is an "accident" the first thing that happens is everyone madly searches for some liability, some law, regulation or other violation. If there aren't any, it is an accident and there is no liability.
You can pretty much bet that this is what happened in the state of Washington. It wasn't illegal to be texting while driving so some accident wasn't anyone's fault. Clearly someone found this to be very unfair because they didn't get a big payoff from an insurance company. Now that has been fixed so if this were to happen again, the victim (person not texting) would get that nice payoff.
Lots of posts here are saying why isn't it just illegal to hit things while driving. Because the entire question of liability rests on finding someone at fault. We call traffic incidents "accidents" for some reason but most of the time someone is really at fault for causing it. Finding fault and assigning blame doesn't work unless there is some objective legal standard. There wasn't before in Washington but it would seem there is now.
Will the punishment for texting while driving be the catapult punishment? Like in the Simpsons when Homer becomes the Beer Baron? I really think that kind of punishment is fair for that kind of moronic behaviour.
printf($randomline(sigs.txt) \n "-- "$randomline(authors.txt));
-- myself